PDF Version

October 19, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 8

The House met at 10 a.m.

Speaker (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker

I move that in accordance with Standing Order 65, the Public Accounts Committee shall comprise of: the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Mount Pearl North and the Member for St. George's - Humber.

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

S. CROCKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Finance.

SPEAKER: Okay, thank you.

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.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. today, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, but shall continue to sit for to conduct government business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 16, second reading of Bill 15.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, that the Fair Registration Practices Act, Bill 15, be moved for second reading and debate.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, Fair Registration Practices Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulatory Bodies.” (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very timely and important bill, which I'm sure the House will be seized with, but will be very, very supportive of, especially as I outline the various components and the true intent of the bill.

There is nothing here that I think would result in negativity from any Member of the House, because we are in a particular situation, Mr. Speaker, where we recognize that we have a critical – we have a very important, very significant, shortfall in certain professions. In particular, health professions, but it is not exclusive to health professions, Mr. Speaker. We have a skills shortage in many, many areas.

We have an aging demographic in our province. I have spoken about this before, it needs to be spoken about again and it needs to be arrested and reversed. We need to arrest and reverse the reality that, according to the forecast, by the year 2028, 50 per cent of our population in Newfoundland and Labrador will be over the age of 55. In addition to having an older population, we have a skills shortage. Health professions being amongst them. Other technical professions, other high tech skills are also in relative short supply in certain fields.

So, Mr. Speaker, where do we get that talent? Where do we reverse that trend? We reverse it by training our own. That's one of the reasons we invest over $150 million a year in training Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the jobs and skills today, for the jobs and skills of tomorrow. We'll continue to do that. We have one of the most generous and proactive training programs in the country. But we also rely on a new source, and a very, very important source, which is immigration.

Mr. Speaker, it's been no secret that for many, many decades the population of Newfoundland and Labrador has been in relative decline. Ever since the 1970s, in fact, there's been a sweeping shift in the demographic, worsened with the moratorium in 1992, when many, many people left. But the core cause of our concern for a demographic right now is that we have more people passing away than we have babies being born. We have almost twice as many people passing away as we have babies being born. That's driving our population alone.

So we look to newcomers, Mr. Speaker. We look to newcomers to increase our population base, to increase our taxpayers, to increase the skills that are available to our economy and to our employers and within our workforce. So this bill supports that initiative.

There are many professions, Mr. Speaker, that rely on professional accreditations or licensure in order to be able to practice. Those professions where the scope of practice, the skills that are required to be able to be not only competent, but to be known to be competent, to be safe in practising those professions and to be highly professional. There are certain professions that require on a licensing process. Mr. Speaker, that's what this bill is all about, is recognizing foreign credentials, but recognizing fair practice in the recognition of foreign-trained newcomers and foreign credentials.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say what this bill is not, because I think that will provide some comfort to Members who may be still curious. What this bill is not is an attack on the independence of self-regulating bodies in our province, within the 33 professions that are self-regulating. It's not an attack on self-regulation, in fact, the opposite. It's not an attempt by government to try to determine licensing requirements.

What it is, is the creation of certainty around a transparent, timely and fair registration practice. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill itself speaks directly to what this is. In the bill, it explains that in clause 4: “A regulatory body has a duty to provide registration practices that are transparent, timely and fair.”

So I'll take a step back and say that the power to regulate certain professions rests exclusively with this House. Under the Constitution, under this Legislature, we hold the power, the authority to regulate a profession. What this House has done is recognize that there may be greater value to delegating that authority out, so this House has passed several statutes that grant regulation or regulatory powers, registration powers for a registration process to self-governing bodies.

The power rests with this House, but we delegate it out because the result is more effective. But we still hold the responsibility, and the responsibility we still hold is that if we're going to delegate this out, there needs to be some reasonable oversight that the process that is being delegated out, and that is the registration process, is fair, transparent and timely. That's all that this bill is. It's the core of this bill.

So what is a registration practice which I referred to? That's captured within clause 2(f): “'registration practices' means the administrative steps taken to by a regulatory body to process an application for registration but does not include the standards and objective requirements set by a regulatory body to assess the qualifications of individuals applying for registration.”

This is not the government's hand into the registration standards and objectives set by professionals. We recognize that those who are professionals that have an interest in maintaining high-quality professionalism and safety within their profession, they have a vested interest in making sure that the registration practices are robust and meet that objective.

So what this bill does, it does not change the standards or objective requirements set by a regulatory body, but what it does do is it says, if you're going to pronounce that you have a registration practice, that it must be done. If you're going to articulate a set of rules, apply your own rules that you articulate in a fair, transparent and a timely way. So it's not reaching into the standard; it's just simply saying do it in a way which is fair-minded.

Mr. Speaker, we have newcomers who have been somewhat frustrated with the timing of a process, with the transparency of a process. We have an incredible set of self-regulating professions and self-regulating bodies in our province, Mr. Speaker, but there has been noted that occasionally there are frustrations or anxieties that are created that change people's decisions as to whether or not they might come here or not.

This bill simply creates a method to make sure that the regulatory body performs in this way. That's captured in clause 6 where it says in the bill: “ A regulatory body shall ensure that (

a) the requirements for registration are necessary for, or relevant to, the practice of the regulated profession; and” –in other words they're not unnecessary barriers of entry – “(

b) the criteria used in an assessment of qualifications is necessary to assess the competence in the practice of the regulated profession.”

So those three clauses, Mr. Speaker, I really ask Members to pay close attention to and read them a couples of times even. The entire bill is necessary and important but those three clauses and subclauses within those clauses really capture the essence of what is being done here, what is being proposed here. Again, what this bill is not, it's not an attack on the independence of self-regulating bodies, it's not an attack on self-regulation itself and it's not an attempt for government to determine licensing requirements itself.

That stays within the regulatory bodies, but it just simply says if you're going to set a standard, if you're going to set a regulatory practice and you're going to stand to your regulatory practice and make sure that it's done in a fair-minded, timely and transparent and accountable way.

Mr. Speaker, there are authorities that are granted within, remember. The authority to do this is exclusively held by this House but we have chosen, through statute, to delegate that authority to professional bodies. So that's what we've done and I think it's the right thing to do.

This Member or that Member should not necessarily be deciding who should be a geoscientist in our province; a registered, licensed, practising geoscientist. Geoscientists should figure that out. They should come together as a body, as a professional organization, set their standards, apply their standards so that if somebody comes in with a foreign credential, a foreign education, foreign work experience, that they will assess that and then determine whether or not a licence for practising in Newfoundland and Labrador can be granted.

That's a smart thing to do, but we delegate that out. We could take that back if we wanted to, because constitutionally, it's our authority, it's our power of this House to do that. But we choose through statute to delegate that out. So this is what we make sure, if we're going to do that, it really is incumbent upon each and every one of us as Members of this House. If we're going to delegate this out, at least have the oversight of having a fair, transparent and timely process associated with those rules, those standards.

So, Mr. Speaker, the act will apply to select regulatory bodies. The regulated occupations covered under the act will include: licensed practical nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers, medical laboratory technologists, respiratory therapists, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, clinical psychologists, advanced care paramedics and primary care paramedics, K-12 teachers. Some professions are not just outside of government; some are held inside of government.

The Department of Education is the regulator, the licensure of K-12 teachers and early childhood educators. Engineers will be covered. My department – Immigration, Population Growth and Skills – is responsible for heavy-duty equipment technicians, which is covered under this under the apprenticeship program. As well, Digital Government and Service NL is responsible for transport truck drivers, which is covered under this.

Mr. Speaker, we do this knowing that we've got to do this. We've got to have all hands on deck to make sure that we get the skills in the province, that there are not arbitrary, unnecessary barriers to bringing in the important skills, welcoming those skills into our province. We do so reflecting on the fact that government delegated this authority out for good reason. It's because while this Member and that Member may feel that they got some competence and expertise in understanding what a particular profession is, we don't have the best competence or experience in understanding what a profession is, so we delegate that to the professions and the professionals within them themselves.

So that is maintained in this bill. There is a compliance, so it sets up and the bill sets out sort of a process whereby the professions themselves have a responsibility to ensuring that this all happens. So we don't go in and say government will be over your shoulder at all times. It's the responsibility of the professional body, of the regulated body. They, under this statute, have the responsibility to do this work. We will provide oversight to it; we'll make sure that the mechanisms are in place for that oversight.

Mr. Speaker, we consulted widely on this. I engaged in personal consultations with the registrars at colleges of the affected professions that went forward with further follow-up through written submissions by individual members. We met with the registrars and their executive directors. We met with a variety of different people. The consultations went on throughout the entire spring, summer and early fall, and we've now arrived at this legislation.

