PDF Version

October 18, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 7

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER (Warr): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

In the public gallery today I would like to welcome Mrs. Rita Manning. She's joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement. She's joined by her son, Gerry.

I certainly want to reach out and thank the Member for Cape St. Francis for bringing Mrs. Manning here today. She's a personal friend of both the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and myself.

Welcome Mrs. Manning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Burin - Grand Bank, Ferryland, Terra Nova, Exploits and Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Speaker, there's a new game in town. Cornhole is a form of recreation which is enjoyed by thousands of Newfoundlanders. It is a year-round sport that is age-friendly and sociably enjoyable.

It is my pleasure today to recognize Deon Cuza and Albert Parsons, originally from Point May, a community in the District of Burin - Grand Bank. Deon and Alberta are the first two players to become pro outside of Ontario and have received contracts with the American Cornhole League.

Both have been noticed by the pros for outstanding play at the Canadian Open in Niagara Falls, where Deon was the top Canadian player, and the European Open in Amsterdam, when Albert won third place for the singles 55+ group.

This year, both will compete at the national tournaments and world championships in South Carolina.

Deon and Albert are great ambassadors for the community of Point May and indeed the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in wishing Deon Cuza and Albert Parsons continued success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Ferryland, I want to welcome representatives from the St. John's Fire Fighters Association here in the House of Assembly today.

Welcome gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a very well-known and dedicated individual, Mr. Ron Doyle, from the Town of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, on receiving the inaugural 60+ Atlantic Canada Achievement Award.

Ron is a very well-known citizen in the Ferryland District. He's mostly known for his countless hours of volunteerism. Ron has been giving freely of his time since a young adult and has devoted most of his life to volunteering and helping others.

Ron founded the Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove museum and War Memorial committees and served on many other committees such as the development corporation, recreation committee and the Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove town council, where he currently serves as mayor.

Ron plays a major role in the organization of a few annual events in the town, such as Petty Harbour Days, the Arts and Heritage Festival and the annual Remembrance Day ceremony. Over the years, Ron was a coach to many teams. As a well-known musician in the area, Ron shared freely of his talent and time for various fundraisers.

Speaker, I ask all Members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulation Mr. Ron Doyle on his well-deserved award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Member for Terra Nova.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today, once again, to boast about the volunteers in the District of Terra Nova.

Southwest Arm residents have been a very active group of volunteers, whether it's the firefighters, church groups or the school volunteers, they all come together and support all activities in the area.

Southwest Arm Academy school offers a school breakfast program that is enjoyed daily by the students. Staff and volunteers are utilized now more than ever. Their Walk to Breakfast is one of the major fundraisers that help students on a daily basis. Last year, this fundraiser raised over $6,000.

This year's walk will take place October 27 in conjunction with their cereal box domino challenge. It takes a lot of money, time and volunteers to put off a program like this and they continue to have amazing community support, along with Kids Eat Smart matching every dollar that is donated to the program.

Please join with me in congratulating the students, staff and volunteers of the school breakfast program for their unending support.

A healthy breakfast is a key to learning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

The Botwood Mural Arts Society is celebrating its 12th anniversary. Established in 2010, this small group of 10 volunteer directors has been showing the province, the country and the world that small towns can do big stuff. The society's main goal is to establish Botwood as a tourism destination through the creation of outdoor murals that portray the town's rich and diverse history.

In 2021, the society held its first street art festival, LaRUE, bringing an urban concept to a rural area by engaging young provincial artists and musicians. In just four days, five huge street art murals were completed.

Speaker, the Botwood Mural Arts Society has now created 17 permanent murals painted by provincial, national and international artists. Four of these 17 murals were unveiled during Come Home Year 2022. As the Botwood Mural Arts Society's slogan says: Come see what we see.

Speaker, I would like for all Members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the Botwood Mural Arts Society on its achievements over the past 12 years.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the outstanding accomplishment of my aunt, Mrs. Rita Manning from Torbay. In 1972, Rita began working for the newly incorporated municipality, the Town of Torbay, under the first mayor, the late William Manning.

Speaker, for 50 consecutive years, Rita was responsible for keeping the town hall clean and everything in order, and she certainly did just that. Over the past 50 years, Torbay has seen many changes in mayors, councils and staff coming and going but, through it all, Rita was the one person who remained constant.

A lady of strong morals and family values, accompanied with a pleasant, friendly demeanour and a work ethic that is unparalleled, Rita is certainly held in high regard, as she has earned the respect and admiration of the town's officials, staff and residents over the last five decades – a lifetime of work which she thoroughly enjoyed.

Speaker, I ask all the Members of this hon. House of the 50th General Assembly to join me in congratulating Mrs. Rita Manning on her 50 years of service with the Town of Torbay and wish her all the health, happiness and all the best in the years ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

G. BYRNE: Speaker, every year this government assists more than 2,300 women to acquire the skills training they need to secure employment. We also support some 70 women annually to create jobs for themselves and jobs for others by starting their own businesses. Annual funding of up to $1 million is also provided for wage subsidies as provided to the Office to Advance Women Apprentices; an office that continues to be heralded as a model for other provinces to follow.

Speaker, while we provide support to thousands of women, today I would like to briefly tell one woman's story, to best illustrate how investing in people can transform lives.

In 2021, Holly Linklater approached her local Immigration, Population Growth, and Skills office to express an interest in pursuing carpentry at the College of the North Atlantic Clarenville campus. Holly was experiencing difficulty securing long-term employment and decided to pursue her passion for carpentry. She admitted she had some reservations, as carpentry is a male-dominated field, but she persevered.

With support from our Skills Development program, Holly excelled. Out of 10 courses, she received 100 per cent in seven of the courses and 95 per cent in the remaining three.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE: She's working hard to build up that other 5 per cent, apparently.

Holly graduated from the carpentry program this past June and immediately secured employment with Newfound Builders of Brigus who are featured on HGTV's Rock Solid Builds . She is currently registered with the Office to Advance Women Apprentices and employed through the help of the apprentice wage subsidy program.

Speaker, my congratulations and the congratulations of this entire House is extended to Holly. My thanks for allowing me to share her story for the purpose of inspiring more women to choose her path and to help build the Newfoundland and Labrador of tomorrow.

Speaker, here's to many women who will follow and succeed in Holly's footsteps; we need them all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

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

Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I'd like to recognize the incredible contributions that women make to our workforce. The hard work of pioneering women in the trades in Newfoundland and Labrador is clearly paying off.

Whether it is attaining their Red Seal or starting their own business, many women in Newfoundland and Labrador have achieved outstanding milestones in their professional lives. As these women excel, they raise up others and pave the way for the next generation of capable entrepreneurs.

Speaker, we would also like to thank the staff at the Office to Advance Women Apprentices for their hard work in supporting these bright, young women in achieving their goals. Their programming has clearly made a big difference in the lives of many women and has greatly enriched the workforce.

