PDF Version

May 6, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 25

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Apparently, no strangers. None up there anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: They’re all in here.

SPEAKER: They’re all in here, yes.

Government Business

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

Order 4, Bill 10.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Good morning, everyone.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West that Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.” (Bill 10)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to start by briefly explaining how the Newfoundland and Labrador workers’ compensation system works.

The system provides workplace injury coverage to employers and support workers who experience a workplace injury or illness. That support can include coverage for wage loss benefits or retirement benefits. A workplace injury or illness can have a lasting impact on a worker’s life, affecting not just their ability to work, but their income, health and long-term financial security.

For many workers, time away from work can make it difficult to plan for the future or save for retirement. That is why it is so important that the system reflects the real, long-term impacts workers experience when faced with injury or illness.

Serving approximately 230,000 workers and 17,000 employers, WorkplaceNL administers an employer-funded, no-fault workers’ compensation system that promotes safe and healthy workplaces.

WorkplaceNL provides return-to-work programs and offers compensation to workers and their dependants. The injury fund is a dedicated fund that pays for workers’ compensation benefits in Newfoundland and Labrador. As mentioned, it is funded solely by employers, plus returns on investments, and is managed by WorkplaceNL to ensure benefits are available when workers need them most.

WorkplaceNL is governed by a board of directors that reports to the provincial government. Through my role as the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL, their appointment is recommended through the merit-based process of the Independent Appointments Commission.

The board is established under

section 6 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022 . Members include the chair, three worker representatives, three employer representatives, three public interest representatives and two ex officio members. The board of directors provides strategic oversight and governance and WorkplaceNL’s chief executive officer is responsible for the day-to-day operations of WorkplaceNL.

The provincial government is committed to effective, accountable and transparent governance on all of its agencies, boards and commissions, including WorkplaceNL. We thank them for their service to the people of our province.

As I say that, I’d like to encourage the public to check out and consider the appointment opportunities available for government agencies, boards and commissions on the Independent Appointments Commission website. There are lots of opportunities to share experience and expertise, as well as diverse skill sets.

Under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022 , the provincial government is required to appoint an independent review committee every five years to assess the workers’ compensation system and make recommendations on how to improve the system.

One recommendation from the last review in 2019 is to include time spent receiving temporary earnings loss benefits beyond 24 months when calculating a worker’s retirement benefit. Temporary earnings loss benefits, as the name implies, are temporary benefits paid to a worker who has a loss of earnings due to an injury while they recover.

Right now, currently under the system introduced on January 1, 2019, only extended earnings loss benefits are counted when retirement benefits are calculated. Time spent on temporary earnings loss benefits does not currently count toward a worker’s retirement benefits.

I’m here today to propose a change to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022 , to implement this recommendation that changes how the retirement benefit is calculated that came from the legislative review. The retirement benefit is a one-time lump sum payment workers receive at 65 when their extended earnings loss benefits end. Currently the legislation does not include a definition of temporary earnings loss. The calculation of the retirement benefit at age 65 does not include temporary earnings loss benefits.

This change means that once Bill 10 receives Royal Assent, the legislation will include a formal definition of temporary earnings loss benefits, and these benefits paid to a worker beyond 24 months will be included in the calculation of a worker’s retirement benefit.

In addition, adding specific wording in respect of an injury to the legislation ensures that temporary earnings loss benefits are counted for the same injury that extended earnings loss benefits were paid to the worker when calculating their retirement benefit.

Both types of benefits – temporary earnings loss and extended earnings loss benefits – can be paid to a worker for many years. Both affect a worker’s ability to save for retirement. This proposed change recognizes that reality and makes the system fair for workers with an injury or illness.

If approved, the change would apply retroactively for January 1, 2019, which is when the current retirement benefit was introduced, so it makes sense to make this calculation change retroactive to that day.

That also means hundreds of older workers, those who have already reached age 65, are not left out. As a result and once the bill receives Royal Assent, 3,100 workers in our province would see a one-time increase to their retirement benefit now or when they turn 65. Over 700 of these workers will receive a retroactive lump-sum payment later this year. While the amount a worker receives depends on their temporary earnings loss benefits, on average, that increase would be near $5,800 per worker.

With this change, the cost to WorkplaceNL’s Injury Fund would be approximately $14.3 million. The Injury Fund is in a strong financial position and can absorb this cost. This change is strictly about how retirement benefits are calculated. It does not affect who is eligible for temporary earnings loss benefits, extended earnings loss benefits or the retirement benefit.

Retired workers have spent years, often decades, contributing their skills, experience and labour to our workplaces, communities and economy. Affordability was a pillar in our government’s platform and we’re taking action to ensure that all seniors in this province have the means to live a healthy and full life.

When a worker is injured or falls sick on the job, it’s important that the system continues to fairly recognize the value of that contribution, even after their working years have ended, ensuring workers can retire with dignity as a way of honouring the service and commitment and acknowledging the role they played in building our province.

Time away from work due to injury of illness can significantly limit a person’s ability to save for retirement, regardless of which benefit they receive. This change recognizes the reality by ensuring all long-term wage loss support is reflected when retirement benefits are calculated. It provides greater financial security in retirement for workers who were injured or became sick on the job and could not return to work as expected.

The retroactive application means older and long-serving workers are not left behind simply because of how benefits were categorized. For many, the one-time increase will provide a meaningful financial relief and greater stability at the time when income is often fixed.

Overall, this change strengthens the workers’ compensation system by making it more consistent, more equitable and more responsive to real-life impacts of workers experiencing a workplace injury or illness. For those reasons, I am recommending that we approve Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.

This legislation is to address how retirement benefits are calculated for injured workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a targeted amendment, but one that has a meaningful implication for fairness, clarity and the overall integrity of our workplace compensation system. This bill represents a fundamental commitment to fairness, ensuring that our provincial workplace compensation system truly reflects the lived realities of those who have suffered significant long-term injuries on the job.

This legislation is to address how retirement benefits are calculated for injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a targeted change, but one that has meaningful implications for fairness, clarity and the overall integrity of our workplace compensation system. This bill proposes three main changes: first, it introduces a formal definition of temporary earnings loss benefits into the act; second, it modifies how retirement benefits are calculated for injured workers when they reach the age of 65; and third, it makes these changes retroactive to January 1, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion and bill is really about supporting injured workers. When someone is injured on the job, they are often placed on temporary earnings loss benefits at the beginning of their recovery. These benefits are designed to support workers while they are off work, receiving treatment or participating in return to work or labour market re-entry programs. In some cases, those injuries persist and workers transition to extended earnings loss benefits.

One of the core issues we’re looking at here in Bill 10 is about addressing the systemic gap in how we calculate retirement benefits for injured workers. Under our current framework, when an injured worker reaches the age of 65, they’re entitled to a lump sum retirement benefit. This is a vital safety net intended to compensate for the retirement savings they would be unable to accrue due to their inability to work.

Previously, the calculation to this benefit is focused almost exclusively on extended earnings loss benefits. While that sounds logical on the surface, it did not fully consider the reality of the recovery process, or that so many workers who eventually moved to extended benefits began their journey on temporary earnings loss benefits.

Currently, the time a worker spends on these temporary benefits, even if it lasts for years, is effectively invisible when they reach the age of 65. A significant portion of their actual wage loss is simply ignored. Mr. Speaker, temporary should mean not forgotten.

Bill 10 fixes this by ensuring these years of recovery are finally recognized in the retirement formula. To achieve this fairness, the bill proposes structural changes, statutory clarity through definition, updating the calculation formula and retroactive payment.

In clause 1 of this bill, it amends the act to include a formal statutory definition of temporary earnings loss benefits. By tying this definition to the policies established by the WorkplaceNL Board of Directors, we provide much-needed clarity in legal recognition to these benefits, ensuring there is no ambiguity about what counts towards a worker’s future.

Clause 2 repeals and replaces

section 85(1). The new formula acknowledges that if a recovery is prolonged, the benefits received during this time are a reflection of a permanent impact on the worker’s life. Specifically, if an individual receives temporary benefits for more than 24 months, the portion beyond that two-year mark will now be factored in to the retirement payout.

Clause 3 makes these changes retroactive to January 1, 2019. We are not just fixing this for the future; we are reaching back to help those who have already retired.

Speaker, we have to consider who these changes actually help. These are workers who have faced long and difficult roads to recovery, individuals who were off work receiving medical treatment and heroically participating in the early return-to-work or labour market re-entry programs. For many of these 700 individuals, the temporary phase of their injury was anything but brief. It involved years of medical appointments and rehabilitation.

To tell a worker that those years of their life don’t count towards their retirement because of a technicality in benefit classification is an injustice we can no longer ignore. While we, in the Official Opposition, support the intent of this bill, we do have several questions we intend to raise during Committee stage to ensure the implementation is as effective as possible.

Speaker, Bill 10 is about alignment. It aligns our provincial legislation with the actual lived experience of injured workers. It ensures that those who have endured the most significant workplace injuries are not penalized for the nature of their recovery process. By broadening the benefit base and recognizing the reality of long-term temporary benefits, we are strengthening the integrity of our compensation system and providing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the retirement security they have earned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Always an honour to rise in this House and speak to any bill and get a chance to talk about your constituency and support the good work on this side of the House.