We think it meets a very specific need. It's not a solution in search of a problem. It's a solution to an identified problem that far too often the frustration that builds within newcomers about getting their credentials recognized is there. This makes sure that we have, all of us, all of us in our province, confidence in the process that safety must come first and foremost, always. That's why high standards are set, but through the registration practices themselves, that there are no unnecessary barriers that go beyond, that don't really provide additional value to the process itself.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's too, too, much more than I can say about this. I think I've answered most of the questions in an explanatory way. I know there will be further questions, but I would like to say that we have arrived at the point where the professions themselves are saying and saying loudly that we need more members of our profession; you, government, must act. You must act in collaboration with us, but you must act. This is government acting and I think it's the right thing to do.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand in this House this morning and represent the residents of the beautiful district and speak to Bill 15, Fair Registration Practices Act . I thank the minister for his opening words.

Speaker, the goal of this bill, Bill 15, is to speed up the registration process for 13 of the organizations that are outlined – many of them are self-governed currently – by holding them to time limits through compliance order with financial penalties for breaches. Many of these, but not all, are health care organizations.

Speaker, it is likely in response to news stories of late about registration delays impacting the availability of health care professions in certain disciplines. As the minister said this morning in his words, a significant shortfall in skilled professions. We are all seeing that, of course, in all our districts.

Seen in one way, this appears to be the hand of government ensuring the arm's-length professional organizations do their registrations with a certain specified time and to provide more transparency and additional registration options. The details are going to be forthcoming, I would hope, in the regulations.

Now, we have been in this House many times discussing many bills and, as one minister said, the meat is in the regulations. So we all know how important the regulations are and how important they are to each particular bill.

Speaker, every one of these organization, and there are 13 of them – we have 13 that are outlined in the bill – will have its own view on the implications for their organization. For the benefit of – as my colleague for Bonavista says – those watching from home, in

Schedule A in the bill, the 13 are outlined as: professional engineers and geoscientists; early childhood educators; Teachers' Certification Committee; Licensed Practical Nurses; College of Physicians and Surgeons; College of Registered Nurses; Council of Health Care Professionals; College of Social Workers; Pharmacy Board; Psychology Board; Paramedicine Regulation; Motor Registration Division; and the Provincial Apprenticeship and Certification Board. So, Speaker, we have 13 groups and under

Schedule B, four government departments that are going to be affected by this bill. That is important for us all to remember.

So one questions I do have, and the minister did speak to it briefly with respect to consultation, have each and every one of these groups been consulted? I know we've spoken to several bills this week. Yesterday, my colleague for Harbour Main asked many times about consultation and received very open-ended answers. That's one question that we do have and will come up later, of course, in Committee, with respect to consultation for the 13 groups under the four government departments.

If not, is it wise to send this legislation to a legislative review Committee for hearings with these groups and others? That's something that we have to ask ourselves with respect to those listed in

Schedule A and depending on the level of consultation, as the minister said earlier.

Speaker, in principle, it seems reasonable to streamline processes. We are not adverse to that. In practice, it might create challenges for some, though. For some groups it might mean a heavier workload. But it will be important to see the regulations as soon as possible. And I'll go back to what I said earlier, the meat is in the regulations. We are looking forward to that as soon as possible as they would come out to see those regulations and to determine the implications and such.

Some of the regulations may vary according to the group's circumstances. As I said, there are 13 there. They all will have variances, no doubt, and it will be important to make sure that each and every one of those 13 groups are dealt with specifically.

Speaker, we see both sides of this, we certainly do. We have to ask ourselves: Will speeding up the process compromise registration decisions or jeopardize one's health when it comes to those groups under the Department of Health and Community Services? On the other hand, will failing to speed up the process jeopardize people's health by denying people timely access to professional care they need? We see both sides of that circumstance. So that's something that again we will discuss later today and, of course, questions in Committee, and to weigh out both sides of that case.

Speaker, it is understandable that health care organizations will be concerned about the implications of this particular bill, Bill 15. Earlier this week we debated Bill 1, which was the bill for doctors and represents a major shift in self-governed professions. I come back to the consultation part of it. I'll go to the slide deck that was presented for the briefing. It says: following consultation review of emerging best practices across Canada. So we will certainly ask questions with respect to the consultation, with respect to those best practices, and to see what was brought forward to bring this legislation here to this hon. House.

Keeping it relevant to the bill with respect to consultation, I do know that when we dealt with Bill 1, since that has come before the House, the president of the NLMA has certainly said, “It is unfortunate that despite requests for consultation from the NLMA the government did not engage us on a discussion of the new regulatory approach.” It says, “Its contents … of the ministerial regulation was a complete surprise.”

So I do hope as we go forward today, as we discuss this bill and we go into Committee, that we don't see any further surprises. It's unsettling to hear that from the president of the NLMA with respect to Bill 1 and I do hope that we don't have a repeat of surprises with respect to those who are affected by this bill, the 13 groups with respect to the shift in self-governed professions.

Speaker, with respect to it being good or bad, that will depend on how it's handled going forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

I appreciate that, Speaker, very much.

Speaker, we're all in agreement that the public does want something done about this. We understand what the minister is talking about with respect to people coming here who have accreditations that could help Newfoundland and Labrador and the people that they were going to serve. We understand that. But we want to make sure that we don't lose any quality in the safeguards and the process. The minister did speak to that briefly this morning. We are hopeful that the safeguards will not be lost in this process going forward to protect all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Speaker, with things happening so quickly and so much left to the regulations – and we all know how important the regulations are. We can go back to several bills with regulations that we discussed here. We have many health care professional organizations right now who are scrambling and many questions left unanswered. So that's why I'm looking forward to getting into Committee to have some good questions put to the minister and his staff. We are looking for some quality answers when it comes to the questions that the organizations have.

It feels like this is something that could go either way with respect to in a better direction and I hope and please God not off the rails whatsoever. So it's something that we're looking forward to discussing.

Speaker, we do see a problem when it comes to the registration of health care professionals. With respect to medical errors or perhaps even allegations of medical errors, they're inevitable in any system. When these happen in the future will people be saying in retrospect, has government lowered the bar without proper consultation of all these groups? Again, consultation is the key and we are looking for answers for that.

Is government ensuring that the safeguards are not going to be compromised? This is something again the minister spoke briefly on this morning. The safeguards are paramount when it comes to the 13 groups that are represented in Bill 15 and how we're going to go forward with the regulations.

One thing that government, of course, has to be aware of at all times, and of course this hon. House, is about malpractice caused by the rushed registration process.

Speaker, we do have many questions when it comes to this in the Opposition and, of course, we realize it's, as the minister said this morning, not an attack on self-regulating bodies but we are not looking at the particular attack. We are looking at going forward in the proper manner with respect to proper regulation and having those 13 groups, first and foremost when it comes to the proper regulations and licensing requirements.

Speaker, I look forward to when we get into Committee for this. We'll have many questions to ask the minister and we look forward to the debate.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

One of the things, and I brought this up before, with regards to speaking to newcomers who have a skill set, whether some professional training and who are looking to practice their skills here, the comments that were made I thought were reasonable in terms of many understood that they would need to have some verification or certification of their skills in order to practice here. They weren't looking to circumvent the process. Their issue was just trying to get any communication from, whether it was the regulatory body or a government department on it.

So it came down to – for them the frustration was in the communication piece. I am assuming here that this will address this in some way, shape or form.

Certainly, the impetus of drafting the legislation arose as a result of consultations held with newcomers in July and August 2022 and it certainly involved the Association of New Canadians, which municipalities and a virtual element through engageNL and professional regulatory bodies. I am assuming, certainly, for new Canadians, the ANC were able to give a very thorough explanation of the people who they represent were facing. So the bill is a result of this consultation.

Its goal is to remove some of the barriers for registration for newcomers. I think for newcomers who want to make Newfoundland and Labrador their home, this is going to welcome. For those who are people here in this province where we might be crying out for certain professions and professional skills, this is going to be welcome as well. The key thing is that there's a balance in terms of ensuring that the skill sets are up to the level where we need them and also that it's respectful of those who have that professional training.

I think the key thing is to move it along. Less speed, more haste, and move ahead with this in terms of making sure that the people who come are able to have their qualifications certified and move on.

Certainly, the regulatory bodies identified in

Schedule A are for a profession of which is in huge shortage of skilled labour and have been identified. It would apply to refugees or immigrants from war zones or underdeveloped regions, where obtaining some of the pertinent records might create insurmountable barriers for registration especially if you've had to leave an area suddenly and without any planning.

It commits regulatory bodies to provide registration practices that are transparent, timely and fair. Key word here certainly for me is transparent and timeliness and fairness. However, other jurisdictions with the same legislation also had a commitment to objectivity and impartiality and we wonder, too, why these values were not included in our legislation. We understand certainly that there's no attempt to be subjective or partial, but nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to consider that.

Objectivity, of course, based on fact and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, or political feelings, impartiality to the fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument. So that's a question that we would have.

Schedule A lists all those organizations whose members' skills are in high demand in the labour market, and it's not an exhaustive list of all the regulatory bodies created by the statute in this province. In the interest of fairness and transparency, it would be good for the department to continue consultations with the remaining public bodies and secure their accession to this legislation.