To all women that want to explore the trades, a simple message: You are a source of unending inspiration, please keep up the good work and we thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will remind the minister and this government the stories of Krista Stephens and Sarah Stevenson, two women who decided to pursue advanced training only to have their much-needed drug coverage cut by government and create unnecessary hardship. One has had to drop out as a result. Government has failed them.

We need this government to take meaningful steps to ensure no woman faces obstacles in pursuing advanced training or is forced to drop out as a result. Maintaining provincial drug coverage is an essential component.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Seven families in Central Newfoundland are heartbroken after being betrayed by a system that is entrusted to care for their loved ones. According to the Adult Protection Act abuse includes humiliation.

Why is the minister and his government refusing to direct an investigation under the Adult Protection Act ?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member is aware that the RCMP is actively investigating the situation in Central. I know Central Health is also investigating. We are awaiting the results of both of those investigations, and I'm certain that both the RCMP and Central Health will carry out a fulsome investigation of what has happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I mean, the numbers are increasing and Central Health is not speaking to the families. That's a huge problem. And ultimately those individuals are in the care of the province – the province is responsible ultimately, and it's incumbent on them to take the proper action. We need a criminal investigation, but the people of the province need confidence in long-term care.

Minister, will you ask the Seniors' Advocate to review the culture of long-term care homes to ensure this issue is not widespread?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This incident is not only shocking, but it's unacceptable. It's unacceptable in any health care institution. It's unacceptable in any regard.

Mr. Speaker, there is a criminal investigation under way by the RCMP. That is actively happening. They are actively involved in the investigation of this. Central Health is also investigating why this happened and how it happened.

Mr. Speaker, once we get the results of that investigation, we will determine if other actions are necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I repeat, we shouldn't be letting stuff just slide. Why not have the Seniors' Advocate go in? What harm are we going to cause? I mean, I don't see any reason why one thing can't happen, they can't happen together. Seven families have been impacted, which means at least seven victims of abuse, leaving many more families worried that their phone may ring next.

When is the minister going to provide a proactive disclosure about how widespread this abuse is in our long-term care system?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation in Central Health. All health authorities should be ensuring that this is not happening within the health authorities or within long-term care facilities.

When it comes to the Seniors' Advocate, Mr. Speaker, that is an independent office. The Advocate is more than welcome to step in and investigate this. In fact, the Member opposite is welcome to write a letter to the Seniors' Advocate if he feels that that is a course of action he'd like to take.

When the investigation is completed by the RCMP and by Central Health, if that is necessary that will happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Acting Leader of the Official Opposition.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I will remind the minister ultimately they are responsible. They hold ultimate responsibility.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has a world-class workforce with the capacity to construct topside and subsea work, mating and commissioning of the Bay du Nord FPSO right here in our province. Trades NL are advocating for maximum local construction jobs for this project, and we agree.

Will the government commit that this work will be done in the province by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly happy to get this question today. It's one that's top of mind in our department.

I also met with Trades NL last week as well as the Premier so we could discuss the scopes of work that are going to take place with Bay du Nord upon sanction. I will point out that we are not at sanction yet. The reality is that there was framework agreement struck in 2018. Things have changed since that time and we are on a day-to-day basis working with Equinor to determine work scopes going forward. Like everybody in this House, we want to see the majority of it done by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Acting Leader of the Official Opposition.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

The minister knows that 2024 is sanction, but most of this construction work is happening right now so at sanction it will be all done. We need to act now, not in 2024.

Speaker, the province has a signed provincial benefits agreement for Bay du Nord Project.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Will the government assure that the majority of construction jobs on the FPSO are located in this province so that when the vessel sails to the Flemish Pass, it leaves the shores of our province not the shores of foreign countries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A. PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I guess myself and my staff, we certainly don't need any reminder as to this process in this project. We have been working extremely hard at this for some time, especially as it related to advocating with the federal government to have the project go through the environmental assessment proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. PARSONS: The reality is we are not at sanction yet, but, hopefully, that date will close soon. We are working with the company. We are letting the company know on a daily basis that this is a project that is meant for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that it can be constructed by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we have a strong history when it comes to offshore projects being done with Newfoundland and Labrador expertise. That will not change and we continue to put that forward every single day with Equinor.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I make no apologies for asking questions in support of the oil and gas industry and the workers. That's our job as Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: The Oil and Gas Industry Taskforce recommended a more collaborative engagement of labour throughout the development of offshore projects. Members of Trades NL have physically worked on every megaproject in the history of this province and have the knowledge and capacity for the Bay du Nord Project.

We have met with Trades NL and we know the Premier and the ministers met with Trades NL, so will you ensure labour is engaged and satisfied before you finalize the benefits agreement?

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

A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, all I can say is that we have shown a track record in the last couple years as it relates to the oil industry in this province. When I got in this role, when the Premier came in, we look at Terra Nova, which was offline; we look at West White Rose, which was offline; we look at Bay du Nord, which hadn't gotten through the environmental assessment. At this point, Terra Nova is getting ready to come back here, West White Rose is sanctioned again and hopefully we will see a sanction on Equinor.

We will continue to work with Equinor and we will continue to advocate for Trades NL, Energy NL and we want to see the majority of that work done here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're not going to see it done in Romania. We're not going to see it built over in Romania. We want to see it done here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: It would be nice, Speaker, to have an assurance that work would be done here in Newfoundland and Labrador now, currently, in 2022.

Speaker, every Liberal Member in this House voted for a carbon tax and a sugar tax, including the minister responsible for poverty reduction. The Liberals want to take more money out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it is probably as simple as that.

Has the minister for poverty reduction advocated to axe these unnecessary taxes that are driving more people into poverty in this province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I know the Members opposite continue to discuss the sugar tax, but allow me to again say to the people of the province that we are certainly not interested in – we would like to take any money that we gain from the sugar tax and put it back into programs and that's what we've done through the Kids Eat Smart program, through the physical activity program –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: – through the prenatal nutrition programs. Speaker, it's very important we do that.

Allow me to read from a letter from the Hearth and Stroke Foundation that says our –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to hear the speaker that I have recognized to speak.

Thank you.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Happy to quote from the letter, Speaker, it says, “Our organization has long supported a sugary drinks tax as one mechanism to help address the social determinants of health and are delighted to see Newfoundland and Labrador step forward ….”

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that her time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Speaker, we are the only province in Canada that has a sugar tax and there is a reason for that. I think we should table the study done by Northwest Territories when they studied the sugar tax and implementing that tax.

The Deputy Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

C. PARDY: The Deputy Premier had referenced previously that she can't control the carbon tax, so let's talk about something that the government can control, the sugar tax. It's an unnecessary tax grab that is taking more money out of Newfoundlanders and Labradorian's pockets.

I would ask the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development where in the Poverty Reduction Strategy does it say implement a sugar tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not allowed to answer.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: The Member opposite is referring to taxation; I'm responsible for taxation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. COADY: I'll certainly take these questions.

Speaker, allow me to say that we have the highest rates of diabetes. We have one of the highest rates of heart and stroke challenges. I can continue to quote from both the Canadian Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, the Canadian Pediatric Society.