We’re here talking about Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. I think all of us in this House, we’ve had a constituent come in who has had some interaction with WorkplaceNL. They’ve had an injury; we’ve all seen that. We’ve seen the frustration. We’ve seen the pain. We’ve seen the suffering that the family endures. I’ll be quite blunt in saying it, Mr. Speaker, sometimes interactions with government, especially when somebody is injured, hospitals and all those things are not a very pleasant experience.

When we get a chance to make a change to a piece of legislation like we’re doing here today, in the words of the Member for St. John’s West, we’re talking about fairness. We’re talking about recognition. If you’ve met these people in our offices like we have on almost a daily basis sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they’re looking for just that; they’re looking to say that my time served was valued by this province and by whatever their contribution to our economy was.

They want to know that their lived experience, as the Member for St. John’s West said, counts for something. What it means is that, regardless of the nature of their injury, they’re respected. We’re saying that what they’ve contributed to society was valued and that we’re going to give you recognition for that retro back to a certain point in time, which I believe is January 1, 2019, according to the amendment here to this legislation.

Basically, I guess what we’re trying to say here is, we’re making some small amendments to the piece of legislation just to clear up some

definitions. We’re going to put in the actual amounts that are going to be affecting people, and we’re going to be talking about the average increases and how those payments are going to start to be issued this year.

So back to earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the assessment of these injuries and interacting with the department in government. They often take time. There are a lot of necessary steps. There’s validation from the medical side if an injury occurs. It’s a lot of paperwork, and they need support.

I’d like to think that, just like my office engages everybody in the constituencies, that our constituency assistants and whether or not you’ve got other staff there as well, we’re there to help assist them in this process as well, because it’s not the easiest thing to track all the emails, especially if you’re hurt, and all the paperwork, all the reports to help liaise with the doctors right through to the government department.

It takes a lot of effort, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to think that everybody is willing to help anybody that is in need; because, if you’ve ever been injured, if you’ve ever been secluded from the rest of your team, your workforce, what you’re going to see is that it’s a very lonely feeling. You don’t feel like there’s anybody there with you, and if your MHA can help bridge those gaps between the services you require, it’s time well spent. It’s a job well done, and I believe it makes us all more effective in terms of the service that we have for the people of the province and the people in our constituencies.

So with that I’d like to say, 3,100 people, that’s a sizeable number. Anybody who is 65 and older in this challenging economy, with the cost of goods so high, and these people on fixed incomes, like we said, there’s not much room for any extras. Perhaps this lessens the damage caused by the injury and the economic hurt, you could say, that might have been put on the household. That average of $5,800 per worker, that’s a nice shot in the arm. We’ll just put it that way.

Again, like the Member for St. John’s West said, and the minister said in his

preamble, it’s about recognition of what happened. It is about validation of the events that occurred which led to them being taken out of the workforce. It is, again, acknowledgement that time spent in the workforce, time served, if you will, there’s a value placed on that, and the government recognizes that. We’re making changes in our legislation to reflect that, Mr. Speaker.

It might be only a small amendment, but I think it’s a major change going forward. It might only be 3,100 people that we help now, but, as this goes on in the future, we’re going to see a lot more people, hopefully, be given the respect they’re due after they’ve successfully negotiated the back and forth of going through an injury and liaising with government and hopefully getting a positive income for their own individual situation and their family.

With that said, nothing too detailed and in-depth here today, but a good move. I commend the minister on that. Again, the validation, the recognition, the acknowledgement of people going through an injury. If this eases their interaction with government and it eases the burden on their family, this is good work by all. I’m pleased to be a part of it, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to thank all Members in the House so far for their commentary.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This is – yes, I would agree with the previous Member – a small but important piece of legislation.

I will speak from a teaching point of view. When so much of your identity was tied up in your classroom and who you are as a teacher – and I would say my colleagues who are in that profession probably still identify themselves as teachers even though we’ve been out of the classroom for quite a while.

I would argue that we’ve all had colleagues who probably had to leave the profession and probably retired in that way. It’s not the way we want to go. More or less, we want to be on our feet, we want to be part of that staff and the community and, in many ways, I would say there is a sense of loss when you lose that part of your identity, part of who you are, your profession and so on and so forth. It hurts even more, of course, if indeed your pension then is affected as a result of it.

Most pensions are not indexed, so any cut is going to have a long-term effect. Maybe not in the first few years, but over a period of time it will, especially if you’re still dealing with the effects of the reasons as to why you were off work, either temporarily or long-term.

So this bill then amends the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to add a definition and to modify the calculation of retirement benefits. In 2019, the government at the time amended the benefit calculation mechanism for those relying on workmen’s comp due to an injury. Under the old system, the wage loss benefits at age 65 were paid a pension benefit if they’re able to demonstrate that there was an actual loss from the Canada Pension Plan or their own employer-sponsored pension plan was affected. It was a monthly or annual benefit paid for life.

In 2019, that changed to, basically, when an injured worker turns 65, who receives or had extended earnings losses, a one-time benefit based on 5 per cent of their total EEL, or extended earnings losses, benefits plus interest, or 10 per cent if they were part of the employer-sponsored pension plan. Not a whole lot, especially if you plan to live any length of time.

Now, one common method, I guess, if you look at compensation – and maybe this is the thing here – compensating injured workers was through the payment of temporary earnings loss benefits, and you had to be receiving medical treatment, taking

part in early and safe return to work and participating in the early re-entry program for back to work.

I will say this, for a lot of people on workmen’s comp, there is a cap on it as well. I’ll speak to it again as teachers; we found that if you had your Level VII Certificate, then this will have a significant impact on the income that you’re bringing in, because it was capped at a maximum and many were earning over that maximum, and that would have an impact on their quality of life, especially if they still had to pay a mortgage, still have to pay the bills, still raising children and so on and so forth.

So the bill codifies the existing practice of extending pension benefits to those receiving the temporary earnings loss after 24 months and amends the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to add a definition of temporary earnings loss benefits to modify the calculation of retirement benefits to include temporary earnings loss and also to make it retroactive. We have had a couple of calls to the office when this was first indicated that government was going to bring this in. This is the very thing that they were speaking to, you know, to rectify that unfairness that they thought.

There will be, by amending the rules, approximately 700 workers who will be able to claim their TEL benefits when calculating a pension. We have pushed ourselves to increase the income replacement rate from 85 per cent to 90 per cent. We know, and we argue this because workplace health and safety is highly solvent, it’s well over-funded and it should be able to afford this.

We welcome the legislation. We know that it does nothing to address the numerous cases of injured workers who lost out on years of claiming pensionable income when the old system offering the retirement benefit payments was switched to the current one in 2019. This loophole opened because there was no requirement at the time under the pension benefits for employers to count a period of disability leave for the receipt of workmen’s compensation, so many were left out. This situation was unjust and unfair.

We know – and here’s the interesting part when we’re talking about the workmen’s compensation. As part of the 2019 Statutory Review, Morneau Shepell basically was engaged to calculate the total potential liability of grandfathering these workers into the new system and compensating them for pensionable years lost. At that time, they calculated the total liability to be between $47 million and $68 million. They argued that it would put the compensation system at risk and voted against any compensation for those affected by the change in the system.

At that time, Morneau Shepell also noted that the WorkplaceNL had a funded ratio of 123.4 per cent. At that time, I would argue that if we had pension plans throughout our careers, that funded ratio would be fantastic. If they grandfathered those workers into the new system, the ratio would decline between 117.2 per cent to 119.1 per cent. At the year end of 2024, the funded ratio had reached 131 per cent and, for years, it has remained well above 110 per cent.

Now, I think, if anything else, there’s room there to make sure increased benefits for workers, not only in the replacement rate but also in accounting these temporary earnings loss payments as part of a pension. Yet, WorkplaceNL continues to offer discounted rates to companies paying into the system as opposed to increasing benefits for workers.

Last week, we had the Day of Mourning for injured workers and workers who died as a result of their workplace injuries or workplace disease. We have these moments to reflect on the importance of workers. Well, I think, Speaker, there comes a time here in this that legislation like this is a small way of demonstrating a very practical term, the value of and importance of our workers, not only for what they do for the system, but also the fact that each worker represents a family. They have a spouse, a partner. They have children. They’re contributing to the community.

In many cases, these workplace injuries really takes a person out of their workplace, out of that community, out of the thing that brought meaning to their lives, and that’s difficult enough to deal with without a loss of income or reduction of income, especially if you’re forced to retire as a result of it.

So, for that reason, we will support this legislation. We still have work to do in this area, but it’s a start for sure.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. POWER: Thank you, Speaker.

Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act – as most of you know, I come from a very heavy industrial town and communities, and this bill is going to impact Labrador West significantly in the mining industry and every industry in Lab West. But the mining industry is probably the heaviest in Labrador West, so this will impact our community greatly.

It impacts me on a personal note, too. In 2019, I was diagnosed with cancer. My cancer come from a result of firefighting over the years. So I was lucky. I’m a very lucky man. Early detection and, after surgery, I went back to work in three months. Most people say your best five years is great for your pension. So if I had to stay off for five years, those last five years would have impacted my pension significantly.