Now in some other jurisdictions with similar legislation, including Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, all have provisions that recognize interprovincial trade commitments or the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. We're wondering why this bill also does not contain such wording.

On the whole though – and maybe those questions can certainly be addressed when we move into Committee – the bill does not seem problematic, despite the fact that we do have some questions, we will support this. The key thing here, too, for us comes back to the communication piece with newcomers who are seeking to have their skills or their professional skills recognized so that they can get on with practising in their scope of practice, to which they've been trained so that they're not relegated to doing duties that have nothing to do with their skillset.

Thank you, Speaker.

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd echo some of my colleague next to me issues in terms of what he's raised, but also I'm in agreement that this is timely bill, there's no doubt about it, but we will have questions.

It's addressing the shortfall in many areas. It's addressing our aging demographic. It's addressing our skill shortages and so on. So I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

The minister responsible, as he always does, gives such an eloquent presentation on this and covered a lot of great things. I've worked for the minister before and I've held him up many times with data that he should have and advised him appropriately.

G. BYRNE: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: That's exactly right.

So when I look at this, the improvements in foreign qualification recognition, of course, there was consultation done on this. It's pretty extensive from what I was told by his staff. I thank them for their briefing. It was very well done and informative. They spoke to summer consultations, which happened in June or July. There were written invites. Some of this was done in partnership with the Association for New Canadians. There were a number of virtual sessions and, as well, feedback through engageNL.

I'm looking at the list and I stand to be corrected, but I believe most of the groups on this list, the associations, the agencies, were listed as the result of being areas in which there was skills shortage shortfall, not due to anything they were doing right or wrong in this respect in terms of licensure and approval within their organizations. So, hopefully, that's the case. It was done simply on the basis that there was a skills shortage in these areas and need to be addressed.

I do agree that there are many people who come in from away, Ukrainians, as an example, but anyone with foreign credentials; there's always been an issue when it comes to foreign credential recognition or foreign qualification recognition. To the fact that of course there's a separate committee or area in terms under the Forum of Labour Market Ministers to deal with that, as there is one to deal with labour mobility.

So that has always been an issue and each of these organizations, I'm sure, follow a very, very good process to make sure that the standards of their occupations are upheld and that they go through a process that can be as quickly as possible. We all know there are always hurdles.

As this piece of legislation was designed to do, it says here that the consultation process is intended to (inaudible) barriers to foreign qualification recognition in Newfoundland and Labrador. It addresses that many professions, especially in regulated occupations, face the challenges of full licensure resulting in lengthy and costly processes.

As I noted earlier in the week on talking on another bill, some of these agencies, some of the delays in a process are not necessarily their doing. It's maybe to the fact that the documentation that's required to come in from an individual may be delayed or may not be obtainable, depending on if they fled a country that's at war.

So I do question how you would enforce a process of timeliness if there are those hurdles that do present themselves. I would hope that in administering this piece of legislation that that would be a main consideration as well. Because as we know some of these delays are not the fault of the organization and they need to be recognized as well.

Again, as the minister said, this is not in any way taking away the standard that is set by these agencies. It's trying to ensure that they're open, accountable and transparent in the process. I would hope that these that are loaded in appendix A, I would hope that they would already have an open, transparent and accountable process. I would hope that right now they're on this list because they're in areas that in are in very short supply in here and areas that we need to bring more in.

I go back to this is not just immigration, it's not the individuals who come from another country, we also see it within Canada. Within Canada it's not so easy to move from one province to another in some occupations. So we need to look at that. Of course, we have the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in that respect and that would have to be in concert with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and, in particular,

Chapter 7 on Labour Mobility. There are other pieces of legislation out there that enshrine into these organizations, these agencies their ability to set the standards.

I'll read for the record from the Labour Mobility Implementation Act , it's a piece of our provincial legislation just speaking to regulatory authorities and the definition of it under

section 2(l), and it says, “'regulatory authority', in relation to the province or another Canadian jurisdiction, means a person or other body, whether or not a governmental entity, that has, by

an Act or regulation, been granted authority to set or implement measures related to one or more of the following: (

i) the establishment of occupational standards or certification requirements; (ii) the assessment of the qualifications of workers against established occupational standards or certification requirements, and (iii) the official recognition that an individual meets established occupational standards or certification requirements.”

So what that tells me is exactly what the minister has said, that this is a process to increase transparency on a process so that individuals coming into this province meet the standard. There are many pieces of legislation that are there to ensure that the regulatory bodies are ensuring that the standards are there and this is a process.

There will be questions when we go to Committee, but right now I see this as a plus and moving forward hopefully we'll be able to generate some more individuals who can get through this process in a more efficient manner but also be meeting to the full standard that's required.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll be supporting Bill 15 as well. I'm sure everybody in the House of Assembly will.

Mr. Speaker, this is really about – while there are other professions listed here, social workers, teachers, engineers and so on that have regulatory bodies, I think the impetus for this, as we all would recognize, is the state of our health care system. So anything that we can do to try to address that, to try to bring in professionals to fill the many positions that exist within our province, to try to deal with the crisis that we currently have in our health care system, I think, the better.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that while I certainly support this and I support the idea of trying to recruit physicians and nurses and other health care professionals, whether it be from other parts of the country or whether it be from other countries and around the globe, I have to say that it's pretty sad. It is pretty sad – it's not just sad, it's outrageous, actually – when you see stories and you hear from people who have graduated at our medical school at Memorial University not even being offered a job, being recruited by other provinces.

There are many stories out there, but to have a constituent of mine from Southlands currently practising medicine in Halifax to call me up and say: Mr. Lane, I have to tell you this. I went through MUN medical school. I graduated this year, as you know, and not one person approached me or any of my colleagues from the Department of Health, from Eastern Health, from Western Health, from Labrador-Grenfell Health, not a soul, but we were all being lobbied very heavily by all of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec and offered jobs.

I made the effort, myself, on my own initiative to contact Eastern Health and say, I'm graduating. I'm a Newfoundlander. I just graduated from MUN. I'm looking for a job. And not even to get a return call and then to make a second attempt and not even get a return call. His colleague, another girl from St. John's did the same thing. Not even get a return call. It's absolutely atrocious.

And while I am glad that the Minister of Health –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member to stay relevant to this bill.

P. LANE: Yes, Speaker.

The point I'm making – I'm supporting this bill, I'm just saying that it's unfortunate that we have such a great need for this bill.

I was just reflecting on that point that we have our own students here, MUN medical students, not even being offered jobs and now we're trying to come up with ways and mechanisms and so on to try to make it easier to recruit physicians and nurses and so on from other provinces and other parts of the world, which I don't have a problem with, which I support.

It's not about not supporting that, it's about the fact that we've gotten to the point that we have this urgency to do so, when our own children have left and gone to other jurisdictions who were qualified, educated and wanted to work here. That was my point.

Whoever was responsible for recruitment – I know we have a new office now, which is great, but whoever was responsible for that, they should be fired, prior to this. Whoever was responsible in those health care authorities for recruitment and retention, they shouldn't be there anymore, we should be filling those positions.

Anyway, I digress.

E. JOYCE: It's true.

P. LANE: It is true.

As I said, this bill, to my mind, is creating – I think the only concern anyone would have with this is that in creating this urgency or more urgency to recruit and retain – or to recruit, I guess – primarily physicians and health care professionals, in particular, although it also applies to teachers and engineers as well, but primarily when we're talking health care, the only concern anyone would have, I think, is ensuring that while we're trying to eliminate hurdles and so on, at the same time, we're going to maintain standards for the safety of the people, of the patients. That would be the only concern.

Now, I have to believe, because I think my colleague from Topsail sort of brought up that point, but I really have to believe that these licensing agencies, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as an example, I really do not believe for the life of me that they're going to say because we have to get this done right away, we're going to skip steps and allow people to come in here to practice medicine who aren't qualified. I really don't think that's going to happen, I really don't.

I don't think any of those professional bodies would allow that to happen. But by the same token, we also don't want people dragging their feet, and that's really what this is about, I think. We don't want people dragging their feet.

We've seen it, we've seen it in any number of bureaucracies; I've seen it. We've seen here in provincial government. How many times have we had a constituent contact us over a particular issue where they were awaiting some sort of a benefit or a response or something and nobody got back to them, or they didn't receive what they were supposed to? After you make some calls and rattle some cages you find out it was on someone's desk who forgot to put it on someone else's desk, or it had to go to someone's desk to sign off on it before they could process it.

Such and such went on annual leave and after they went from annual leave, they took another position and a new person moved in and blah, blah, blah, and then things get lost and the urgency is not there. That stuff happens all the time. That's why our phones are ringing in our offices all the time – a lot of times because of things like that.

So I'm sure that those same types of things can happen in any body, not just government. But it can happen in these offices and regulating bodies as well, I'm sure, where things get set aside, things get forgotten about, things get misplaced, or maybe in some cases, the urgency is just not there. I'll get to it when I get to it, that type of thing. I'm sure that happens. It happens everywhere.