But allow me to quote from the British Medical Journal, where it says, and I'm going to quote: “When all taxed and untaxed soft drinks were combined, the volume of drinks” – because of the sugar tax – “purchased did not change, but sugar purchased in these drinks decreased ….”

I'm happy to table this evidence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: We would like to see a decrease in the poverty reduction in Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: – not only the sugar consumption.

Another thing I would state on this is why not invest money in making sure that the intermediate health program in Grade 7 and 8 would have a teacher resource book that was published past 1990. That would be another good addition in our intermediate health program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Speaker, the Liberals continue to be focused on taking money out of people's pockets. It has been reported that the average rent in our province ballooned almost 30 per cent over last year.

When will the minister responsible for poverty reduction introduce specific measures to deal with our housing crisis?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm recognizing the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development and this is the gentleman I want to hear.

J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond, and thank you for the question.

In terms of housing and affordable housing in the province, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, we're doing significant investments in expanding the housing stock. We're working with landlords through our Rent Supplement Program so we are meeting the needs. We are also monitoring rent increases to make sure that our programs keep up with those.

So as we sort of sit here in the House today, we're working with the community, we're working with the advocates in the community to make sure we can address the housing needs right across the province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

In September, a man from the West Coast was charged with human trafficking. During the news conference, the RCMP praised the work of the Blue Door program. However, earlier this year, the minister allowed funding for Blue Door to end after five years.

I ask the minister: Do you regret standing idly by and letting Blue Door's funding lapse?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would certainly applaud the work of Blue Door. It was a federal program that we know started five years ago with big federal money. Since then, we have met with the executive director and we're willing to certainly help Blue Door in any way that we can in assisting for new funding. It's my understanding that they found resources and they are able to continue this good work.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that in my office, we provide funding for SHOP, which is the Safe Harbour Outreach Project, that's actually under the St. John's Status of Women Council that helps women, of course, and individuals who are in the sex trade.

So again, we're here to help our community partners in any way that we can and we applaud the work that they are doing on the front lines, helping victims who need the help the most.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Speaker, the minister had the opportunity to keep the Blue Door open and she failed, as well as her government. Speaker, the Blue Door program was instrumental in bringing a serial human trafficker to justice. That was just one of the many benefits of this program.

Will the minister commit to reinstating funding for the Blue Door program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I want to inform this House and my colleague of the reach outs that we've actually done to the federal minister to actually help arrange meetings with the executive director here of Blue Door. So we're certainly willing to help in any way. It's about a half a million dollars annually asked, that cost the Blue Door program.

So if the Opposition has that amount sitting around, by all means, I mean they're certainly welcome to do what they can. But again, we're willing to work, we have had meetings and that federal program, as we know, came from the federal government some time ago. But like I said, we'll do everything that we can to help our community stakeholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm really not interested in taking speaking privileges away from anybody today. So I want to hear the person that I recognize to speak.

The Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

It seems the Blue Door is going to remain shut and never open, apparently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

P. DINN: It's not going to get the funding that it needs.

Speaker, yesterday in debate the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality said she wanted to highlight – quote – the important advancements in IVF that this government has done for families – important advancements – and then failed to highlight anything at all.

I ask the minister: Outside of a small travel subsidy, what has government done for IVF in this province?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have provided a travel subsidy because we know that the clinic in Halifax is well established and the clinic in Calgary is well established. I can speak from personal experience, Mr. Speaker, in saying that individuals choose to go where they're going to get the best service.

However, having said that, we are also interested in looking at increasing fertility services in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working towards that. The department has been looking at it and speaking with the health authorities on that topic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: That's cold comfort to the young couples who want to have families here. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of only two provinces in this country without an IVF clinic. The Liberals, during the last election, committed to – and I quote – enable IVF services in this province.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality: When will IVF services be available in this province?

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

T. OSBORNE: Again, Mr. Speaker, because the clinics in Calgary and in Halifax are so well established, individuals by and large will go where they have the greatest opportunity for success. That was the immediate measure put in place to help individuals and help the families get to the services where they would have the greatest chance of success.

We need to build a system here for IVF. We are looking at that, Mr. Speaker, and we are working on that. The greatest chance, the most immediate chance of success for a family in hoping to have a child, would be in a clinic that is well established with solid results. We do need a clinic here as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Member for Topsail - Paradise.

P. DINN: So the commitment is empty. If they really want to send them away they would have had a more substantial subsidy package for them.

Speaker, there's a sad case of children switched at birth at the Springdale cottage hospital and the Come By Chance cottage hospital. They have been extremely tough on families.

Will the minister apologize to these families on behalf of the provincial government and have the provincial government review this?

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

T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that health authorities today have a much better record-keeping system, a much better system of ensuring that this type of thing doesn't happen. It is very unfortunate that those cases had happened a number of decades ago. It is something that we share the sympathy with the families that have dealt with this situation. It is a very difficult situation on those families.

But government has ensured the health authorities, Mr. Speaker, have put in place systems to ensure that this type of thing does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: What I'm talking about today is for those families that were affected back then. They need an apology – they need an apology.

Speaker, after the minister promising to look into what he could do for the families who discovered they were switched at birth in a provincially run hospital, the minister has refused to order a review, refused to look at financial compensation, or apologize on behalf of the province for the mix-ups.

Why does the minister continue to ignore these families?

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

T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have said that we share the sympathy with the families who've gone through this. It is a very difficult situation for any of those individuals to have gone through. We are looking within the department and internally within government on ensuring that this type of thing doesn't happen again.

This situation happened a number of decades ago, Mr. Speaker. We do share the sympathy with the families who have gone through this. It is obviously difficult on those families. This type of thing should never have happened. It did. We can't change that; it should never have happened. But we can make sure it doesn't happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, in an email a constituent asked why Kruger rejected an access road to Crown land. In response, Kruger said it is refusing all applications for access until government develops a land use strategy.

Speaker, it has been two years, Crown Lands still hasn't replied to Kruger.

I ask the minister: Why the inaction?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's always good to get a question on Crown Lands. And I guess the highlight today I'm going to get into: for our office, our turnaround times have now been reduced to 68 business days for a regular Crown lands application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAGG: Sometimes these applications take longer than that, because of course we send it out to many referrals. And one of our referrals happen to be Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, Kruger, Abitibi-Price, whomever it may be, AND from years ago. And those applications get to be much more complex.

We talk to Kruger on a regular basis. They have been turning down applications year after year, but we have also been accepting some applications over the years. I do not know the actual application; if the Member could send it to me I would –

SPEAKER Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister that his speaking time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, the calls we're getting, we're not hearing 68 days.

Speaker, it is obvious to anyone that has experienced the process, our Crown lands system is broken. We constantly hear from frustrated applicants who are waiting years for resolution.

Will the minister direct an independent review of Crown Lands?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Thank you very much, Speaker, for allowing me to answer this question again.