Like my colleague from Lake Melville said, you struggle a lot. Workers’ compensation is nowhere near what your income is. I’ll just use for an example, again most of you know I came from firefighting. There are firefighters in Lab West, volunteer firefighters that are earning $150,000 to $250,000 a year. So if they were to be injured as a firefighter and go off on workers’ comp, their income is way, way down. Big impact on families. A lot of families are going to struggle, significantly. Again, personally, I would like to see compensation rates go up to compensate for loss of income when you do go off work.

I will say this, though, I don’t care what side of the House you’re on here today, but anybody who was here in 2015 that put the legislation through for presumptive cancer, I thank them. I really do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. POWER: I can tell you personally how much – again, I was only off for three months but I would not want to imagine being off for four or five years. You got a mortgage – and I’ll say this: People in Lab West live rich. They do. You got a mortgage, probably have two cars, two trucks. You got Ski-Doos, boats and you have everything that you want. To go off on workers’ comp and be off for a long period of time, you’re going to suffer and your family is going to suffer. It puts a lot of stress on your household.

Coming from Lab West too, again, I’ll go back to the heavy industrial town. I don’t know how many people in this House knows it but Lab West played a big impact on workers’ health and safety over the years. You can almost thank the unions in Lab West in the early ’70s for the right to refuse. They played a big, important role in that coming into effect, workers’ right to refuse. I will thank anybody that was involved in that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. POWER: When a worker experiences a workplace injury or illness, it’s important that the workers’ compensation system continues to recognize the value of their contribution to the workplace, community and economy, even after their working years have ended.

Introducing this change strengthens the retirement support for workers experiencing a workplace injury or illness by recognizing their time away to recover. The retirement benefit is a one-time, lump-sum payment workers receive at 65, when extended earnings loss benefits end. This change means temporary earnings loss benefits beyond 24 months will now be included in the calculation of a worker’s retirement benefit retroactive to January 1, 2019.

As my other colleagues pointed out, about 3,100 workers receiving a retirement benefit will see an increase to this benefit now and when they turn 65. On an average, the increase is estimated to be about $5,800 per worker. Payments will start to be issued this year. There is no change to employer assessment rates.

Again, I just want to point out that, personally, I know how people can struggle when they’re off on workers’ compensation and I just wanted to point that out to everybody here in this House today, it’s not easy when you’re off on workers’ compensation. It affects your whole family.

So I will just leave it at that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Members that got up and spoke, especially the MHA from Lab West. Thank you, it’s always great to hear stories from our colleagues, but real-life stories and the impacts that you faced personally, it’s heart wrenching to hear. I am thankful that some benefits that come from this House of Assembly in the past have helped you and others, many more besides, but I can’t stand in this House without saying a big thank you to someone who was recognized in a Member’s statement just recently in this House of Assembly by one of our colleagues, who worked very hard and diligently with us in 2015 and onward and ever since then, advocating for this, Lieutenant Jimmy O’Toole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I know full well the meetings that I had, and I was going to recognize the former minister and MHA for Placentia - St. Mary’s who worked very closely with Jimmy on this particular file and I happened to be her parliamentary secretary at the time and it was amazing to see how passionate he was and educated us on what we needed to do. To hear you stand in the House of Assembly, years later, about the decisions that were made here, it’s nice to hear. It’s heart warming, I have to say.

This piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. I thank the minister for bringing it forward. It’s one of a recommendation that follows on a stepping stone of what we’ve been working on since the 2019 statutory review. I will have some questions, of course, to the minister when we get there. I am sure the MHA for St. John’s West will as well. This is one of the 48 recommendations that came forward out of that statutory review.

One thing that I called the attention to – and I think the MHA for St. John’s Centre brought it up, a little bit, about the funding nature of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission fund. It wasn’t too long ago that we looked back and the fund was underfunded, quite significantly – somewhere around 72, 73, 74 per cent. There had to be some changes made, unfortunate changes. We’re slowly bringing back some of those things, as a government in the past and, hopefully, as we see here today, moving forward on some of those as recommendations as well.

The funding nature now being in the 131.5 or 0.8, I think, per cent funded gives you the opportunity, and it’s all about balance. As a former Labour minister, one of the things I’m sure the current Labour Minister hears from his staff all of the time is about balance. It’s about looking at the needs and wants of the employers versus the needs and wants of the employees. They’ve got to find some balance that works for all parties to ensure that there’s a balance in the system.

When the system is unbalanced, we get into a situation where it becomes underfunded but we’re in a situation now where we’re overfunded. That gives us an opportunity to do more for the people that are receiving those benefits, and we should and we are. Presumptive cancer being one of those that we’ve looked at.

Just a little over a year and a half ago, that same firefighter came in to see in our offices and asked for 16 cancers to be covered. We, as a government, decided, at the time, to not only cover those 16, but put 19 there to lead the country. I think everyone in this House of Assembly was proud of us that day. I think we can all get behind good things, which is why I’m excited that 3,100 people are going to get extra benefit out of this and more besides.

It’s going to be important for the people of this province and it’s also something that – and I’m sure the MHA for St. John’s Centre would agree with this statement – we want to be faster at doing these things. This was a statutory review in 2019. We want to be faster at getting these things to the table where we’re seeing them today. But sometimes when actuaries are involved and things like that, levels of bureaucracy gets involved and we’ve got to be a little bit more nimble, we’ll continue to try to push as fast as we possibly can to make those benefits get to the hands of the workers where they need to be.

So I’m just very supportive of this piece of legislation. I look forward to more pieces coming from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to come forward to this very House where we can debate and try to make this piece of legislation stronger and better for the people that we all represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George’s - Humber.

H. CORMIER: Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: I rise today to speak to an important amendment to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act , 2022 , Bill 10. At its core, this legislation is about people. It’s about the men and women who go to work every day, contribute to our economy and support their families and build our communities.

Mr. Speaker, when a worker is injured on the job, the impact doesn’t end when their shift ends. It doesn’t end when their working years are over. In many cases, it stays with them for life. I can speak personally about this. I spent 35 years at the mill in Corner Brook and the number of injuries I’ve seen there are way too many to count. Unfortunately, I was part of a couple, and the last one was probably the worst one.

I was a stevedore at the mill. I loaded up the trailers for MSC. When we first started loading these cans, I guess for one reason or another, we weren’t getting the top-end cans with the load and sometimes the floors were weak. I had a floor give out underneath me when I was loading – an abrupt stop. I can’t remember; apparently I struck my head, back.

We talked about cellphones here yesterday. Thankfully I had a cellphone on me. I sent my coworker to go over and put the kettle on because we were getting ready to go for break about 11 at night. I had to call him to come get me out of the truck. I physically couldn’t get myself out. It just hurt.

I made the mistake. I thought I was tough. I thought, oh, there’s nothing to this. I’ll get through this. The investigation came in. The mill done the procedures. They sent me to the hospital to get checked out, but I came back to work the next day. I had the papers for workers’ compensation to fill out. I said, oh, there’s nothing to that. I won’t bother with that. I’m going to go on back to work. This is not going to bother me. I’m Hal. I’m tough.

I’m feeling the effects today and every day, and I’m very thankful for my physiotherapist in Corner Brook, Tommy Farrell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: And even today, unfortunately, Tommy goes out to Codroy Valley, Port aux Basques on Fridays, and when I get home, he’s not around. I can’t wait when I get past this week coming up, I can get on his back rack and get stretched out again. I get relief from that, and that’s important.

It’s a lived experience. I understand it, but I’m one and if anybody is out there that gets injured, make sure you fill out your papers and put them in. Create that paper trail so you have it. You need it, and that’s so important.

This amendment strengthens our retirement support for workers who have experienced a workplace injury or illness. It acknowledges something that is often overlooked. The time a worker spends away from the job recovering is still part of his story. It still matters, and it should count.

Speaker, too often in the past, there were gaps. Gaps that didn’t fully reflect the reality of what injured workers go through. Time spent recovering, time that was necessary, time that was unavoidable, was not always fully considered in the calculation of retirement benefits. That is what we’re fixing here today.

These changes ensure the temporary earnings loss benefits beyond 24 months will now be included in the calculation of workers’ retirement benefit. Speaker, that might sound technical, but the impact is very real. It means that workers who have spent extended periods away from their jobs recovering from their injury or illness will not be penalized when they reach retirement age. It means we are recognizing their full contribution, the full journey, not just the parts that fit neatly into a formula; and importantly, Speaker, this change is retroactive to January 1, 2019. So this is not about future fairness; it’s about correcting past inequities as well.

Let’s talk about what that really means in practical terms. The retirement benefit in question is a one-time, lump-sum payment that workers receive at age 65 when their extended earnings loss benefits end. With this amendment, approximately 3,100 workers will see an increase in that benefit. On average, that increase is estimated to be about $5,800 per worker.

Now, Speaker, $5,800 might not change the world, but it could certainly make a difference. It could help cover the cost of living. It can ease financial pressures, and it could provide a bit of security in retirement. It says, we see you, we recognize what you’ve been through, and we are committed to treating you fairly. I think that’s important, because when we identify something that needs fixing, we should act and we should act in a timely way.

Speaker, another key point here is that there is no charge to employer assessment rates, and that matters. We can support workers, we can respect employers and we can build a system that is balanced, and that is exactly what this amendment achieves. I want to take a moment to step back to reflect on the broader principles at play here. Workplace health and safety is not just about preventing injuries, although, that is, of course, critical and important.