So having some oversight, because I'm sure that these professional bodies will continue to operate as they always have. Nothing's changed in that regard. They will continue to do the work that they do in a professional manner.

But in the circumstance, which we've heard stories about that can happen from time to time, not saying that this is an ongoing regular occurrence, but from time to time, if someone is sort of dragging their feet, or someone is being somewhat unreasonable or not providing information in a timely matter, or not making decisions in a timely matter, that ability is there for that bit of oversight to sort of intervene and say what's going on with this particular case, this is not reasonable.

At least that individual who is trying to get licensed has somewhere they can go, someone who can just sort of make that call to say what's going on with this person?

That's not going to be happening on a daily basis, because I'm sure in most cases things are working just fine. But at least it does provide that little bit of a push, that little bit of oversight, adds a little bit more urgency not to push people through who are not qualified, but to make sure things are done in an efficient way as possible. Not to be creating hurdles where they don't exist, not to be delaying things unnecessarily, not to be casting things aside and sort of, out of sight, out of mind, but just getting things done, basically. That's all this is doing, that little push.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm glad that apparently the minister said that he has consulted with everyone at this point. It's disappointing that the NLMA said that they knew nothing about it. But the minister can speak to that, I guess. But seemingly he's saying that for all the governing bodies, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Registered Nurses' Union, and all that stuff, he's talked to them all, they all know about this and seemingly they're okay with it. If that's the case, I'll support it and I'll support the bill.

I think it's another small step in trying to address, in particular, the shortage we have in health care professionals in this province.

Again, I know it also applies to engineers, teachers and other professions there as well, but let's face it, at the end of the day this is about the health care crisis. I would conclude by just saying, once again, for the record, while I do support this, it is very unfortunate and ridiculous, actually, that we're having to rely and push ourselves down this road while, at the same time, we're watching our own children leave the province who are quite qualified to take some of these jobs but nobody is bothering to do their job to recruit them.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise here today and I am very pleased to say that we will be supporting this bill, the Fair Registration Practices Act and there are a number of reasons for that, Speaker. First of all, I would like to maybe provide some background and context.

In terms of what the act really is getting to, I think we need to first of all understand, perhaps, some distinctions between what professional organizations are, what regulatory organizations are, professional associations and as well when we look at the specific act, it applies and obliges regulatory bodies to do certain things.

So first of all just looking at what professional associations are. Really what professional associations do is they represent the interests of their memberships. When we look at regulatory organizations or professional regularity organizations, they delegate authority to govern their profession by the provincial government and work within a certain regulatory framework which is established by government. So regulatory organizations have certain authorities and certain powers, like to set entry requirements and standards of practice. They assess applicant's qualifications and credentials. They can certify, register or license qualified applicants. They can even discipline members.

I think that's important to put that in context and as well when we look at this specific act and it applies to regulatory bodies, again, they set the standards of practice. They set qualifications. As well, qualifications and standards of practice for a profession, an occupation or a trade.

So I think that's important to look at and to understand because we need to see that these professional bodies and occupational bodies have certain powers. I think the first thing that I find interesting to note, and I was glad to hear that the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills pointed out this is not an attack on self-regulators.

The minister also said that he specifically looked at

section 6. He described

section 6 as really the essence of this act. He indicated that a regulatory body shall ensure that the requirements for registration are necessary. That's set out in the act. Also, and I think this

section in particular is important, 6(b), which says that a regulatory body shall ensure that the criteria used in the assessment of qualifications is necessary to assess the competence in the practice of the regulated profession.

So what does that mean, Speaker? It means that as I've stated, when we look at what the responsibilities and the powers and the obligations of regulatory bodies are, it's that they first set out the criteria which is used in assessing qualifications. Now, what I think is very important to make sure that doesn't happen here is that we know that the government is going to be overseeing this. It's very important that that responsibility and power is left and remains with the regulatory body.

So I just wonder, and perhaps this is something that the minister can address, perhaps in Committee, is there are assurances that government will not be deep diving or going into the powers of the regulatory body and it comes to the criteria that they've established because it does say that a regulatory body is being prescribed. They shall – it's mandatory that the criteria that they used is necessary.

So how is that going to be assessed by government? Are they going to go in to looking at the criteria? Are they going to say this criteria is not good enough? Are they going to start to dictate what credentials a body must have for someone to apply?

I just need to know that there are assurances that they government isn't going to be overreaching or stepping into what really is the authority of these regulatory bodies. So that is perhaps the only qualification that I have when I say that I support the legislation here and I would just like to see what the minister has to say about that, to provide assurances that the powers of these regulatory bodies will be protected.

I also find it very important that the minister has indicated that, really, what is of essence here is transparency, timeliness and fairness. So I think that is key. I think that is very relevant here. These principles are very important. When I hear the minister say that it goes to the application of the rules, so the rules that these regulatory bodies have, have to be applied transparently, in a timely manner and fairly, that is good. I think that is a very good thing. There is no one, I don't think, would disagree with the importance of those principles being paramount in any kinds of rules or registration practices that are in place.

Transparency, of course we're all for that; we need to see openness; we need to see visibility and that registration practices are easy to access by people who wish to access them, that they're timely. What does timeliness mean? It means that it is efficient. We have to support practices that are more efficient. I would say that I wish we could see that in our Crown lands application process, for example, but I digress.

Fairness – we need to see fairness. We need to see that the rules apply equally to all and that there is equal opportunity for everyone that wishes to apply and wishes to register in terms of these regulatory bodies.

Another point that I think is important to raise is the piece about how important this legislation is, just in terms of the fact that it will help, for example, internationally educated people practise their profession in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador sooner. I think that is something that has to be applauded. We know that there are skilled workers already here and others who are looking to come here.

This, hopefully, streamlining and this removing of the unnecessary red tape, the unnecessary red tape that bogs things down, that will encourage people to come. We know that there's difficulty getting foreign credentials recognized here. We acknowledge that that has been a problem, Speaker, and that leaves individuals with limited options. So again, we support anything that goes to enhancing and encouraging and making registration practices more efficient.

So the intent of the legislation, one cannot, I don't think, disagree with the importance of it. Again, the principles of transparency, the principles of timeliness, efficiency, the principles of fairness, streamlining practices, eliminating red tape, I think those are all good things.

This legislation, I might add as well, Speaker, mirrors similar legislation in other provinces. This legislation has been in place, it's been tested and tried and has been found to be effective in other provinces in our country. So I think that's also an important point to note.

Speaker, frankly, this legislation is very good. Also, as the minister has pointed out, it's important, it's key to meeting labour force demands that we have. The legislation will give people the opportunity to use their learned skills sooner. And it will, hopefully, the intent is, grow our population. We all know that that is important and necessary in today's society.

On that note, Speaker, I do say that I support the legislation. It's in principle very good legislation. The concern about the oversight and what level of oversight is going to take place, as long as there's no overreaching by government, of course, then this is something that we can support. The obligations of the regulatory bodies have been set out clearly and the powers and duties of the minister have also been set out.

The one point I do want to make, though, as far as the powers and duties of the minister, it does authorize, this act, this fair practices act authorizes the minister to review registration assessment practices of regulatory bodies who assess qualifications, and I mentioned that before. I just want to make sure that their power to review; I don't understand what the extent of that will be. So perhaps the minister can give some examples as to exactly how he will go about reviewing these assessment practices of regulatory bodies.

So that's about the only thing that I would like clarification on. Other than that, I think this is a good bill and, for the reasons that I've stated, we support it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Thank you.

If the hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the feedback that hon. Members have provided me. I take great comfort in the fact that all of the questions that have been posed have very specific and straightforward answers to be able to provide. I'll take some time in Committee to go into more detail, but please do, indeed, read all clauses of the bill.

I'll start with the hon. Member who just spoke last, and her eloquent interventions. In terms of communications it was said: What does communications mean? What exactly is the hand of government onto the regulatory practice, the regulatory authorities? Clause 5 speaks to this. In terms of communications, clause 5 is very specific. It says “A regulatory body shall provide information about the following matters, in a clear and understandable form” to the – I'm adding this – licensing applicant.

It says: “(

a) the regulatory body's registration practices and internal review processes; (

b) the amount of time that the registration process usually takes; (

c) the requirements for registration, any alternative means of meeting any of the requirements and the criteria used to assess whether the requirements have been met; (

d) any support the regulatory body provides to applicants or other available supports for applicants of which the regulatory body is aware, with respect to the registration process; (

e) any fees relating to registration; and (

f) other matters prescribed in the regulations.”

So, Mr. Speaker, it really does not put its hand on the operative standard. It puts its hand on how the operative standard is communicated and applied. Clause 2 tells us in subsection (f): “'registration practices' means the administrative steps taken by a regulatory body to process an application for registration but does not include the standards and objective requirements set by a regulatory body to assess the qualifications of individuals applying for registration.”

So the act is very prescriptive, very clear as to what exactly is the extent of the hand of government in all of this.