I have so much respect for the people that work in Crown Lands. What the Member is saying is that people are not doing their job. I am completely against what he is saying there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAGG: He is saying we do not have competent staff. We have the best staff you can find anywhere across Canada –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

D. BRAGG: – working with our department and they are working diligently for the people of this province, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite has not sent me an email in over a year, not an email in over a year, Mr. Speaker, about Crown Lands. If he has, please table it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: We don't need emails, Speaker, our meetings say for itself, and there's still nothing done.

Speaker, a review was completed in 2015 on recommendations to improve the Crown lands process. Clearly, the minister hasn't read it, so I'll table a copy for him.

Why have the Liberals ignored this report for seven years without fixing multiple problems plaguing Crown Lands?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

D. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, we have made leaps and bounds improvements within Crown Lands – leaps and bounds. The Member opposite referred to meetings in his

preamble. He has not requested a meeting either. Except for milking a cow with me last weekend, he has not requested a meeting.

In Central Newfoundland, while it burned this summer, the Member opposite didn't even reach out to me until I reached out to him. So let's make this factual. If he's going to get up and ask me a question –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. BRAGG: – let's make it factual, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, they should listen to the residents that call us on a daily basis looking for Crown land – 68 days; you're out of your mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Out of your mind.

Speaker, another construction season is winding down, there's been no work done on half-built Team Gushue Highway. Over the years the excuses have gone from land expropriation, farmland settlements, redesign delays and finally a lack of money.

When is the minister finally going to get this project moving?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question.

In terms of that project, it's an important project, but, obviously, the extension of that highway is going to cost money and it's not within my budget. Last year, we were working with the federal government. As we speak, right now, in hopes that we can cost share this because it is a federal responsibility as well so we can get this project done. But I don't have the money alone. We can do it on a cost-shared basis. Hopefully, the response from the federal government will be positive so we can move forward with this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland for a very quick question, please.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Minister, you've had this for seven years. Seven years you've been in government and you haven't fixed that road yet.

Speaker, this is a mothballed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: – multi-million dollar bridge built over Topsail Road. The land for the next phase has been cleared so long that alders are growing up through the crushed stone.

Speaker, the Team Gushue Highway is a top-rank priority in the minister's own roads plan.

I ask the minister: How many more years are you going to have to wait to get this done?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a very quick answer, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

E. LOVELESS: It's funny, you know, because the Member opposite boasts about getting answers. He doesn't want to listen to the answers. That's the problem. Many over there don't.

So it's a file that's important and it's a file that we're looking at from different lens in terms of the cost arrangements. We're asking the federal government to come to the table. They're coming to the table. We've had conversations with the City of Mount Pearl. We've had conversation with the City of St. John's.

We're happy to be working on this file. We don't have it resolved right now, but it is an important project and hopefully we can come to the financial arrangement that will see it happen.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, my office has received calls from senior women who have received eviction notices. Because they are not in NLHC housing and instead receive a rent supplement, they are on their own when it comes to finding a new place to live. These women have health and mobility issues and do not own a computer. One women has had her surgery cancelled as a result.

Given the lack of affordable housing, how are these seniors expected to find a safe place in which to live?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to respond.

When it comes to housing and particularly affordable housing, right now, there are challenges. Through NLHC we're working with all our clients, those that are living in our housing units and those that are getting the rent supplement. If there are changes in their residential needs, we work with them, individually, to find appropriate housing. The market is tight, but we are solving their problems.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Challenge is an understatement. According to one source, rent has gone up by 30 per cent in St. John's. There is an absolute dearth of safe, affordable housing. Organizations who advocate for seniors are finding the situation impossible. An eviction notice for a senior is sentencing them to homelessness and isolation.

I ask the Premier: What measures will his government take to ensure seniors facing eviction are not rendered homeless?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Again, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

As I said in the previous question, we are working with the individuals concerned on a case-by-case basis. I get calls to my office, my staff get calls, and we are working on housing solutions. We are working with Connections for Seniors, a very valued agency in the city that is working with seniors on their housing needs. We are also looking at how we can expand affordable housing across the city, across the region and across the province. That would be a part of, obviously, our upcoming budget process.

We are cognizant of what is happening. We're working with landlords and we are solving their housing needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, this past weekend, Mark Wilson, a constituent of mine found a homeless man sleeping on a park bench. The constituent called the Emergency Shelter Line 10 times and when he finally got through was told to call the RNC.

I ask the Premier: Will his government staff the Emergency Shelter Line appropriately or has the RNC become the default housing strategy for the province?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

J. ABBOTT: Again, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

In terms of our housing and homelessness challenges here in the province, again, we are working with expanding our shelters where we can. We will be doing that here in the city, in Central Newfoundland, the West Coast and in Labrador.

Given the incident that the Member refers to, we have our 1-800 line that is 24 hours and the RNC are not the choice. We need to make sure – and I will certainly follow up on this incident to make sure that this doesn't happen again. I certainly don't want the RNC to be the agency of response.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

Labour organizations exist to advocate and advance workers' rights. To find out that the Federation of Labour, the voice of workers, has not been consulted on the bills specifically meant to protect workers, I ask the Minister Responsible for Labour: Why wasn't the Federation of Labour given the opportunity to consult on the pay equity bill and will the minister pull back that bill and properly consult labour?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

It is a true honour to get up here today in my seat and talk about the history that was made here to finally bring in pay equity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. PARSONS: We are the only administration to do that and as we know, it will come to the public sector, of course, with the agencies to follow, as well as pay transparency and a plan to bring in pay equity in the private sector.

That said, I have an email actually from Ms. Mary Shortall, who I have great respect for and I thank her for the wonderful work that she's doing. An email here that I'm happy to table, that she is very excited and eager to work on the consultation process that will soon start, of course, so we can put forth the best legislation for the people – ultimately the women and gender-diverse people here in Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to pay equity.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

In accordance with

section 10 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, 2008 , I table the 2021 annual report of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador. I tabled this last week but we were missing the financials, so my apologies, Mr. Speaker. We're now tabling the complete, revised document.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

Does the Member have leave to table a document?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

SPEAKER: Go ahead.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Speaker, I would like to table the Lands Act Review Final Report that was done in 2015.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled,

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

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House should not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19, 2022, but shall continue to sit to conduct government business and, if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice Has Been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

These are the reasons for this petition, in particular.

There are circumstances in which an individual may have a moose licence but physically unable to join the hunt in any way, due to extraordinary medical circumstances or persons with disabilities. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian should be included no matter their situation.

Speaker, I dealt with a constituent for this season, who was in hospital due to some unforeseen circumstances, but he had his moose licence but was unable to leave. We tried to work with the department. I know that they have their legislation, their rules in place, and that's totally understandable.

We don't want people to take advantage of it, but at the same time we don't want anybody to be excluded in the moose hunt. Moose is a great animal here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The hunt is great, but the meat itself is organic meat and we want to ensure that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, no matter their circumstance, can be included in the hunt. I really think that the legislation needs to be revisited for extraordinary measures, and that's why we're putting this petition forward today.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the government to take an immediate action that will ensure a person with a moose licence could have a designated hunter attain the moose without the licensee having to be within the parameters set by the current legislation in extraordinary circumstances to ensure inclusion.