I want to talk about my time on an OHS committee. In my 35 years at the mill, I probably spent somewhere around 15 or 17 years on that committee, and some of the incidents that I had to come in and get called into the mill to investigate would frighten you. You would wonder how someone survived it. A fall – when you look at the ceiling in this Chamber and you add probably another 20 or 30 feet to it and you see someone came through a roof to a concrete floor. Amazingly, someone was taking care of that contractor that was working that day. He fractured his ankle; that was it.

He had a fractured ankle and fell well over 50 feet to a concrete floor, bounced off a few platforms and a couple of rolls.

I’m telling you, some of them had digits, fingers tore off, caught and pinched. So, I mean, when people can’t keep continuing to work and, at the age of 65, got no way about it, these amendments help those people, those very individuals who no longer can work. I’m very thankful for that.

It’s about how we respond and how we support and how we ensure that workers are not left behind, because the reality is no system is perfect. Accidents happen and illnesses happen. When they do, the measure of a system is how well it takes care of the people affected and, today, with this amendment, we are strengthening that care. We are closing the gap. We are improving fairness. We are reinforcing the principles that workers deserve to be supported, not just in the moment of injury, but throughout their lives.

Speaker, I always want to acknowledge the many workers who will benefit from this change. These individuals, who have already given so much – they have contributed to our workplaces, they have contributed to our communities and they have contributed to the economy of this province – many of them face challenges that most of us hope we never have to face, recovering from serious injury, adjusting to new realities and navigating complexities of the compensation system, as the Member for Lake Melville discussed earlier.

This amendment, in many ways, is about recognizing that journey. It is about ensuring that their time away from work, time spent healing and recovering, is not treated as a loss or irrelevant, but as a valid and important part of their working lives.

I think this is the right thing to do, and I’ll say this: Legislation like this doesn’t always grab headlines. It’s not flashy, it’s not dramatic, but it matters. It matters for the people who will see the extra support in their retirement. It matters to their families. It matters to the integrity of our system as a whole, because small changes, when they’re the right changes, can have a meaningful impact.

I’ve always believed that a fair system is one that evolves. It listens, it learns and it improves over time; no different than my OHS Committee. We met every month, the same day of the month at the same time, and we, as a committee, evolved. We brought forward changes to how we operate inside that mill, making that mill safer, because, at the end of the day, every worker that goes to work in this province deserves to come home to their families healthy and safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: I’ll add this: While the language of legislation can sometimes feel distant, the impact is very personal. Behind every number – 405632 – is a person. Behind every benefit is a story. In this case, behind those 3,100 workers are 3,100 stories of resilience, recovery and perseverance.

Speaker, if I could add just a light note, because sometimes we need some in this House, this might be one of those few times where doing more math actually makes people happier. Usually when government starts taking calculations, people get nervous but, in this case, a better calculation leads to better outcomes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: That’s something we can all support.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is about fairness. It’s about recognizing the full contributions of the men and women working in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s about strengthening retirement support. It’s about correcting past gaps. It’s about ensuring that our system reflects the values we hold as a province.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

This morning, as we’re here in second reading of Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I’m just going to take a tiny window as a former minister of Labour in the province like my colleague, the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, that spoke before.

I was there, I think it was July to last May, when I moved down to FFA, but it gave me a window over a few months to appreciate the work of the folks in workers’ comp, to appreciate the work of the folks in labour and to really see how challenging some of that work is.

This is a great move; this was well on the way when I left in May. This is, as my colleague mentioned, one of the recommendations that came out of the Statutory Review, but even then, there are endless, endless emails that come to the minister every day. There are many, many sad stories. You can’t fix them all but this, as was already said – I don’t want to be redundant and speak to things that have already been said in this House – is going to help about 700 workers right now, and I’m sure there will be more going forward.

I do want to acknowledge the staff and the drafters of this important bill and the amendments to Bill 10. Like I often do when I’m having conversations with people around the province, sometimes we use languages that they’re not quite sure what that means, I’m always trying to bring things down to a very plain language.

Somebody could be watching today and say: What are temporary earnings loss? It’s the short-term income replacement and, most often in our province, that comes through workers’ comp, depending on, I guess, what insurance you might have in your workplace. What we’re doing here today is discussing amendments to when someone can’t earn their regular wages.

A number of us in this House from all sides just attended the ceremony of the National Day of Mourning, and while some paid the ultimate price and we honour their memories every year when we come together, the families live with that every day. We heard from folks like Darren Ryan’s wife; how someone in your family can go to work and they don’t come home the end of that day the same. Not only is that injured worker’s life turned bottom up, but the entire family is thrown into upheaval and there are many, many, many challenges around that whole piece.

But, while a family is trying to navigate health and physio and rehab and daycare, children in school, a long list of things, the bills keep coming after the paycheque stops.

I heard so many sad stories, people that really, really, really struggle, so I’m very pleased that the minister is bringing in this amendment today. Many personal stories shared here, and I appreciate the personal stories because I believe, as Members that serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it shows that we’re relatable. I bet if everybody could have got up and spoke, probably everybody here has got a story.

My husband has been with Transportation since the 90s. He was a part of a small group that was putting the centre line through when we were marking where the Trans-Labrador Highway would run down the coast. So him and two or three, they would go in helicopter every day, summer after summer. He spent a lot of years in summer maintenance and summer engineering before he moved to winter maintenance up on what we call the barrens.

He had an incident on the job, put out his back and he spent months and months over years on the floor in the living room, you know, waiting for help, waiting for surgery, and it was very difficult. I was working. We had a little girl; Natalie was pretty young at the time.

It also impacts people’s mental well-being. When you’re used to getting up, running out the door and going to work, and then all of a sudden you’re stuck in a spot. You can't really get the help you need in the time that you need it.

It is super important that Workers’ Compensation, which is one of the things that I was often reminded of when groups reached out to me, it would be a little bit of a frustration on their part, is well-funded. Due to the potential volatility of the investment market returns, the board had established a funding target of total assets equal to a 110 per cent of total liabilities. Since 2015, WorkplaceNL has maintained a funding level well above the 110 per cent target and has implemented employer premium discounts to reduce that surplus. That’s another area that folks would often reach out to me on.

I think what’s really, really positive here is that this bill expands what can be calculated as part of the lump-sum calculation for the retirement benefits for injured workers. What’s new here, that’s going to be so well-received, in this amendment, is that it clarifies that the worker must be off work in respect to an injury. It adds a clause that if an individual received temporary earnings loss benefits for more than 24 months, the portion received beyond 24 months will now – it’s something that I heard a lot – be included in their lump-sum retirement benefit calculation, regardless of whether they received the 5 per cent or the 10 per cent.

Previously, Speaker, the legislation did not clearly include temporary earnings loss benefits in the retirement benefit calculation. The legislation only clearly defined retirement benefit of injured workers in receipt of their extended earnings loss.

So this is positive. I know that it will be well received. I’m just not going to belabour this other than to say I am happy today to see the change coming in and happy to support Bill 10.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

I’ll only speak for a moment, because I think everything that needed to be said certainly has been said here. This is an important amendment in, obviously, supporting workers.

I, too, as the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi, am very proud to be here to ensure that we are working together to support workers who obviously are supporting their families and their communities. I really do appreciate the personal and professional stories that have been shared in this House today.

I think it’s absolutely wonderful to continue on this route of cleaning up the amendments and information that is required, and to ensure that we are going to see these individuals enjoy the benefits that they should have access to. Certainly this is important.

I’ll just speak personally about Occupational Health and Safety. I’ve been a self-employed small business woman for most of my life prior to getting involved in municipal governance and, of course, that opened up a whole world of workforce and administration as well. I do have personal stories in my own world about workplace injuries, but I’m not going to share all of that here right now.

My point in actually standing at this venture is to talk about how this is something that we can certainly get behind, but I just want to also mention that we can continue to work on these issues for workers down the road. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour have made a statement, certainly in some of the budget consultations and otherwise, about the importance of covering chronic stress and mental health injuries when we talk about occupational health and safety.

I think I would be remiss if I did not mention it here at this point in time that, basically, there’s a fundamental obligation to injured workers when it comes to chronic stress, burnout, anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions. Certainly, as the critic for Mental Health and Addictions, it is within my purview to ensure that those issues are certainly brought into the House, and that they’re recognized. These are very real issues.

Oftentimes with workplace injuries, we see, you know, when you have an injury on your arm or your leg or something, that’s a physical injury. That is something that’s very tangible that we can get our head around and, of course, we need to support those individuals, individuals who have contracted cancer and who have had injuries to limbs or otherwise. These are crucial things. We need to support our workforce, because they are impacting our community. They’re impacting families.

But mental health issues are the unseen injuries. I think this is my opportunity, certainly, on behalf of the labour movement who obviously have advocated in this regard, it is something that we need to keep on our radar and we need to continue to advocate for, because mental health is one of those unseen issues. It truly is something that needs to be tasked in our workplace safety as well and, from my experience in municipal administration, I know and have come across that time and time again.