On a consultation point of view, yes, Mr. Speaker, we consulted extensively. I'll provide more details at Committee stage, but I indeed spoke myself with the registrars and heads of regulatory bodies, and that was followed up by other consultations with my staff and resulted in a series of both in-person sessions, direct invitations and bilateral meetings. In fact, we had direct invitations and bilateral meetings with 13 provincial regulatory bodies, all of whom are now subject to the act. We've had virtual sessions; we've had engageNL platform sessions and electronic submissions. So yes, the consultations were very, very extensive. I think that was properly covered.

I'll leave this before I take my place. Here are some barriers, some examples of barriers faced by internationally educated newcomers to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are some internationally educated nurses, Mr. Speaker, educated abroad, who've had to actually return to their country of origin to complete their employment hours in order to maintain currency for licensing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So these are the kinds of things that we really want to work with the colleges, the registrars, the regulating associations and bodies, to work with them for them to recognize.

Because that's what the act does. It's not for government to assess the process; it's for the regulatory agencies and bodies themselves to assess this and we'll monitor that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think I feel very confident and comfortable. I'm very appreciative that the words spoken on the floor of the House this morning suggest that there will be potentially unanimous consent to this particular bill. I'm sure that will be decided once we go through Committee stage. But I think there's a strong appreciation for the merits of this particular bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 15 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 (Barnes): A bill,

An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulating Bodies. (Bill 15)

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

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

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulating Bodies,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 15.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

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 (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 15,

An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulating Bodies.

A bill, “An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulating Bodies.” (Bill 15)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

We do have some questions to ask. Chair, the lists of organizations in the Schedule, I do have a question: Are registrations bogged down currently with each organization?

CHAIR: Can you repeat the question, please?

J. WALL: Certainly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you.

Currently when we look at the list of organizations, are registrations currently bogged down with each organization?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it would be rude and unfair to suggest that with the 13 organizations that are impacted, that their entire process is bogged down. This is as much about supports for the individual as it is about the whole, so there may be individuals that have been bogged down. Generally speaking, I think I feel very confident in saying that our regulatory bodies are very, very effective, efficient and professional and produce good result.

There are always occasions where there may be individual certain circumstances or situations arise that the application of the process could be made better. So I would argue, I think the hon. Member would agree with me, is that our regulatory bodies are performing well. This enables them to be introspective and be even better.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the minister for that answer.

Chair, is there any red tape that is so onerous that they can't get things done in a reasonable time. It's something that we could work through with respect to cutting through that red tape.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: There's always a certain level of red tape, and that's one of the challenges, is the balance between the effectiveness of red tape to be able to assure a particular result. A sober thought and analysis and process is what achieves good result, but sometimes there are unintended barriers to access or barriers to entry that were unintended and were consequences of distant and past processes that could always be made better by examination.

For example, there are some instances where monetary fees are imposed on various levels of the registration process. We would simply, in some occasions, we'd ask as to whether or not those monetary fees are an unnecessary barrier to entry or are they prescriptive and valuable. That's the kind of dialogue that we would engage with registrars and associations registering bodies.

So I think that the short answer is, the purpose of this, this allows an organization or a regulatory body to be self-examining, because that's what the act prescribes. Examine oneself, report about what you find and we will work with you to produce a better result.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister.

Have government regulations, as the minister just alluded to with respect to several instances of red tape, have there been impediments to these organizations streamlining things for themselves in their own individual group?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Always remember that the red tape that's referred to is from within the organization. It's the professional and objective standards created by the registrar. We delegate this authority out. The authority constitutionally sits with this Legislature. We could, if we so desired, set the standards and objectives. We could, but we create statutes and we delegate the authority out to self-governing, what I would argue would be almost the effect of quasi-judicial bodies, because it does create a final codified-driven process for obtaining a licence.

So I would argue that it would be in the realm of the quasi-judicial, in that point of view. So these are the processes of the regulatory bodies themselves. I think what we'll have discovered is that even the regulatory bodies themselves have found that constant improvement within their own processes, the elimination of red tape produces a better result.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

As was noted earlier in discussion today, other governments have similar bills. Did this government consult with them to see what is working and learn what not to do going forward?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Short answer is we consulted – we did a jurisdictional scan; we examined exactly what other jurisdictions have had. When you put forward things in law, that are passed by legislature, it is easy to access. The regulations are all available as well, but one of the things that I noted is that the professional bodies themselves, the registrars, the registering authorities, they are very aware of other jurisdictions in their particular professions and how it impacts those professions in those other jurisdictions.

So during the course of the consultation process that we engaged in, we heard from Newfoundland and Labrador recognition bodies and they told us in other jurisdictions this is what has worked and what has not and so on. This was part of the dialogue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

During the jurisdictional scan, as the minister just alluded to, how is this process going to be comparable to theirs and what major differences are we going to look at between this province and others?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: I think the main difference, Mr. Chair, is that other jurisdictions, I would argue, that within the jurisdictions that have done this were kind of centrist in this process. Some jurisdictions have included far more professions than what we have. Some jurisdictions have been a little more, dare I say, intrusive but engaged in the actual setting of standards than we are.

We are not doing that. Our act is very prescriptive in that regard; we are not moving in and dictating standards. But one of the things that we have done is we've recognized that through regulation, which I know has been brought up earlier, as has been said sometimes the teeth of the devil is in regulation.

That consultation process will still occur in the crafting of regulations specific to professional entities. For example, one type of professional entity, in terms of recognition of foreign credentials, foreign education, foreign licensing, it may not be as time onerous as another. One profession may require an extensive amount of time to be able to do due diligence and have an informed decision on whether or not it can apply to our circumstance.

So within regulations, the setting of a time frame, for example, for an answer could very easily and will likely be different between professions, reflecting on the fact that no two professions are identical and that one profession may have a different burden and a different amount of labour associated with assessing an application than another profession would.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

In

Schedule A, all the regulated bodies outlined in the Schedule, are they in full agreement with this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: The intent of the legislation was presented to them, and while I will not speak for them, they will obviously have an opportunity to speak for themselves. What was found during the course of the consultations is that they were made aware of the intent of the specific languages that would be used.

I can just use an example because I'm quite confident those bodies will come forward, very shortly, to pronounce on this, but when it was made clear to – there were some organizations, some regulatory bodies that still needed to be assured.

When it was read to them, when it was stated to them, that the bills language will mirror language such as registration practices means the administrative steps taken by a regulatory body to process an application for registration, but does not include the standards and objective requirements set by a regulatory body to assess the qualifications of individuals applying for registration, when that very, very clear language was mirrored during the course of the consultation, then much concern was alleviated.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair and thank you, Minister, for that clarification.

Minister, have the regulations been drafted and, if so, can you please provide a copy to this House?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

No, the regulations have not been drafted, and as I just pointed out earlier, they will be subject to further consultation. As I just indicated a few minutes ago, there are some organizations, some regulatory bodies that within the context of their standards and objective criteria to be able to accomplish that, it may be more onerous than others. So within the context of the regulations we may afford a much longer period of time for communications and for answers.

Always remember that within the context of this regulatory practice, if information is not available because documents are missing that are essential to assure patient safety or infrastructure safety or public safety, then the onus then becomes just simply to communicate that this is why an answer cannot be afforded at this point in time because. That's an element that we'll refine within the regulations and that will be done through a consultative process as well.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

J. WALL: Thank you, Minister, and we do look forward to seeing those regulations when available.

Chair, my last question for clause 1. Alberta opened a fair registration practice office with a budget of $2.5 million to receive complaints and provide information to newcomers, as well as to work with professional and trade organizations.

How much will this program cost to implement here in our province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.

G. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, this legislation does afford an opportunity to open a fair registration practices office, if required. While there are 33 licensed professions in Newfoundland and Labrador, this bill takes in 13 of them. One of the reasons why is that these are the 13 professions of highest labour market demand, need and concern. We need these people; we need to move forward with this.

Only enlisting 13 on the Schedule, is that a sign of lack of ambition? No, that's a sign of practicality. We could've enlisted all organizations on the

Schedule and spread our resources very, very thing, and in areas where they may not necessarily be as effective and of the most significant public good. What we did is we channelled those resources into 13 clear needed professional bodies. Do we have an option to add more? Absolutely, we have an option to add more, but we're working with the 13.

So while we have the option, the legislation creates the option to be able to create an office, a stand-alone office, with these authorities invested within my powers as minister, or whatever minister. We envision this being done in-house within the department itself at this point in time. So the resources are very minimal.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further speakers to Bill 15?

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 23 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 23 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 23 carried.

CLERK:

Schedule A.

CHAIR:

Schedule A.

Shall the

Schedule carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,

Schedule A carried.

CLERK:

Schedule B.

CHAIR: Shall

Schedule B carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion,

Schedule B carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause of the bill carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

It's carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Ensure Fair Registration Practices by Regulating Bodies. (Bill 15)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The title is carried

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

It's carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 15.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bill 15.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

It's carried.