I want to be clear about that, with extraordinary circumstances, and it could be up to the minister's discretion whatnot, and it can come back to the department. But there are people out there who miss out on the hunt. We feel as though they shouldn't have to miss out on the hunt, and we think that this legislation can be revisited so every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can be included no matter their circumstances.

I hope the minister takes that back to his department and comes back to the floor with some legislation that could clean that up to ensure inclusion here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Speaker.

We acknowledge that as a society we need to curb our intake of sugar, but strongly feel that the provincial government's sugar tax is not the best way of effecting change. After reviewing the literature and studies in relation to the proposed tax, realizing that we are the only jurisdiction in Canada to implement and find merit in its existence and realizing that taxing the population during an already significant time of inflation is unacceptable, we strongly disagree with the implementation of a sugar tax in our province.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to spare the residents of our province another tax by immediately repealing the sugar tax this fall, leaving over $9 million in the pockets of struggling residents annually.

Speaker, I had asked a question in the House about the sugar tax, and the hon. minister had stood up and gave some quotes. But I would say when we make decisions that are based on and affect greatly the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador we need studies. We need to draw upon studies that indicate the taxation that you're putting in will yield the results that we desire.

I would say my second call is to ask government to table a study that led them to implement a $9-million tax on the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I probably don't need to table, but I referenced a couple of times now an extensive study that was done by the Northwest Territories in 2019, titled, Using the Tax System to Encourage Healthy Choices: Implementing a Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax in the Northwest Territories .

They spent a lot of money to do the study, an extensive study, and they realized at the end they are not going to utilize a sugar tax. Just let me read from the executive

summary: “… difficult to draw conclusions on how much a sugar-sweetened beverages tax would reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and therefore have an influence on reducing obesity and improving dental health.”

Number two, they also give a table where if taxation was going to curb sugar consumption, then we know that if we tax – in Alberta they have a 5 per cent tax; we tax 15 per cent. If 15 per cent isn't curbing it, then why would we expect more to do it?

Finally, on the other end, I would say Oxford Economics did a study as well which would say that taxation of sugar drinks is not going to yield results.

I would ask government to consider appealing the sugar tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

S. COADY: Thank you very much.

Just to respond to the petition – and I can appreciate it's been challenging. This is the first time in Canada, though there are 50 countries in the world that have a sugar tax. Allow me, again, to quote from the World Health Organization: “Consumption of free sugars, including products like sugary drinks, is a major factor in the global increase of people suffering from obesity and diabetes.”

Everyone in this room knows today that we have the highest incidence of diabetes in this country. Indeed one of the highest in the world.

This is from the World Health Organization: “If governments tax products like sugary drinks, they can reduce suffering and save lives.”

The British Medical Journal also stated in the UK they introduced a tax on sugary drinks and “researchers found that overall sales of soft drinks have not changed.” However, the sugar-sweetened beverages were lower.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 14, second reading of Bill 12,

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

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise today in this hon. House today to bring forward –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

You need a seconder, please.

B. DAVIS: Too excited.

Seconder for this bill would be the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

Motion, second reading of a bill “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.” (Bill 12)

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

B. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House here today to bring forward Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, to amend presumptive cancer coverage to provide presumptive cardiac coverage to career and volunteer firefighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I'm very happy today to be joined in this – we're all happy to be here today joined in this House, I'll speak for my colleagues, to see so many members of the St. John's Regional Firefighters Association here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I think they deserve a round of applause from all of us for the great work they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I'd also like to take this great opportunity that we have here to say thank you to their executive team. They've gone fantastic work in advocating not just for this presumption here today, but with former Minister Gambin-Walsh who was minister at the time when we brought forward some presumptive cancer coverages in the initial stages. So they've been on this for a long time, and many, many years before as some of them would tell me.

I'm very happy that they're here and thank them for their great advocacy work for the people they represent.

Speaker, on December 18, 2019, the government announced the 2019 Statutory Review Committee for WorkplaceNL compensation committee. This Committee delivered its final report to the government on June 10, 2021. I think the duration was due in part to COVID and in part to the consultation they wanted to achieve through a COVID lens. It contains 17 recommendations, along with subsections which total about 48. One of the recommendations from the SRC was to add an additional four cancers to the presumptive cancer list, as well as the additional coverage of cardiac events that occurs within 24 hours of an emergency response.

Speaker, presumptive cancer coverage means that a firefighter who contracts a specific cancer, it is presumed to have contracted the cancer from the work as a firefighter, unless contrary is shown.

As per a legislative amendment in January 2017, the act currently provides presumptive cancer coverage for 11 identified cancers. With only 11, Newfoundland and Labrador was the third lowest in cancer coverages in Canada. Only Quebec and New Brunswick had lower levels with nine and 10 respectively. The Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have the most comprehensive presumptive cancer coverages in the country identifying 19 types, but I will say until today. The remaining of the provinces or territories fall within the range of 14 to 16 cancers being covered.

With respect to cardiac events referred to in the legislation as an injury to the heart, this occurs within 24 hours of fighting a fire. Nine provinces provide such coverage and we didn't want to pass this legislation here today without covering that for the people that protect us each and every day.

Speaker, every day firefighters put their lives on the line to protect ours. They answer the call of duty, placing themselves in harm's way in the service of the residents and the communities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Speaker, these firefighters do it willingly, even when knowing their profession can be struck down at an alarming rate with respect to cancers and cardiac injuries directly related to job-related exposures.

An unfortunate consequence of the work they do is the increased risk of developing certain types of cancers and experiencing an injury of the heart after attendance at an emergency response. This province should not be at the bottom of the list with respect to presumptive coverages we are providing to our firefighters. We should do the right thing here, with all jurisdictions across the country, and make sure we lead the way.

Speaker, in order to align with the leading provinces in the country, I am recommending the coverage of eight additional cancers to be added to the legislation as well as coverage for the injury of heart that occurs within 24 hours of fighting a fire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: Speaker, the presumptive coverage for eight additional cancers that I am bringing foreword here today will be retroactive to December 18, 2019.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: This date coincides with the start of the statutory review.

The presumptive coverage for injury to the heart within 24 hours of an emergency response will be effective November 30, 2022. An injury to the heart incident would not have been covered by the existing policy unless it was presumptive, but now it is presumptive.

The presumptive coverage being brought forward in this bill provides that extra layer of protection to bring this presumptive coverage up to 19 of the cancers that we all know are caused by the activities that these individuals, some of whom are here in the House of Assembly today, participate in each and every day.

This benefit that will be put in place through WorkplaceNL will cost approximately $21 million and reduce the Injury Fund by only 1.9 per cent.

It's something that we should be doing; I am very happy today to be here to do it. There is approximately 450 career firefighters and 5,900 volunteer firefighters in our province, all of whom are getting this presumption of cancer benefit today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I'm so very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and bring forward this legislation. I ask all Members in this hon. House to stand with us, stand shoulder to shoulder with the men and women that we see here in the gallery and the many, many more across our province.