I won’t speak much longer on this issue. I’m happy to see that justice will be served in this amendment. It’s a long time coming. I’m happy to support the minister in this bid, but certainly with the caveat that we consider, in the future, our mental health component when we talk about occupational health and safety.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no further speakers, if the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will end the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I’d first like, in closing, to thank my staff. There has been a lot of work put into this. Obviously it has been since 2019, but there has been a lot of conversations.

I’ve learned a lot in the process. I’m not one to profess that I know every piece of legislation but, even as my time as the mayor, deputy mayor and councillor, back to a lot of comments, we all heard from constituents that have been impacted by workplace injury. Today is a proud day for this House, I’d feel to say (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: On that note, I would like to thank all the Members here for their input and the important work that’s happened here prior to my time and into the future.

Obviously, you’ll hear me say passion; I see a lot of, we’ll call it heckling or whatever, but it’s a true meaning that people are really here, that you care for your constituents, you care for the province, you care for the work. It doesn’t mean we’re all going to agree. We got better ideas this time we sit here and vice versa, I get it, but this here is extremely important and, once this bill receives Royal Assent, the numbers that we’re speaking about are going to be very impactful in our province.

I questioned, when I saw the bill in 2019, and now we’re into 2026, and you’ll note in the bill it says a review is done every five years. So I asked the equivalence of why all that happens, and it goes back to years of COVID, I guess, and other things but, most importantly, I’m happy to see that it’s going to be finalized and there will be another review this year so it won't be stagnant. As Members opposite said, they’d like to see more progression, I look forward to progressing to improve the lives of the people that we serve.

I’m extremely proud of this legislation. It’s my second bill. I’ve been reading it over and over and over. I do look forward to Committee and, as the Member opposite said, we can't solve it all. I agree, but every day we can improve the lives of others. That’s what this bill is going to do and I’m proud to be a part of this House to bring it forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are Members ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye?’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion has been carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022. (Bill 10)

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

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

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House. (Bill 10)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: I move, seconded by the Minister for Government Services, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10.

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.’

The motion is carried

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 10,

An Act to Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022.” (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

A few questions for the minister.

Minister, why is the retirement benefit set at 5 per cent for some workers and 10 per cent for workers with an employer-sponsored pension plan?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

Great question. That ultimately comes from the review held in 2019. That numbers stays as it was. This is all part of the Statutory Review from 2019 that it stays how it is.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you.

What is the policy rationale for including temporary earnings loss benefits only after 24 months?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Chair, could you repeat that question, please?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: I’m just wondering, what was the policy rationale for including temporary earnings loss benefits only after 24 months?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

Again, this all comes back to the 2019 Statutory Review. It’s captured within there.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Minister, can you tell us how many workers are expected to benefit from this amendment retroactive to January 1, 2019?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

A great question, once again, and I thank the Member opposite.

It’s 3,100 people approximately. With Royal Assent in this year with this bill, we’d be looking at over 700 people that would be affected.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you.

Can you tell us, Minister, what is the projected financial cost of the retroactive change?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

Just for clarification – I’m just going to say, no need to go back, you can nod – the question in hand is to the fund, the total cost?

K. WHITE: Yes. What is the projected amount?

M. GOOSNEY: The projected cost? Near $14.3 million from the fund.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you.

Can you advise if previously settled or calculated files will be reopened and reassessed?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

I’ll take that back and be glad to follow up with the Member opposite.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Will there be any additional resources assigned to this division to assist with reviewing closed case files?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: This bill, ultimately, today, here, is in retrospect of the 2019 Statutory Review. Again, we’re here to progress, to help injured workers, and that’s something they can take away from here.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Minister, can you tell us why the definition of temporary earnings loss benefits is left to board policy rather than it being set out directly in legislation?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Yes. Again, this would come back again – this is going to sound repetitive – from the review. The Statutory Review held prior was the same status, and that’s where they followed through in here.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Minister, can you advise how will workers be notified if they are eligible for an increased lump sum payment?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Anybody that would have been already registered within WorkplaceNL will be notified. We’re going to use multiple tools. We’ve spoke about that. Using the Internet, obviously, that’s a great place, a web that catches people, but you’ll see announcements come out about it.

We’ve also made sure to identify with our comms team that we get written letters sent out, if we feel that there will be anybody missed.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Thank you.

Does this bill create any inequities between workers with and without employer-sponsored pension plans?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: I’d like to give you a concrete answer but, to the best of my knowledge, no.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Workers who face an injury when they are close to retirement age could lose out on retirement benefits if they haven’t been transitioned from temporary to extended earnings loss benefits. Was there any consideration to include all individuals on temporary earnings loss benefits for more than 24 months?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

It was a stringent review of the act, obviously, that was held from 2019. At that time, everything was given oversight and overview.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Final question, Chair, are there any other categories of benefits that government considered, including the retirement benefit calculation?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: That would come from the 48 recommendations – obviously, this would be 46 putting through today. The other two still are active as we speak.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party and the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I might be asking some similar questions to that just to make sure I heard it correctly. I’ll start with the first one, overall. Is your government considering increasing the income replacement rate from 85 to 90 per cent, considering the funded ratio of WorkplaceNL, the compensation fund?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

The Member opposite is asking about the two other outstanding recommendations under review. That’s where they currently are right now and I’ll be glad to follow up once I have the answers for there.

Thank you, Chair.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Okay, I’m not sure if this one has been answered. I think the minister mentioned something about a strategic review of the act, so here it goes.

We’ve heard complaints from members of the public regarding the replacement of the old system at the end of 2018, the new legislation didn’t include TEL or temporary earnings loss in calculating pensionable earnings. Some of them have been on the TEL for several years. So the transition to the current system resulted in them losing out on claiming those TEL benefits as pensionable earnings.

So will this bill mean that they can receive back payment or some form of reassessment on what their pensionable earnings are, especially given the retroactive date of 2019?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

A great question. This change supports back payment, but it’s retroactive to 2019.

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

J. DINN: So those on those TEL benefits will be covered in this, correct? Thank you.

My next question is how many workers have fallen into the loophole that existed beforehand? I know we’ve talked about 3,100 and 700. I’m just trying to make sure of the exact number that were caught in that loophole that existed as a result of 2019.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

I can follow up with the Member. The exact number which, I guess, would be fluent, I would have to follow up. But 700 retro-plus is what the answer would be here today.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

The other

part is to have an estimate of the cost – I guess the cost, if I understood it, for grandfathering in would be about – did I hear it correctly – $50.3 million? Was that the number?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

Just for clarification, it was $14.3 million from the fund.

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

J. DINN: I think this one has been answered as well. How many workers will these amendments help? We’re looking at 700 retroactive and, basically, a total of 3,100, something along those lines. Would that be correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Yes, that’s correct, Chair.

Thank you.

J. DINN: (Inaudible.)

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

J. DINN: Sorry about that, Chair.

So we know it’s $14.3 million. That’s the cost of grandfathering in, if I understood it correctly. Right now, in total, going forward, how much will these amendments cost WorkplaceNL?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: If I got that correctly, the total here is $14.3 million going forward. The addition, total payout to each person affected with $5,800 plus the $24,000 would be close to $30,000, but it will still encompass and this will be added to costs forward annually in perpetuity.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Just to make sure then, $14 million, basically, that’s the total cost for the retroactive and going forward. Okay, and if I understood you correctly, this would not result in a change to the employer assessment rates, correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Chair.

Yes, that’s correct. The assessment rate would remain at $1.73 per $100 for assessable payroll.

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

On average, how long does a person receive temporary earnings loss benefits? Would your department have that data?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: I don’t have that in my – I’m trying to recall. We did speak about that, but I’d be glad to follow up with the Member opposite.

CHAIR: Seeing no more speakers, shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 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: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022. (Bill 10)

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 Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 10 without amendment.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report the bill without amendment.

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 (Lane): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

J. DWYER: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that the Committee recommends Bill 10,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and recommends Bill 10 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

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

L. PARROTT: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12 and that I do now leave the Chair.

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.’

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Children’s Law Act and the Family Law Act.” (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall cause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

It’s a very good bill, Minister, very in depth; very good bill. I do have a few questions.

Section 24 defines family violence and staff have advised that this definition was taken from the federal definition. I’m just wondering, given that we do have a provincial act which already defines family violence, the Family Violence Protection Act , why would we change the definition for the purpose of this particular act?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This particular definition,

section 24(1)(

i) outlines a very broad definition of family violence and, in it, it includes examples of coercive control.

It is very important to note here, when we look at this particular section, that the courts have to consider whether it’s in the best interest of the child to compel parties to co-operate and whether to put the child at risk.

Family violence is much broader here in line with the Divorce Act , especially when it comes to examples of coercive control. It includes things like isolation, financial control, threatening self-harm, threatening to have children taken away. For that reason, it is a more effective provision and that’s why it’s included.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you , Chair, and thank you, Minister.

Clause 31(4) requires that the courts consider family violence when considering the best interest of the child, will this require families that have already gone through the court process to confirm incidents of family violence to be considered in context? Do you have to have previous incidents documented, and how specific when proving family violence? Can you just elaborate on that clause?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: First of all, with respect to this particular clause and the best interest of the child, we know that it is a key change that was made to the Divorce Act . It’s an essential concept to incorporate this into our provincial legislation so as to align with it.