Thank you.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 15 carried without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered matters to them referred and reports Bill 15 without amendment.

When shall the bill be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 12.

SPEAKER: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 12.

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 (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.” (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a couple of questions on this bill in the meantime.

The first one is where did the coverage cut-off dates come from, the dates in the original act in 2016 and the dates in the new bill? Why was 2019 chosen and not 2017 or 2015 like in the 2016 bill?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS: That's a very good question, Mr. Chair. I thank the hon. Member for the question.

The dates were chosen in 2016, I think, because there was a commitment made at the time. The dates were chosen in 2019 because that was the start of the statutory review that made the recommendation for the presumption of cardiac care for 24 hours, as well as the four presumptive cancer coverages that the stat review from 2019 recommended. We wanted to backdate it to where the review started.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: The newly added illnesses covered by WorkplaceNL, shouldn't the presumptive coverage for these new illnesses be retroactive to the same earlier dates?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The decision was made based on the best advice we had at the time that these recommendations would come forward based on the statutory review. Any time we deal with retroactivity there's always a point at which how far should you go back, should you go back 10, 12, 15 years. We decided that based upon the statutory review that was brought forward in 2019, December of 2019, that would be the date that we backdated the coverage for presumptive cancer coverage, as well as for the 24-hour cardiac care.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: If it was wrong to give different coverage to firefighters and volunteer firefighters in 2016, why not correct it now and move the retroactive to accommodate in 2015, if not earlier?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me be very clear, anyone that works in this province that's under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act had every ability to apply for the coverage with respect to these cancers. It just would've taken a little bit more – I think in your own words from yesterday – hoops to jump through. It takes a little bit more evaluation; a little bit more research; a little bit more history looked into.

What we're doing here today and yesterday, sorry, with this bill, is we're presuming that the list of 19 cancers that are now currently in the legislation are presumed to be caused by your work-related activities. That's what we're assuming in this. That makes it a little bit easier for them to – administratively easier for them to move forward. While they're going through a very difficult time with their families, it makes it a lot easier for them to move thorough that system.

That's what our whole goal is with this legislation is to make it easier for those that protect us, to protect them and their families when they need it the most. I think that we've struck the balance there of making sure that's what we're trying to do. That's why we went retroactive to when we established the stat review in 2019.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Why is there no retroactive coverage for heart injury, if it happens soon after the emergency response, even if it happened years ago? Should that coverage also be retroactive?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Member raises a great point there. There was no cardiac claims in WorkplaceNL from 2017 to now. There was none. So what we decided was, because it wasn't in the legislation now, we picked a date the ratification of this legislations as November 30, 2022.

So that is on a go-forward basis, but as I've said before just like the other cancer coverages, if they feel that it's because of their work relation, this is just a presumptive opportunity for it. So we want to make sure that people understand that there's still the ability to get coverage. It just made it a little bit easier by doing it this way.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Are there any illnesses or forms of cancer that are not being covered despite advice that they may be linked to firefighting work?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think you'll agree that the some 30 people that were here in the House of Assembly and the many calls and emails that we're probably all getting about the positive aspects of this. Obviously, there is going to be – as research determines and research is improved, just like we did from the previous legislation that was brought forward in this House that had the 11 cancers, we just added an additional eight to it based on the research that was brought forward.

If that research changes and there are more cancers that come forward that are required to be covered, we'll look at that just like we're doing today. We'll continue to move the legislation in a positive way forward for the people that we all represent.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: What about cancers that are not primary sites cancers?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Staff will come back with something on that right now, but I do want to reiterate that this is the list of cancers that are in the highest jurisdictions across the country. We become the leader in the country with respect to this with three other jurisdictions, which is great news and obviously as the information develops, more research is done. This is an ever-changing file, as we all know with health care.

Things change, the way houses are built, the way people are fighting fires, the PPE that is used, all changes that make improvements, but there are also things that would affect the health and wellness of the individuals that we all are trying to care for in this bill.

When they go into a fire to protect us and our property, we want to make sure that we protect them. This is a big step in the right direction for that, but that's not going to be the last step. I can guarantee you that if there are more things that come forward from our firefighters as well as first responders and others, we're going to be looking at those and look at the research that is around and try to help them as much as we possibly can.

What a very good question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Minister, NAPE has raised the issue for forest firefighters to be included in this legislation. Will the forest firefighters be included?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and that is a very valid question.

Yesterday was the first I actually heard from Mr. Earle about this for those employees, it has never been asked before for this. That does not mean that we're not going to do it; everyone has the ability to apply for coverage on this type now, it's just not presumptive.

What we will do is we'll take that away, obviously, as an opportunity for us to look at that, search the research out and see what we can do for those individuals. Obviously, there are differences between fighting a wildfire versus fighting a fire within a home with all the chemicals and all the different plastics and things like that. But that doesn't negate the fact of how dangerous the work is that they do, so we want to try to support them.

This was something that was recently raised to us, we're going to do the research on it and if changes have to be made or additions have to be made to either legislation or other we'll be back here to do that.

CHAIR: The Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Just in addition to that question – maybe not the inhalations are the same for forest fires, but especially the rigorous work that they're involved in, couldn't this increase heart attacks and heart issues in regards to the kind of work that they do?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Absolutely, I don't disagree with that. We're going to look at that. As I've said to you before just recently, this is the first time it's been raised to us for that group of employees. We're not going to leave them behind. We're going to work with them; we're going to look at the options that we can do. We're going to bring back information after we do the research and if it's required, we're going to make those changes that will support those employees as well.

Thank you for the question.

CHAIR: The Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Some industrial fire departments are associated with additional workplace hazards. Because of the nature of the industry, are these additional hazards taken into consideration?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said, I don't want to seem like a broken record, because I'm trying my best to answer. Anyone that works in this province that's under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act has the ability to apply for coverage that they deem necessary based on their effects that they would've had in pursuit of their employment, their job.

What we're doing here now is we're presumptively covering the carcinogens that have been known to cause cancer in an area of firefighting. That doesn't negate the fact of what you said. Obviously if there are industrial concerns, those are going to be looked at by WorkplaceNL.

We're going to continue to evaluate those things, and as I've said, we're willing to move on legislation. We've always done that on this side of the House. When we see opportunities to improve it, we will, and we're going to continue to use the best available science and research that we can and listening to the individuals like we had in the gallery here yesterday. Those individuals brought forward this; they've been fighting for it for decades. We brought it forward in 2016, 2017, and now we're doing it again here today based on their request and based on the research they have, and the research that we do.

That's what we're going to do and I thank the hon. Member for the question and raising some valid concerns for sure.

CHAIR: The Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Some of the injuries for compensation for firefighters are now at 75 per cent. Would the minister consider a top-up of 100 per cent?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Mr. Chair, I think I heard 75 per cent of coverage. I think it's 85 per cent of coverage, but I just wanted to clarify to make sure that was the right question I heard.

Obviously in one of the statutory reviews, there were a number of recommendations that came forward. We're dealing with one here yesterday. There will be others that will come forward. I think we put forward the first reading of a bill that's going to come forward as well, that will deal with some of the additional changes that are required based out of that statutory review. We're going to continue to look at those, evaluate those and obviously that's one that was recommended by the stat review for us to look at and see if we can make some amendments to those.

Thank you very much for the question.

CHAIR: Further questions?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

I only got a couple of questions. One, like I said, I made a point yesterday. I do want to ask the minister: With consideration to the EMTs and police officers who do attend fire scenes on a regular basis, would there be considerations for presumptive cancer coverage for them, as well as the cardiac arrest?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A valid question and I, first of all, want to say a big thank you, not just to our firefighters but our first responders. I know a couple of people on the other side of the House were in that role and I know miss it probably every day for the things they were doing. So I do want to say a big thank you to the first responders, police, EMTs, everyone that comes to the scene. When most of us are going in the opposite direction, they're running to make those changes.

What we're doing here today, that doesn't negate the fact that those individuals can apply through the current system that exists there. It just requires a little bit more of looking through the history I think the word; it's going to take a little bit more time. As the hon.

Member for, I think, Exploits said before, it takes a little bit more hoops to jump through just to make sure that they're trying to tie the action that's occurred to the individual to their workplace – which is what we're trying to limit in this case because we know the history and the research that's been done with these particular cancers that they are in direct correlation to the activities of firefighting with respect to fighting a fire and the carcinogens that would come from, you know, houses and things like that that are really, really dangerous to those individuals that go in and fight fires every day or multiple times thorough the year.

The equipment that they wear, the PPE, although it has made advancements and it's really good, it still does not stop all of those carcinogens from entering the body and we want to make sure we protect those individuals; not unlike we want to protect our first responders and things like that.

So it's a valid question. Obviously, they have an opportunity to apply through the regular means, through WorkplaceNL and it's always something that we always look at. If there are changes that research shows otherwise, we'll always look at those things as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: I thank the minister and thank you, Chair.