I look forward to the opportunity to have a debate when we do third reading. I'm hopeful that everyone in this House will be supporting this, not just because it's good legislation, but it's the right thing to do for the people that we have representing us and protecting us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It is an honour today to get up as the Member for Exploits, especially with all the volunteer departments we have in our area, and speak on Bill 12 and safety compensation.

The legislation we are debating today is the next steps in providing presumptive coverage for career and volunteer firefighters in the province. This legislation builds on the work started in 2016 and the recommendations of the 2019 statutory review.

First, we must define what presumptive coverage is. Before presumptive cancer coverage for firefighters was introduced, firefighters could still get WorkplaceNL coverage for cancer, but the onus was on the firefighter to prove that the cancer was a result of the person's role as a firefighter.

Presumptive coverage means it is assumed or presumed that the cancer occurred as a result of conditions experienced by the firefighter in the role as an emergency responder. If WorkplaceNL wishes to challenge this they can, but there is a higher bar of evidence required to prove that the cancer is not the result of the firefighters' duties.

In short, presumptive coverage helps firefighters to obtain WorkplaceNL coverage for cancers, and now cardiac events, which are covered because of the role as a firefighter, without having to go through the process of having to prove it was related to their role as a firefighter.

The firefighters are very important to our communities. They ensure our safety; they are there in our most difficult times. Speaker, having said that, again I'd like to touch on the volunteer fire departments, especially in the Exploits District and throughout the province. It's good to see that the volunteer fire departments are being covered by this. I know we have some fire department members from the region here, and I'd like to thank them very, very much for their service as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: Getting back to my own district, it's good to speak on this piece of legislation of compensation of WorkplaceNL because it's good for the fire departments. They're most important to our districts. We call on them every day. I've talked to some of the volunteer fire departments and they appreciate whatever we could do for those departments, because they put themselves on the line every single day, not only as firefighters, but as we know them, as first responders. And what they respond to is sometimes way outside the scope of what we even think they do.

So I'd like to commend all the fire departments throughout the province and thank them for what they do. This is a good step towards helping those firefighters in achieving what they need to do. I'm certainly sure there are probably more things we can do, but today shows a good step that we'll be looking after our volunteer firefighters and all of our firefighters.

In December 2016 the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act was amended to add a new part of the act providing presumptive coverage for firefighters and volunteer firefighters for certain diseases. That bill took effect January 1, 2017. That bill listed 11 cancers. It provided presumptive coverage for those cancers, but the presumption differed for firefighters and volunteer firefighters. Firefighters were covered retroactively. Those diagnosed on or after December 14, 2015, were given presumptive coverage. Volunteer firefighters diagnosed on or after January 1, 2017, were covered, in other words, from the date that the amendment came into force with no retroactivity.

This bill does nothing to change what the 2016 bill covered, or how it was applied. What this bill does is add coverage for another eight cancers, and also for heart injury. It is the result of the 2019 statutory review.

The bill treats firefighters and volunteer firefighters the same moving forward. For the eight new cancers, both kinds of firefighters have retroactive coverage back to December 18, 2019, but not before. If they were diagnosed on or before the 2019 date, they are covered. For the heart injury that manifests within 24 hours after attendance at an emergency response, both kinds of firefighters are covered from November 30, 2022, onwards but not before. None of these coverages has retroactive effects back to 2015 or 2017, like the original 11 cancers. Neither firefighters nor for volunteer firefighters.

Will this satisfy firefighters or volunteer firefighters who were diagnosed prior to those set dates? Probably not. There will not be presumptive coverage. They will have to prove that their disease is linked to their work in firefighting. Perhaps they will still have to be able to do that, but getting compensation is less onerous with presumptive coverage.

Additional presumptive coverage for additional illnesses is better than none. But why isn't this retroactive to a common past like 2015 or before? If WorkplaceNL is likely to have caused their illness, why not make their coverage presumptive in earlier diagnosis to spare them hardships and proving connection when they are terribly ill?

While it is true that any presumptive coverage is better than none, this is an opportunity to do the right thing and do it well. For the sake of the people in the honoured profession in our province, when people are sick with terrible diseases that have likely been caused by their work, especially when their work is front-line lifesaving work, much of it perhaps on a volunteer basis, then it is cruel to make these individuals spend their precious healing time and limited family time fighting a bureaucratic battle to prove that their dangerous work made them sick.

Imagine, the hardships and stress is worsening their condition. They need presumptive coverage so they can recover. Receiving income they cannot earn while they are off sick. Where did the coverage cut-off dates come from? The dates in the original act in 2016, and dates in the new bill, why was it chosen 2019 and not 2017 or 2015, like in the 2016 bill? Or a date earlier than that? Why should there be a cut-off date at all to limit their coverage?

If these newly added illnesses were covered by the workplace, shouldn't the presumptive coverage for these illnesses be retroactive to the same earlier dates? If it was wrong to give different coverage to firefighters and volunteer firefighters in 2016, why not correct it now with this amendment and make everything retroactive to the common date in 2015, if not earlier? Why let the different treatment stand when you can easily see it is corrected?

Why is there no retroactive coverage for the heart injury? If it happens soon after an emergency response, even if it happened years ago, shouldn't that coverage be also retroactive? If the doctors believe new cancers are also linked to firefighting work, then surely there's just as much reason to make coverage retroactive to a common date in the past.

This is not amount of money. Firefighters still have to avail of coverage, but the onus is on them to prove that these new cancers are the result of their role as a firefighter. Presumptive coverage makes it easier. Would you agree to join us in amending the dates so they are all retroactive and provide presumptive coverage to more of our ill firefighters?

Are there any illnesses or forms of cancer that are not being covered, despite advice that they may be linked to firefighting work? What about the cancers that are not primary site cancers? What about lung cancer coverage to a firefighter who may have smoked occasionally or even once in the 10-year period prior to the diagnosis? Some industrial fire departments are associated with additional workplace hazards because of the nature of the industry. Are these additional hazards taken into consideration?

In closing, we will support this legislation. We believe in presumptive coverage. We believe in supporting our firefighters.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

It is a great privilege here to actually speak to this today because, actually, it's personal to me, in multiple (inaudible). Myself, I was a volunteer firefighter for five years; my father was a volunteer firefighter; my stepmother was a volunteer firefighter and it's very personal to me.

My stepmother is an ovarian cancer survivor. To see that in this act actually is very, very personal to me. So I want to actually thank the government for doing the right thing and coming forward and making these changes the way that they should be made.

I also want to recognize somebody actually from Labrador West: Chief Joe Power, a long-time advocate for these changes and many changes that were needed. So I cannot stand here without acknowledging Chief Joe Power, Labrador City Fire and Rescue who sat on the executive of the Firefighters Association for many years and who is a long-time advocate for these changes and many other changes that were needed when it comes to the health and safety of firefighters.