When we see a lot of these changes in our act, first of all, we have to keep in mind that is why it is to align with the federal legislation. This new

section requires courts to consider only the best interests. So that is really important when we’re looking at decisions about, for example, parenting and contact orders. Parenting arrangements for a child would have to be what is in the best interest for that child. Essentially, this is to align the legislation with the federal legislation, and I think that’s the most important thing that we have to look at here. That’s what the purpose of this legislation is.

When a judge considers all of these factors – and you see a lot of them outlined here, the many factors that a judge must consider as important considerations determining what is in the best interest of the child – you see that there are numerous considerations, whether it’s needs, relationships with each parent, plans for the care of the child. Other factors that the judge must consider are each parent’s ability and willingness to care for the child, to support the child’s relationship with the other parent and to co-operate and communicate about parenting issues. Those are many of the considerations when we look at this particular

section that the court has to consider.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Minister.

My biggest concern there was the parent having to prove previous incidents and how specific, but you have outlined a number of reasons and incidents that can occur, so thank you very much.

Clause 33(2) deals with parenting orders. Now, just go back to 31(4) first. So I’m just concerned. The risk is there and may be longer, but is this going to cause the potential of more complex hearings and more evidence to be required?

Is there anything in place here for low-income families? Is there a potential here to disadvantage a low-income parent if the parent of higher income has capacity to have their own legal counsel? The parent of lower income, do they have access to any legal counsel that would assist them here, if you were trying to prove or not prove, of course, that there is actual family violence there?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: The legislation is intended to provide equal opportunity for all children. The ultimate goal of the legislation is to divert people, essentially, from the courts whenever possible. There are a number of provisions built in with respect to alternative dispute resolutions. Whether that would be family justice services or other types of counselling or mediation.

The ultimate goal of this legislation is to actually reduce the reliance and the dependence on the courts and, essentially, to reserve the court time for more complicated and difficult cases.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Having said that, to reduce the reliance on the courts, does that mean that one of our primary intervenors in all of this would be our social workers or social worker assistants, or is there another intervenor that could be there?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: When we look at this legislation, I think it’s important to remember that the court, the judge, will ultimately be considering all of these factors when making these decisions. There are a number of factors that will be assessed by the court, by the judiciary, in making these decisions.

They will rely on the legal advisors of the individuals as well, but they will be looking at what is in the best interests of the child, and looking at the level of co-operation as well with the parents.

The legislation is meant to encourage co-operation with the parents, so that would be in the bests interest of the child. Again, the focus is completely upon that when assessing what’s in the best interests of the child here.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition and Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I just have some questions about some of the

definitions. I assume once this works its way through the court system – and I appreciate the point of the bill is to avoid court and use mediation and ADR options, which I know we all agree is a good thing, so I appreciate that.

Some of these

definitions, as is the case with all legislation or most legislation will be left up to the

interpretation of judges, but just for the family’s sake, who might be going through this initially, might want to know what some of this means, I’m wondering if you could elaborate on some of the

definitions. I’ll start on page 7 of the bill, which talks about a definition of decision-making responsibility.

It means “responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including decisions with respect to” and then it lists some things.

Just on the word “significant,” I bet you if you asked one parent what’s significant and another parent what’s significant, you will probably get two different answers. So is there any

interpretation help you could provide at this point in time?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Sure, fair enough. When we have legal language, often, it’s difficult in terms of

interpretation but I think that’s one of the things that’s really beneficial about this legislation is because we’re moving away from that adversarial win-lose type of language, like, for example, custody and access, ownership type of language.

There are many differences between the former language that was used in the current bill and this new legislation. When we look at, for example, decision-making responsibility, I would give an example for that. It says it means responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including decisions with respect to health, education, culture, language, religion and the spirituality of significant extracurricular activities.

What that would really mean would be decisions about, for example, whether a child should participate in sports or other extracurricular activities; or whether they go on a school trip, that would be another example; or even something like should the child get their ears pierced, things like that.

This is a new concept, decision-making responsibility, that term, and it’s from the Divorce Act . Again, though, anyone who is granted this responsibility of decision-making has to or must, as the language says, make all of these decisions based on the best interests of the child. When we go through all of these

definitions, that will be the overriding principle, whether that decision was made in the best interests of the child.

So that’s with respect to the first definition that you’re asking.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, and turning the page, I think, does help clarify that the significant decisions have to do with health, education, culture, language, religion and spirituality, but then it does say, again, the word: significant extracurricular activities.

It’s just funny that you noted ear piercing. I disagree that my daughter should have her ears pierced and my wife thinks she should. So whether that’s a significant – it’s significant for my daughter. But it is just an example of how parents or people who have the charge of children can disagree.

So I appreciate the elaboration. I guess it will work out through the system eventually, what significant means. But, in the meantime, there’s some clarification, but I guess still open to

interpretation.

Minister, if you look on page 7, just above – and it’s hard to read without the original act –

section 3(1) says: “… the Act is amended by deleting the words ‘the person having’ and substituting the words ‘a person having,’” which I guess what it talks about is providing consent for blood tests. We’re changing it from “the person having” to “a person having,” which more than one person can have charge of the child.

My question would be if there’s more than one person and there’s a disagreement about something, like giving consent for a blood test, you only need one person – does that risk the other person not knowing it’s happening?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I think we can relate that, if I may – this is my

interpretation – to

section 26(2). Because in that section, if no court order is placed and more than one parent shares legal authority to make decisions for a child, the law allows either one of them to make decisions on behalf of both but the law assumes co-operation until a court says otherwise. That, I think, is important to look at in connection with that, because that is meant to prevent a paralysis, like a failure of a meeting of the minds. Without it, parents could be stuck needing mutual agreement for every decision.

So to your point, delays could cause delays in medical care or other examples. Of course, we know that children shouldn’t be caught in the middle of those unresolved adult conflicts. Hopefully that elaborates a little bit. That would be my

interpretation, to bring it to that

section just to understand it better.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

We have these bills amending other bills; that’s difficult.

I’m not sure of the phrase you used, but assuming co-operation, I think, is important. We should assume people are doing things in the best interest of the children, so that’s a satisfactory answer. Thank you, Minister.

If we look at page 8, it talks about the definition of a family member. It includes, “a member of a household of a child or of a parent.” You know, household could also be a vague definition as well. It doesn’t necessarily mean people living under one roof. Household could be much broader than that.

Could you give any context about the definition of what a household would mean?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This, again, adds a new definition to the legislation. It could include a parent or a partner of a parent. To expand upon what would be considered family violence to align with the federal legislation, I think that’s why that is there.

The defining family member, that includes a parent or a dating partner of a parent. That would be within the household, I guess.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

Without knowing where the term “family member” is used throughout the legislation, when it does talk about a dating partner of a parent who may or may not have ties to the child in question, my question would be then, is that appropriate to leave that open to include a family member of someone who is dating the parent, that the person that’s dating the parent has no ties to the child.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I just need to clarify; so what this definition does is it adds to the legislation so that we can include like a parent but not only a parent, a dating partner of a parent. I think that’s important because we have to consider that in connection with the provision with respect to family violence. Again, that aligns with the federal legislation in the Divorce Act .

Those issues would have been examined and canvassed when the Divorce Act was considered and, basically, I think what it does, it gives the courts the most flexibility perhaps to ensure that the definition of family violence is as broad as possible to protect children. So that’s why they have included the dating partner of a parent as well. That would be my understanding of it.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you for the context.

Page 10 – this is the last question I have – I’m looking for some clarification. It talks about: The purposes of this part. If you look at

section 25(b), “recognize that the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction by judicial tribunals of more than one province, territory or state in respect of parenting orders or contact orders respecting the same child ought to be avoided” – which makes sense – “and to make provision so that the courts of the province will, unless there are exceptional circumstances, refrain from exercising or decline jurisdiction ….”

I wonder if the minister, or anyone in the department, if you’ve contemplated what, potentially, those exceptional circumstances could be?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Section 25, in regard to the purposes of the act, are to ensure that the courts take into consideration only the best interest of the child in making parenting orders. Then it goes on to talk about what you’re inquiring about, the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction.

Primarily, this

section is to update the old terminology from custody to the new concepts of parenting time, decision-making responsibility and contact, but these changes do not otherwise change the section. It aligns with the CLA, with the Children’s Law Act , and with the Divorce Act .

Really, all it is doing is updating old terminology and existing

definitions in the legislation to use the less adversarial. That’s essentially the same as what’s been in place before with the Divorce Act .

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, in sections 33.1 and 33.2, while I have great faith in the Minister of Social Supports to get us some more social workers, I’m just concerned that it deals with the parenting orders. There are requirements when parenting time or transfer of a child between parents needs to be supervised. Are there any concerns about the social work shortage and whether there will be any impacts on being able to carry out that function?

I’ve been the minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, myself, in the past. I do know in the City of St. John’s it’s not as difficult, because we have offices and means for visitation and transfer, but when you get into rural Newfoundland, it often becomes an issue and, of course, now we’re using social work assistants to help with that.

In this transfer, will social worker assistants be used to assist with that?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Can you provide what exact

section you were asking in relation to the social work question so I can specifically –

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: The Parenting orders on page 17 of the bill –

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you, Chair.