Another question I did have that was raised to me by some volunteer firefighters back home is about when they apply for this, they want to make sure, is it going to be connected to their primary income or is it a separate income being calculated for when they apply for these through the act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the word I was looking for was expedient adjudication, which is what we're trying to do here with this process. We want to expedite that adjudication process. I think the other aspect of what you're looking for, right now under the maximum compensable earnings it's $67,500.

So obviously it relates to the question that the Member for Exploits asked, if we're going to go up from 85 to 90, which is a statutory review, or if – I know firefighters have been asking and first responders have been asking for 100 per cent coverage when they're doing the actions of their job. That's something that obviously we're looking at as an evaluation tool. It's not there yet, but you make a valid point. It's maximum compensable earnings of $67,500, which moves with the inflation, is my understanding. So I hope that answers your question at least a little bit.

CHAIR: The Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

I ask the minister: Was there any consideration of changing this? For example, the average income in Labrador West – so the volunteer firefighters, their average income is a lot higher than $67,000. But at the same time, you have to look at the consideration of where they live and everything like that, and the cost of living in the North. So for firefighters and volunteer firefighters in the North, this is a very low-income thing that would probably put them in peril of default and stuff like that on their financial abilities, plus the cost of travel and everything for health care up there.

So I ask the minister: Would he take into consideration of changing that bar, in the consideration that there is a lot of different hurdles in different parts of this province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

It's based on a system of compensable earnings. As of now, as I mentioned earlier, it moves up with inflation. We're going to always be looking at that. That's what the statutory reviews take into account. They make recommendations, whether it be increasing the return from 85 to 90 per cent, or otherwise. We're going to look at those statutory reviews and organizations, such as the Fire Fighters Association, that come in and make presentations about why they need to do this, why we need to do that.

It's an important advocate role that they have, and I look forward to bringing forward those ideas and thoughts each and every time we come into contact with each other. I think that's how we make better legislation, that's how we better reflect the needs of what the population requires, but I do thank you for the question. It's a very good one.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Shall the motion carry?

The Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Chair.

I got a question for the minister. This statute and legislation is covering the physical ailments, but as we know, there are a lot of mental health issues that come out of arriving on the scene and what they face and what they leave with. I'm just wondering, does this statute or this legislation cover any compensation for mental health supports?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair, a very good question.

We have brought in pieces of legislation with WorkplaceNL that helps with PTSD and presumptive coverage for mental health issues that would come. But there's always the opportunity to apply through the program anyway to be adjudicated based on the merits of each individual application. Because it's not just a blanket coverage. This gives a blanket coverage to expedite those adjudications, but we want to make sure that it's done in the best way possible.

It's a very valid point. Obviously individuals in many different careers face many different aspects that would impact someone's mental wellness. I know WorkplaceNL has put a lot of measures in place to support those individuals and have many people that have already received benefit based on that.

The previous question that the hon. Member for Labrador West asked, the benefits are tax-free, which I wanted to highlight, as well as health costs are over and above that. So they cover some of the health costs as well, which is good. Those are just to alleviate some of that cost.

I do understand it's probably not an answer of the full amount, but it does give them more than just the 85 per cent.

Thank you, Members.

CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 12.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 12.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 12 without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report Bill 12 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

S. CROCKER: Now.

SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 19, and I further move the said bill be now read a first time.

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

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, 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 Minister of Environment and Climate Change to introduce a bill, “An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargain Act,” carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 19)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that this House do now recess until 2 p.m.

SPEAKER: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

This House do stand recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Harbour Main, Humber - Bay of Islands and Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize Jim Hamlyn and his contribution to soccer in Bay Bulls and the surrounding area. Jim started with the BBBAA/Southern Shore United as technical director in the summer of 2016. He dedicated his time to soccer year-round, running the summer program and then the fall and winter program.

Jim spends all spring prepping the fields in Bay Bulls, Witless Bay and Mobile and starts preparing youth for the metro program in May. In 2017, he took on the role as soccer coach for Mobile Central High.

When Jim first began as technical director, enrolment in the soccer program was very low with a registration totalling 80-90 participants. Since 2016, the program has seen a lot of growth in terms of additional equipment and involvement with the metro league in St. John's. In 2016, there were no dedicated girls' teams and now the girls' registration is higher than the boys.

This past summer there were 350 kids registered in the soccer program, and its success is a show of Jim's hard work and dedication, which has resulted in a 68.5 per cent growth in soccer registration since 2018.

I ask all Members in this House to join me in recognition of Jim's hard work and dedication.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.

The Exploits Search and Rescue volunteers are a highly trained and well-equipped emergency response unit serving communities throughout Central Newfoundland and Labrador. The team was originally established in 1982 as the result of an initiative by Emergency Measures and the RCMP, who saw a need for organized and trained groups to assist police in locating missing persons. It is one of 24 teams containing almost 900 members operating throughout the province today.

Today, the Exploits team provides search and rescue services to residents in communities from Harbour Breton to Bay d'Espoir, from Notre Dame Bay to Gander Bay and from Badger Lake to Glenwood.

Since its inception in 1982, the team has responded to over 250 lost or missing persons, acted as a support on numerous search and rescue operations. On average, the team responds to 15 to 20 calls annually. These searches include lost persons, evacuation of injured persons from isolated areas, water searches for drowning victims, body recoveries and traffic control. This past summer members assisted during the great forest fires in Central.

I ask all hon. Members to please join me as we say thank you to the Exploits Search and Rescue members for helping so many people in their greatest time of need.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today in this hon. House, it is my pleasure to recognize and congratulate Dr. Catherine Donovan of Holyrood, in the District of Harbour Main, on recently being invested into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Catherine is a graduate of Memorial University and the University of British Columbia. She spent over 30 dedicated years in Public Health in various roles throughout her career. Before her retirement in 2020, she was instrumental in the development of the Masters of Public Health and the Indigenous Health program at MUN's Faculty of Medicine where she acted as program chair, associate dean and associate professor.

Dr. Donovan has received many awards including the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal for the Contribution to the Promotion of Heart Health, the Jansen-Ortho Inc. Award for Advancing the State of the Art of Public Health in Canada, and the Nathan Gosse Award for Significant Contribution to Environmental Public Health in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Dr. Catherine Donovan is a true leader in her field of medicine and an inspirational role model for other women and young girls to follow.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Dr. Catherine Donovan and wish here well in her well-deserved retirement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE: On August 17, 1979, the Quigley family in Curling suffered a tragic loss as their 14-year-old son and brother, Dougie, was killed in a bus accident on his way to a soccer tournament in St. John's. Other team members were injured, but Dougie was the only member that passed away. I remember that day vividly.

Dougie was known for his passion for the game, was a great player and always focused more on his teammates that weren't getting as strong or getting enough time to play.

In 1989, Dougie's former coach, Eugene Cook, started the Doug Quigley Memorial Junior High Tournament and teams from Corner Brook, Deer Lake and Stephenville came together each summer to compete, until 2009.

This past summer, the Corner Brook United Soccer revived the tournament as a way to remember Dougie, his love of the game and also get more young people involved in soccer and it was a huge success. Junior high boys and girls teams from Corner Brook, Stephenville, Pasadena and Deer Lake came together in Dougie's memory.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Corner Brook United for bringing back the Douglas Quigley Memorial Soccer Tournament and honouring Dougie, a true team player, a great young man who left us too early, but left an impression on everybody he knew or met.

Rest in peace, Dougie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge Gateway Labrador, its committee members and volunteers for their contribution to Labrador West.

Gateway Labrador successfully hosted the annual Fall Heritage Fair week in Labrador West. I want to thank everyone involved for taking the time to make the event possible. It was a week filled with various events for all ages in Labrador West. Such as an Indigenous Celebration day that was hosted by the local Indigenous centre; the event included drumming performances, a fire with bannock and jam. The week also included bead workshops, pottery events, guided walks and tours, a family day and a few more.

Gateway Labrador also welcomed new improvements to their visitor centre. Over the last few months, construction has started to support the tourists visiting the Big Land. With five fully serviced RV sites, this will allow tourists much-needed RV services while travelling long distances through Labrador and a rest stop as they enjoy their visit to Labrador West.

I encourage all Members in this hon. House to join me in thanking Gateway Labrador, the committee members and volunteers who made the Labrador West Fall Heritage Fair week possible and a congratulations on the expansion to their centre.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker, the advancement of women and marginalized people is important to our government. To ensure our public service employees are fairly and equitably compensated, we implemented a Job Evaluation System in 2015.

This system covers 85 per cent of core public service employees who work on the front line delivering programs and services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The system addresses the four standard criteria recognized in all pay equity legislation for the purpose of job evaluation, which are skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

Our Job Evaluation System is just one example of how our government supports women, gender diverse and marginalized employees in the public service. Over 50 per cent of the core public service, including senior management, directors and executive are female. We strive to foster a workplace that is supportive of women, including such policies as flexible work arrangements, family responsibility leave and compassionate care leave.