Speaking of Joe and actually being on the fire department, with him as my chief, to remind firefighters the importance of filling out their personal exposure notebooks. I don't know how many times I've had a tap on the shoulder and saying, Jordan, go fill out your notebook and make sure you write down you were here and what you did, because those notebooks are your proof that you were on the scene and that you were under some sort of exposure.

The changes to those notebooks and stuff, too, over the years have been good changes too. I 100 per cent support this, no doubt about it. It's needed. It's important and that we should actually show appreciation that these men and women every single day – they don't want their pagers to go off, but they do and they're on the scene and they're there to help. The least we can do is make sure that if something happened to them that we have their back, because it's not an easy job; it's a very hard job. And you don't know most of the times what you're walking into.

I've been there, done that. We want to make sure that they have our back; we have their back. The last thing that anybody wants to hear is that their job has caused them some sort of industrial disease, cancer, heart disease. Because that is something that no one wants to hear, and especially knowing that the thing that you love to do, to help people, is the result of these illnesses.

We're in a world where we use a lot of different chemicals and different things that we know are carcinogens. We know that they cause adverse effects to our health. But when something happens in an emergency, a fire or a motor vehicle accident there are spills. There are releasing of different gases and different environmental changes. We have to be there 100 per cent to have the people's back who actually walk into those situations while we're walking away. That's the important thing, is that we have their back.

I do agree with my colleague, though, about the retroactive. I know that the date there is December 2019. I would like to see a friendly amendment from the government to maybe roll that back a bit farther because in some cases the presumptive of that – and especially if we're adding eight different cancers to there, I'm sure presumptively the men and women that served that actually are inflicted with those terrible, terrible things possibly should be covered as well presumptively. So I would like to see that, along with what my colleague from the Official Opposition said.

There are two other groups I do want to mention that are at fire scenes that are not listed here: police officers and EMTs. Because I know my time as a firefighter, 99.9 per cent of the time there's someone from the RNC over my shoulder and there's an EMT there, and they're there just as much as we are there. Most times, the RNC was always doing traffic and scene control. Most times, there was an EMT there looking after one of us or a victim of some sort. These people are also there. They're breathing that smoke. They're there on scene. I think they should also be a part of this coverage, because their there having our back as well and they should be recognized in this legislation.

So for consideration to the hon. minister maybe have a look at that and make sure those changes should be made, because I think that should be there. Especially in rural areas where the RCMP or EMTs actually do a lot of heavy lifting too in these scenes, where resources are scant. So I want it, for honourable considerable, to be able to recognize those individuals as well, because they are just as important, and they should also have the same coverages, because they're on the same scenes doing the same thing for the most part. So I just want to take that opportunity to mention that to the hon. minister.

With that, Speaker, I do agree with this. This is a massive change that is needed, long overdue, and I do thank the government bringing this forward. If they take my critiques back and maybe make some tweaks. I also wanted to thank the men and women of this province, firefighters who actually are there every day for us. Like I said they have our backs, let's have theirs, but also every other first responder that do show up to a scene because they are there helping in the shadows as they say.

Anyway, thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

On December 4, 2018, I stood here in this hon. House of Assembly and introduced into second reading amendments to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act , to provide presumptive coverage for work-related post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for all workers covered under the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: I firmly believe that this progressive legislation is helping injured workers receive the assistance they need earlier, leading to better outcomes and improving the workers overall health and well-being. I also made a commitment to a number of firefighters around a boardroom table that our government would continue to work with them to address their unique concerns related specifically to their line of work.

Under the present Minister Responsible for Labour and WorkplaceNL, our government has done just that. We are bringing forward another progressive piece of legislation. In fact, once this legislation is passed, we will be leading the country alongside Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon, in line with jurisdictions having the highest level of presumptive coverage in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Today we are discussing and debating Bill 12, an amendment to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act , to provide presumptive cancer and cardiac coverage for firefighters. This legislation will add presumptive coverage for eight cancers, to the 11 presently covered. It will expand the existing presumptive cancer coverage for career and volunteer firefighters retroactive to December 18, 2019.

I applaud the minister for leading on the retroactivity, as it can assist firefighters in Newfoundland who are battling cancer today. This legislation will add presumptive coverage for a cardiac event injury to the heart that manifests within 24 hours after attending an emergency, to come into effect on November 30 of this year.

Firefighting requires exceptionally difficult and demanding physical work. Firefighters perform strenuous activities and handle all types of emergencies, including life-or-death situations. In addition to the potential mental health trauma of this job, which the 2018 work-related presumptive PTSD legislation aimed to cover, is that of personal physical injury.

Firefighters are susceptible to burns, smoke inhalation and crush injuries from collapsing structures. They can suffer from heat exhaustion, as well as long-term job related illnesses. Some physical fall out from the profession may not materialize until years down the road.

Being a firefighter is a noble service profession. One that average citizens rely on heavily in case of emergencies. Firefighters are often the first responders on the scene of explosions, natural disasters, wildfires, traffic accidents and other catastrophes. Their demanding job can take both a physical and mental toll on those who perform it. They often have to leave family events, celebrations and gatherings at a moment's notice.

The characteristics of firefighters include empathy and compassion. The primary purpose of firefighters is to protect and serve the public. Thus, to succeed in this line of work, firefighters must have a natural desire to help others while making personal sacrifices. A desire to help those in need is a necessary motivator. Along with the willingness to care about the welfare of those they serve, firefighters balance compassion and humour to put themselves and other people at ease during tough times.

That is why, as the MHA for the District of Placentia - St. Mary's, I support this amendment and I am proud of our government for entering Bill12 into the House of Assembly today. However, I am equally proud to say that I know those firefighters who sat around that boardroom table, who respectfully and successfully over the past 4 years advocated for this positive change for their profession. As Jim O'Toole would say: Right thing, at the right time, for the right cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to stand and have a few words on this today. It is a proud day for all of in the Legislature to help out the firefighters and the professional firefighters, the paid ones and the volunteers, across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This started back in, I know, 2015-2016 when the St. John's Fire Fighters Association approached us and then Duane Antle from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services, the Corner Brook Fire Fighters Association with Geoff Sparkes. I have to give all those individuals a great applause here today for standing up for the workers.

The thing that we also have to remember about this here, this is protecting their families also. This is protecting the family so if something happens to one of the firefighters down the road, their family will not be impacted as much through it. So it is protection for the families also with the firefighters.

I don't think I need to say it but I always do every opportunity I get, Mr. Speaker. I've been into a lot of situations where you can see the men and women of any brigade, volunteer or professional, the work that they do and how they put their life and limb on the line for us. Absolutely, every one of them should have a medal of valour for the work that they do. I have seen it personally; I know it personally from all around.

If we just look back at the history, Mr. Speaker, I look at the different chemicals that they're facing every day now. Look at St. John's Fire Fighters Association that are here today; look at the different chemicals in the work environment that they're facing today. It is a dangerous situation and they have to be prepared. Not only do they have to be prepared, they have to be ready to put their own life on the line for this. We can only just say thank you very much and sometimes we wish we had their courage to do the things that they're doing.