It’s the parenting orders,

section 33,1 on page 17 and

section 33.2.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Again, I’m just going to first of all go back to those concepts, the parenting orders and the contact orders. Those terms, again, just for clarification, they replace the old terms of custody order. That is to align with the Divorce Act , with the federal legislation. It’s intended to promote relationship building with the child. That’s the parenting orders. It’s limited to parents or those who may or intend to stand in the place of a parent. For example, that could be a parent or a step-parent that may apply.

That’s an important distinction I think we need to make from the old language that was used, the parenting order. That includes, when we talk about the parenting order, the decision-making responsibility and parenting time.

Then, when we talk about the contact orders, I just want to give this background, just for context, so people understand. Then, the contact orders, that’s a new

section as well, with the Children’s Law Act. That’s in alignment, again, with the Divorce Act . That is unique from the parenting order because that allows someone other than a spouse, for example a grandparent, who wants to have time out of the child’s

schedule to visit or communicate or whatnot with the child. Of course, any decisions of that nature, again, will be made in the best interest of the child.

When we’re looking at those two sections that you referred to, I think it’s important to add that this is aligning with the federal legislation, which has been in place since 2021, and it aligns with that legislation. So someone, aside from a parent or a parental figure, may apply for a contact order when we’re talking about

section 33.2.

I’ll give you an example of that. That’s a family member like an aunt or an uncle, or a grandparent or even a close loved one may apply for a contact order. I just wanted to give that background when you speak about those sections.

As far as the social work piece of it, we’re not expecting any operational change or impact, but that is a question that we’ll refer to the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being and, of course, our officials will be working with the minister and his officials in that department.

J. WALL: (Inaudible.)

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Actually, I’m just conferring with the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being and he also said that he can advise on this as well.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being; Housing; and Poverty Reduction.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

I thank the Member opposite for the question and I’m happy to support my colleague on the answer.

Currently, we have just under 300 social workers within the Department of Social Supports and Well-Being. We are currently filling the social worker positions that are posted right across our province and that includes the hard-to-fill positions in rural areas, with the signing bonuses that are present. We’re also hiring social work assistants to assist with the workload that the social workers are facing.

We certainly appreciate the amount of work that they do and the work that they do. We want to make sure that we can assist them wherever possible, and social work assistants are being hired currently to assist with the workload.

With respect to the graduating class of social workers for 2026, there are 80 – I stand to be corrected. I think there are 80 graduates from that social work class. Over half the class have applied for positions within government that are currently posted.

We are optimistic that the positions right across our province, we’ll get those filled. As the minister said, there are no issue with respect to the social work positions currently, no change in that whatsoever, only to hire more. Back in October, we had a 30 per cent vacancy rate with social workers; we are now down to a 21 per cent vacancy rate. That is encouraging.

From my department, my officials and I will certainly do our best to make sure that those positions are filled to supplement the work of my colleague from Justice and Public Safety on this very important file. I’m just happy to be part of the conversation this morning.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

Under 33.2(b), it says: “require that contact or the transfer of the child from one person to another be supervised.” The supervision will be by a social worker or a social worker assistant; is that correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: When I look at that section, it doesn’t have to be, would be my response to that. It could be supervised by other than a social worker. It could be supervised by another third party. It can be a family member, for example, or I suppose anyone that the court determines as appropriate, I would think.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Minister. That definitely answers my question.

Clause 33.1, under Parenting orders again, it talks about any means of communication. So I just want some clarity – and I guess that’s between parent A and the child, parent A and parent B, the child and any family members. When they talk about communication, do they mean communication by technology too, like texting, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger, all those means of communication that children use today and that parents use today as opposed to just verbal communication?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Can you identify which

section or subsection you’re referring to in 33.1, please?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Clause 33.1(c): “include requirements with respect to any means of communication that are to occur during the parenting time allocated to a parent, between a child and another person to whom decision-making responsibility, parenting time or both, is allocated.”

I’m just talking about the actual means of communication between parent to parent, parent to child, parent to another family member who may have decision-making responsibility, like a grandmother. I just want to know if technology – Messenger, Snapchat, Facebook, all those things that kids use today.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: We know that that is vast and changing as we speak, I’m sure. There’s no limit in the legislation on the type of communication involved with respect to this subsection. It could be any type of communication, in other words.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

Section 36(1), Assessment of needs of child – you did allude to this earlier when you were speaking to my colleague. It talks about the needs of a child and the impact on the transition – like the physical address change. I’ve seen a case where a mom was concerned, repeatedly reported her concerns but they were small concerns, each and every one. However, sadly, today, the child is no longer with us and the dad is in jail.

I’m just wondering about the concerns that parents put forward to the social workers, to the justice system and how the needs of the child are measured. I’m just trying to figure out – and I know there are changes in this and that’s the positive part of this bill, the changes that we’re making that, hopefully, this will never happen again because of this.

I’m just trying to get your opinion on the measurement of these changes that are happening to this bill to prevent cases like such occurring again.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Again, when there is an assessment of the needs of the child – you’re talking about

section 36(1). First of all, let me just preface it by saying this is updating old terminology in existing

definitions. We want to have less adversarial language and this will occur once the amendments to the Children’s Law Act come into effect.

Again, in assessing the needs of the child, I’ll bring you back to the

section 31(1) and the best interests of the child. The court shall only – and that is directive language “shall” – take into consideration the best interests of the child in whether it’s making a parenting order or a contact order. It’s required and it’s mandated that they have to consider all factors related to the circumstances.

That is important because that means that the court will have to go through all of those and consider all of those things that you’re talking about, the needs and what are those needs. It will be their age, their stage of development. It will look at the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

The court must – again, directive language – look at the relationship with each parent, the relationship with siblings, with grandparents, other people in their lives. It has to look at care arrangements before the separation, what was in place, what are the plans for the care of the child. I mean, it’s a very important list and it’s very exhaustive.

It looks at views and preferences, if it is appropriate, based on the child’s age and stage of development and the circumstances of the case. The court has to look at cultural, linguistic, religious, spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage.

Other factors that the court must – which means it’s directive language; it’s not subjective – consider is each parent’s ability and willingness to care for the child, each parent’s ability and willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. It looks at each parent’s ability and willingness to co-operate. Are they both co-operating and communicating about parenting issues?

It goes on and it’s very important, but this bill applies to all family law matters, and it involves not just those involving child protection either. I think that’s an important thing to note as well. The bill applies to all family law matters.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

The next question probably – and the Minister of Social Supports is not here right now, but I’ll just put it out there. If assessments are required but not available in a timely way, what happens to the child in the interim?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I think that would perhaps be best answered by the minister. We can discuss that with him, for sure.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

I will remind the Member that we don’t acknowledge who is in and out of the House.

J. WALL: Yeah, I’m here.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Oh, I’m sorry. He’s here, sorry.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: I apologize for that. There was no intent. I was just trying to decide whether I’d ask the question or not.

CHAIR: I felt it was an innocent faux pas, so no big deal.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Yes, it definitely was. Perhaps the minister – we can ask it again.

Clause 41 deals with enforcement of parenting time. There’s reference to wrongful denial of parenting time. How will parties be expected to prove wrongful denial of parenting time?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

You are referring to – I am just looking the

section up – 41, which subsection, please?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Good question, Minister.

Section 41(1).

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: This is about enforcement of parenting time or contact. You are referring to: “A party to a parenting order or contact order may apply to a court for relief where the party has been wrongfully denied parenting time or contact with the child by another party to the parenting order or contact order.”

Just to elaborate on this,

section 41 of the CLA actually has been repealed and replaced with a new section, and this new

section aligns completely with the Divorce Act . There were not actually many changes made to this section, except to change the references to the terminology, like custody and access, to the Divorce Act . Terms like concepts of parenting time, parenting order, contact order, so those are all new.

This

section concerns what to do where one party may deny parenting time or contact with the child, like you are asking about. The actual procedures, though, remain similar between the previous version of the CLA and the amended version. So, essentially, the procedures addressing the denial of parenting time or contact, that will remain the same, and this is just a change in the terminology and have the wording align with the federal legislation.

This has all been assessed previously through the Divorce Act .

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: On that note, I just ask the minister how courts distinguish between legitimate safety concerns and wrongful denial?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Between what exactly? Again, could you repeat that?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: In particular cases, as pertaining to children here, how will the courts distinguish between legitimate safety concerns for the individual child and wrongful denial to a parent to have access to the child?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That question, that will be up to a court to determine. They will look at the circumstances of the case and assess those factors in making that determination. The court will determine that.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: So clause 47.1(1) requires a person with decision-making responsibility to notify other parties at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation. So 60 days seems like a little bit or a short timeline, given potential issues around real estate transactions and moving logistics.

I am just wondering about the 60 days. Like, sometimes parents know half a year before if they’re going to move or not. How did we arrive at the 60 days?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: As I said previously, these amendments have already gone through analysis when the Divorce Act came into play in 2021. Again, this is just aligning with the

definitions in the federal legislation. But I can say when we talk about relocation and family law, it’s determined strictly by the best interests of the child. The court will prioritize physical, emotional and psychological safety and stability of the child.