Creating a truly equitable society takes action from everyone. I'm glad to share with you how we are working towards that goal.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. The Progressive Conservative caucus has great respect for all of our public service. The women, men and gender-diverse individuals in our public sector come to work each and every day to make our province a better place to live, work and raise a family.

I believe though that one of the objectives of the minister's statement today was to talk about advancing and supporting women. So I would like to take this opportunity to suggest to the minister the next time legislation targeted to help women and gender-diverse individuals is brought to this hon. House of Assembly that consultations with women, gender-diverse persons and the appropriate advocacy groups occurs first.

As we have seen with the recent pay equity legislation, consultation after the fact is not good enough.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement. We appreciate the minister admitting that their attempt at pay legislation was only going to address 15 per cent of the public service. We remind the minister, for the evaluation system to work it must be complemented with oversight, standards and enforcement mechanisms. This system will only be achieved through robust consultations with all partners and genuine collaboration with those who require it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.

I stand today to reaffirm our commitment to providing low-cost early childhood education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE: Affordable child care is crucial to helping people, particularly women, enter or re-enter the workforce.

I am pleased to say that Newfoundland and Labrador is a national leader in progressively lowering the costs of child care, and this coming January we will move to $10 a day.

In May, we announced more than 30 locations for a pilot pre-kindergarten early learning program that will open in 2022-23. The pilot will result in approximately 600 new regulated child care spaces. The first five locations are slated to open in November.

Overall, we have committed to nearly 6,000 new child care spaces.

We anticipate receiving the final report from the Early Childhood Educators Human Resource Council in the near future. This will recommend a comprehensive compensation model for early childhood educators. We have asked the council to recommend a wage grid that would reflect the education, training and years of experience of early childhood educators. Historically, these roles have been undervalued and traditionally held by women.

Early childhood educators are often the first point of contact for learning for our youngest population and, as such, their work is very important.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in celebrating the progress we're making in improving access to child care – actions that continue to advance the social and economic well-being of women and girls in our province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement. Speaker, my colleagues and I join the minister in celebrating the importance of early childhood education. It was the previous PC administration that implemented full-day kindergarten as the first significant step in improving outcomes at a critical age.

Speaker, while I appreciate the lofty goals the minister sets out, I note we continue to hear from operators who cannot find staff for the spaces they have now. Many early childhood educators have left the industry out of frustration with government regulations and poor pay. I do hope the minister has a detailed human resources plan to staff the 6,000 new spaces he's referencing.

In addition, parents have noted time and again that existing spaces for halftime are being converted to more lucrative full-time spaces – and I hear that in my own district. This has been a significant issue for working parents seeking afterschool care that I might add are not working very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and we appreciate the fact that government sees the merit of NDP policies and values like universally accessible publicly funded quality child care in this province.

But to avoid a repeat of their failed attempt at pay equity legislation, we remind them that strong, effective legislation starts with and continues with consultation and collaboration. We look forward to them catching up to their own approaches.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, according to media reports, the Premier flew to billionaire Liberal donor –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: – John Risley's luxury hunting cabin last summer. A trip that has been advertised as $75,000 for a group package.

I ask the Premier: Is this why Mr. Risley said: “I don't think there's any question that the project will get approval”?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

A. FUREY: I feel very fortunate that my dad and I share the same passion of salmon fishing, as many people do across the province, very fortunate to be able to fish with him on the river. I fished with him on the river before this job. I plan to fish on the river with him during this job and after this job, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite knows, there is an open and transparent process for all proponents and we are quite grateful that there are many, many proponents with respect to hydrogen and wind. Minister Parsons has put forward a stringent, strict, open and transparent process that every proponent can go through, as it should be, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

An access to information request shows that removing the wind moratorium for private companies was first mentioned by public servants in September of last year, just a few months after the Premier's private flight to this billionaire's hunting lodge.

I ask the Premier: Was this where the deal was struck or is this the biggest coincidence in Newfoundland and Labrador history?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, the reality is that wind and hydrogen is something that has been discussed in this province for some time. In fact, I believe Dame Greene mentioned it in her May 21 PERT report. In fact, I can first remember hearing about it when I was in Opposition back in 2011.

I can't explain why the previous administrations didn't move forward with the removal of a wind moratorium, but what I can tell you is that everything we have done, from the Renewable Energy Plan of last December, the removal of the moratorium in April, to the laying out of a plan in July, our submission deadline of October 1; everything has been done transparently and accountable. I can tell you, the 31 companies that have submitted land nominations think that our process is a very fair one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, let me get this straight, the Premier spends days with a billionaire donor who is leading a wind development project in a luxury cabin and he expects people of the province to believe that wind energy did not come up once? Three months later, public servants start talking about removing the wind moratorium in our province.

Speaker, does the Premier really believe there is not at least an appearance of conflict of interest in this situation?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the reality is that the Opposition can say what they want. They can try to turn this into something that it is not, but the reality is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality of it is there in black and white. We have been contacted by numerous companies, all of who expressed their views on where we want to go. In fact, the company in question has expressed their displeasure at the approach that our department and government have taken when it comes to wind development. That is there in black and white, and I would also point that information is out their publicly.

The reality is we have a very strong process; we're going to lead the country and we have 31 land submissions from companies all over this globe. I would suggest anybody go talk to them about whether we have a fair process.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Mr. Speaker, you can't get a piece of Crown land unless you wait for three years and we've got a billion-dollar project down in Stephenville that's going at lightning speed. Maybe someone should fill in the blanks there. That's what we're really asking. It's not about a private trip, it's about getting the details of conflict of interest and what possibly – it's all about optics and that's how we operate in this House.

Making personal slurs is not going to solve it, Mr. Speaker. He's the Premier and he should answer these questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Thank you.

While the Premier enjoys his luxury trips and the benefits of the oil and gas industry to his budget, 125,000 people remain without a family doctor in our province. One doctor said – quote – I'm trying to stay here until my kids finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can last.

Speaker, does today's surplus mean the people of Whitbourne can expect emergency rooms back?

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

A. PARSONS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to address the

preamble that the Member gave. He gave a

preamble that was as long as the actual question and he's questioning the integrity of the Premier.

Now, the reality is the Premier and anybody else is allowed to go fishing. It's something they have earned. There was certainly nothing done on anybody else's dime but their own.

But if there's someone in this province anywhere that can show me that we have done something wrong when it comes to our process, that we have given anyone an advantage. If anybody can show me any Crown land that's actually been given out at this time, show me.

No one's going to step up, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why? Because there's no Crown land given out, there are no approvals being given. Right now, we have 31 companies that are at the starting line, in the queue, all done fairly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That has no resolve to the people in Whitbourne. Like I said, I think government does a great job of covering their tracks and this one is no different, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

B. PETTEN: Here we go again.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Move on with your question, please.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I –

B. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)

B. PETTEN: Does the Minister of Environment want to get up and talk here today? You want to get up here today?

B. DAVIS: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Move on with your question, please.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, another doctor said – quote – sadly, I faced the recruitment process that was both disrespectful and devaluing.

I ask the Premier: Will doctors come to our province if they feel they are being disrespected and devalued by his Liberal government?

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

A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to let the Leader of the Opposition stand up – he, again, wants to get the little snide remarks in about covering tracks. Because the reality is, that is an allegation that our and my integrity has been compromised. Now, I'm not going to sit there and accept that because the reality is that is true; that is baseless. That is without fact. There is nobody that can say that because it is simply not the case that. In fact, if anybody tries to say that's the case, I'll say it here and I'll say it outside – that is a lie.

Now, what I'll tell you is that when this project is done or any project that's done with our wind development, there will be no inquiry after like the projects that we have had to inherit.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: The minister has got all of the hats. He is Minister of Health and now he is answering all of the health questions. He is answering the Premier's questions. He's lecturing me about my

preambles, though. Here we go.

But we've got a job to do and we're going to ask questions that mean something to the people in this province. I'm not stopping for the Minister of Industry or anyone else on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member to move to your question, please.

B. PETTEN: I'll take no lectures from this crowd, Speaker.

Speaker, a recent survey by the Registered Nurses' Union showed that 88 per cent of the members believe understaffing has resulted in unsafe conditions for patients. Doctors are contacting the Premier saying that working conditions are intolerable. Paramedics are working 1,000 hours overtime.

I ask the Premier: How is virtually everything getting worse under your leadership? Or is the minister going to answer that, too?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member knows, we introduced the Medical Act last week, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

T. OSBORNE: He's obviously more interested in the question than he is the answer.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced the Medical Act last week, which deals with many of the issues that were contained in the letters written by physicians to the Premier. We understand that there are workplace issues, Mr. Speaker. We had the Think Tank that dealt with many of the workplace issues that nurses are feeling. Those issues are being worked on currently. We are proceeding with the implementation of the items that are in the Think Tank. Mr. Speaker.

We are addressing the issues in the workplace, including the Medical Act that we introduced just last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It's disappointing that the Member from CBS asked three very good questions on the