As well, when the court is looking at this

section of relocation, they analyze reasons for the move. They’ll look at the impact on the relationships. They’ll look at the child’s views and so forth. But again, this has all been assessed through the Divorce Act and what our language is doing is basically aligning with the federal legislation that’s been in place for five years now.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: On that, Minister, I’m just wondering, simply because I don’t know, is there a distance outlined in the act or in the regulations regarding relocation notifications? For example, within a municipality, if there was someone moving from Mount Pearl to St. John’s, I mean, it’s pretty close. So is it the exact address that they have to notify the other parent of if they’re moving? Is there any distance included? Do you not have to notify if you’re just moving up the street, or if you’re just moving, point blank, you have to notify?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I think when we look at this section, and to expand on what your question is, relocation is considered a move that would likely have a significant impact on a child’s relationship with someone who has or is applying for parenting time or decision-making responsibility or contact. We know those categories. It would be considered a move where the current parenting plan would no longer work.

I will give you an example: a parent with 50-50 shared parenting time who moves from St. John’s to, say, Mount Pearl may not be considered a relocation under this section, as the current parenting plan could still be maintained. You wouldn’t have to change it because it’s not significant. But, say for example, a parent with a similar parenting plan who moves from Clarenville to St. John’s may not be able to maintain the same level of parenting time due to the distance.

Those are just some ways to elaborate. We could go to

section 47.3; that identifies the change in residence versus location. That also gives us more of an understanding of circumstances that would fall under whether it’s a relocation or whether it’s just a change in residence.

Those are the sections that would help delineate what circumstances would apply.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Minister, again under

section 47.1(5), what happens if a parent misses the 30-day objection window? Are there any safeguards in place?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’ll just review this. You’re looking at

section 47.1(5), correct?

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Yes.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

“A person with decision-making responsibility, parenting time or both, in respect of a child, who receives a notice of a proposed relocation under subsection (1) may, not later than 30 days after receiving the notice, object to the relocation by (

a) doing the following.”

Basically, the elements of the relocation here include various things: They provide notice requirements, and that has to be at least 60 days. There is an objection piece here, so a person receiving notice has 30 days to object to the move by serving a notice of objection. If no objection is made, then it’s okay to proceed with the relocation, and then, again, it goes to the best interest of the child. When deciding whether to allow a relocation, the court will consider that.

To answer your question, this would be entirely up to the courts if there was a disagreement over it that the parties couldn’t resolve amongst themselves. Again, the point of this legislation is so important because the goal is to try to encourage co-operation. It’s a shift in terms of what the old legislation was. It’s about encouraging that level of parenting, responsibility and co-operation, which would be that the focus is on the child, the best interest of the child and it’s child-centred to ensure that that occurs, that the child is cared for.

If the parents can't resolve amongst themselves – and that’s the hope, but if there’s disagreement over it, it’s going to be up to the courts and the judge.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Under this particular section, I just want to go back to my question regarding the Minister of Social Supports. I’m just wondering, if assessments are required but they’re not available in a timely way, what happens to the child in the interim?

Sorry.

CHAIR: I’d ask the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s to repeat the question. I don’t think the minister was expecting it.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: This is just a question pertaining mostly to Social Supports.

If assessments are required for the individual child but they’re not available in a timely way, what happens to the child in the interim? What will be in place if a decision cannot be made because assessments are required?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being.

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Member opposite for the question.

That will be as a result of a court decision, with respect to that timely response, and that’s what we’ll be held to. So it will be up to the courts.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Chair.

I believe my colleague has some questions in this area before I move on to the Family Law Act part.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: No, he’s good?

Okay, I’m going to move on to the Family Law Act , which is towards the back there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I believe it’s the Leader of the Third Party –

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Okay, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, and come back to me. Yes, that’s good.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party and the Member for St. John’s Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Minister, under clause 5,

section 24(1)(n), I think it’s on page 9, a proposed change in residence has to have a significant impact on a child’s relationships to meet the definition of a relocation, and meeting this definition has a significant impact later in the bill.

What practical measures will be used to gauge whether a move has a significant impact? Who decides what a significant impact is? I think in the end the courts could end up deciding, but what would be considered there?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Again, with respect to this definition, it’s a new definition to the legislation to align with the federal legislation, the Divorce Act .

We know it defines what relocation is, and you’ve just stated that it would likely have a significant impact, so what does that mean? The courts would actually decide that. The courts must weigh the best interest of the child when approving a relocation.

I’ll give you an example. If a parent relocating say from Clarenville to St. John’s, they’ve got certain requirements that they have to do. They must provide notice. The parent who is relocating must prove how it is beneficial to them and the child. They must also propose new parenting and contact arrangements. Why? So as to mitigate any potential harms to the child.

I think that answers your questions with respect to who determines that significant impact. It would be for the court to do. Again, it goes back to the best interest of the child. It’s child-focused and the court will look at and weigh the interest of the child when approving the relocation. But there is an onus on the parent who is relocating to do certain things, as well, to prove that the move is beneficial.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I guess this would depend on the age of the child, what weight is given to the child’s reaction to the move?

It’s one thing if the child is young, but if it’s someone prepubescent – 13 – they might have a completely different view of this in total. That’s the key thing I’m looking at there, and how much would those factors weigh into it?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: When the court is considering the making of these decisions, they will look at the age and stage of development. They’ll look at things like the child’s physical, emotional and psychological stage of development, their safety, security, their well-being, all of those things. They look at the totality of the circumstances really, but all with that focus of what’s in the best interest of the child. When you look at all of the

section 31, it’s very exhaustive. It goes through all of the things that the judge must consider when making any of these decisions.

So the level of the child’s development, it will be taken into consideration. They’ll weigh that in their determination.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Just to further clarify –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It’s a little noisy in here. I need to hear the speakers.

Thank you.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

I guess what I’m going at, as well, is the stage of development but if that child says no way, no how, I’m not moving, along those lines. Now I know that can have an effect in the classroom as well in terms of the child’s willingness to engage in school and so on and so forth.

When you’re talking about the courts will consider the age, the stage of development and so on and so forth, that will factor into them giving credence to or weight to what the child says in this case, or the children say. Would that be correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: It depends on all of the circumstances. The courts will consider all of these factors and they’ll weigh that. I can’t say for sure that they’re going to make a determination if the child says absolutely no. They’re going to look at everything when they make that decision and they’ll weigh what is in the best interest of the child when doing that.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN:

Section 24(3) page 10, I think, it’s more of a request for clarification. This

section states that this bill doesn’t constitute a material change in circumstances under this part.

Section 35 establishes that existing orders may not be varied unless a material change occurs. This bill is adding requirements for the court to consider family violence and protection orders in their deliberations.

So will children and parents who are subject to existing parenting orders, parenting or contact orders, that would now be considered against the child’s best interest, due to the new consideration for violence or protection orders, be unable to appeal for new parenting contact orders when this bill is passed?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So you referred to two sections. Can you just identify what those sections are again so that I can give you a fulsome answer?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Section 24(3), page 10, but it also refers to

section 35 and I think

section 35 – I don’t have the page here for it. sorry. I think it’s later, page 19.

I can just repeat the question again, Chair, if that’s all right and if that helps.

Basically, the two sections – this is more of a clarification –

section 24(3) states that this bill doesn’t constitute a material change in circumstances under this part, but

section 35 establishes that existing orders may not be varied unless a material change occurs. So the bill is adding requirements for the court to consider family violence protection orders in the deliberation.

Will children and parents who are subject to existing parenting or contact order that would now be considered against the child’s best interest – grandfathered in, I guess – due to the new considerations for violence protection orders, would they be unable be able to appeal for new parenting contact orders when this bill is passed?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: No, they would not. They could go back to the court and seek an order at any time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Section 26, page 11, and again a request for clarification. This

section has been rewritten by this bill and most of the content from the current act is present in the bill except for

section 26(4).

Can the minister explain why this

section wasn’t reconstituted in the bill?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Just for clarification, you’re referring to

section 26, did you say subsection 4?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.

Yes, except

section 26(4), this

section has been rewritten by the bill, and most of the content from the current act is present in the current act except for

section 26(4), so why was that

section left out of the old bill from the new bill?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’m going to have to look into that further because

section 26: equal entitlement to decision-making responsibility and parenting time. You’re talking about subsection 4, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an entitlement to parenting time includes the exclusive authority to make day-to-day decisions affecting the child during that parenting time.” Is that what you’re referring to?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: I think this has to do with the previous bill, the

section 26(4) from the previous one wasn’t included.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: When we’re looking at the previous bill, I just want to be clear about what you’re talking about here. The previous bill, 26(4) stated, “Where the parents of a child lives separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the express or implied consent of the other, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement of custody and the incidents of custody, but not the entitlement to access, is suspended until a separation agreement or order otherwise provides.” Is that the

section that you are referring to?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: That was, yes.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Just to be clear, you’re asking why that

section is not included in the current act, is that your question?

J. DINN: Yes.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Okay, yes, this is just rewording and the intent of the

section is still the same.

J. DINN: Thank you.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: You’re welcome.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN:

Section 27(1), page 12, I believe, the current act references sections 69(4) to define who’s permitted to make an application for a parenting or contact order. The bill changes the language to allow parents or persons who stands as a parent or intend to stand as a parent.

What is the purpose of this language change and were certain people being unfairly prohibited from applying to the court before?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: T he changes in this

section are amended to align with the Divorce Act and again it’s replacing the old terms of custody and access with new terms of parenting orders, parenting time, decisio