I know that all the volunteers across the province – I know Duane Antle, the president, has a good working relationship with the government. I know that Duane and all the volunteers will be very happy of this announcement today. It is a great announcement, I say to the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety who is responsible for firefighter services. I know you had big input into this, also, today. I just say congratulations to both of you and to the rest of the government for coming up with this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just say in closing on this – and we talk about the retroactive. It is something that the minister can look at it, but from my understanding it is something that's a national standard now. Probably next year there might be a few more cancers that may be included. This is not set in stone. This is something that's going to move forward on a regular basis.

The other thing that's very great in this bill, and I seen it on several occasions, is if a person has some kind of a heart problem 24 hours – and I know the minister clarified that with me earlier, and I thank the minister for that. It is 24 hours after the incident. Like, for example, if a fire starts 7 o'clock and it goes for four or five, six, seven hours or even a day or so, it's when the incident is over, not when it starts. So that's great news also, Minister, because it is a great burden. It is a lot of stress on a lot of people. That is also something.

From my understanding of it also, Minister, from the research, that this on par nationally now. This legislation will bring the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Fighters Association on par nationally with the legislation for cancer and the heart also.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leading the country.

E. JOYCE: Leading the country. Well, that's even better.

Any time that we can lead the country to help these great individuals, the people who put their lives on the line, life and limb, we have to look at it. How many times do we see a situation where we see accidents on the road? Those individuals are facing it. Those individuals are actually facing the things that we're doing. They see sights that we should never have to see.

I know the Member just brought up about the legislation that was brought back in; that was great legislation also. That is great legislation that was brought in for people who may have stress and some disorder because of those sights. That is great legislation. That goes hand in hand with this legislation.

When most of us run, they run to. We run away. So anything that we can do to help out the firefighters, to help out their families, it's a great day for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also want to mention something that the minister mentioned: workers' compensation. Back in 1991-92, the funding for the workers' compensation was down to about 72 per cent. Minister, even with this legislation, the funding will be 105 per cent, I think you mentioned, or 110 or 112 per cent funded.

The funding is not a problem for the fund needed for workers' compensation across the province. So that's prudent also that you're not putting the workers' compensation fund in any type of liability also. That's very important.

I'll take my seat, Mr. Speaker, but I'm just proud of the government for bringing this in. I'm proud of all the firefighters for all the work that they do. Every firefighters' ball that I attend, I always say to the professionals – the paid and volunteer firefighters – and I always says to the volunteers if you go to a fire, make sure that you log it in: when you went, what time you went, what you faced and what kind of chemicals were faced, because that's the kind of things that you need.

Maybe 10 or 15 years down the road you may pick up one of these diseases. Then, if you had that logged in and they go back to your fire department and they have it logged in and say, yes, here's the date these people were on this fire, that's how you get this here passed through no problem. That's what you need to do. It is very important to have it logged in.

You can't just say, okay, I'm a firefighter. You need to log the information for you to make sure that if anything happens, which hopefully it won't or you pick up any of those cancers, that you can say here's when these individuals fought the fires, here is the type of fire, here are the chemicals that were in place. So every fireman's ball that I go to, I always ask: make sure you do the log work so down the road your families won't have to go through the hassle, the hard work and dedication to try to prove that this was caused by the fire, any of these cancers here.

Again, I'll take my seat and I'll just say this is a proud day for all the volunteers and all the professional firefighters across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll say to them – and I know there are some up in the gallery – to the volunteers across the province that are looking at us in Hansard , keep up the good work for all of us. If anything else comes up, I'm sure the government is open to try to make it safer and better, not only for you now, but in the long run.

So please keep on lobbying in the professional way that you're doing because the lobbying that you started back with the Liberal government in 2015, look how far we've progressed. So keep up the lobbying, keep up the good work. Above all, thank you very much for keeping us all so safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Speaker.

You know we've had some legislation come through the House where it's a back-and-forth debate, if you will, but this one is a no-brainer, of course. This one protects a lot of people throughout the province, a lot of important people throughout our province. I mean everybody is important.

I am very proud to be part of the Grand Falls-Windsor volunteer fire department, which is one of, in my opinion, the most organized volunteer departments across Canada, in the country. Of course, Chief Vince Mackenzie, who puts a lot of work into that, he's been on every board and regulatory board across the country. He's devoted his whole life to firefighting, so I want to thank him.

I'd be remiss if I didn't thank also assistant chief Dave Byrne in Grand Falls-Windsor, who is celebrating 50 years this year as an active firefighter. So that's something to be said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. TIBBS: We enjoy having Dave out there, the assistant chief.

The importance of firefighters, it's absolutely – over almost 6,000 volunteers across the province and another 4,500 paid men and women, it's absolutely amazing. We want to make sure that those numbers continue and that's the biggest thing. We want to ensure that we have healthy volunteer fire departments and, of course, incentives like this will do just that. It'll ensure that these people are protected as they move forward and we want to make sure that they know it.

We're up to 19 altogether presumptive cancers moving forward. I agree, we look at a hard date here of December 18, 2019. I know that there has to be a date come down, obviously, but if we're talking about a fund that's up to 112, 110 per cent, I think the government could definitely take a look at that. Because it's an awful hard pill to swallow for somebody who's diagnosed on December 17, 2019, and now they are completely excluded. Again, I know we can't go back 30 or 40 years, but with these young firefighters, 30 or 40 years old that may run into some complications, I'm sure we can definitely look back and try to protect some of those a little bit further back from 2019.

The firefighter's family as well – and my colleague just alluded to it – they're along for the ride. When a firefighter gets up at 3 in the morning and takes off, he leaves a wife in bed, or when a lady takes off she may leave a husband in bed, to wonder where they're gone, to wonder what's happening to them. They lay in bed, their kids and whatnot, and they wonder what happened to their loved ones, as they're gone. Knock on wood that they all come back nice and safely sort of thing.

But when a firefighter gets sick, the family goes along for the ride and it can be a lengthy ride. We want to make sure that this legislation covers everybody to the extent that it can. That's what we're hoping here today.

Another thing I want to talk about, though, is training. Firefighter training can be just as exhausting – or sometimes more exhausting – than taking on the fire itself or any acts and whatnot. I'm not sure what these regulations do around training, especially when it comes to the cardiac piece, which is not retroactive. I get it; it's from the end of an event for a fire, 24 hours. I get it; I get the numbers sort of thing.

But in order to do their jobs correctly and safely, these firefighters need to do the proper training as well, which can be very vigorous. So in Committee we can ask about that, but I would like to see some legislation around that as well, because these training sessions can be – you need quite a bit of endurance to get through them. I've done it; I've seen people do it. We want to ensure that they're taken care of for everything as it encapsulates it all.

PPE has come a long way, whether it be our SCBAs – and I hear the stories back in the '80s and whatnot when it was just the boots, the jacket and the helmet sort of thing. We've come a long way. We definitely have. But a lot of people don't realize that it's not just – with the SCBAs, a firefighter goes into a structure, sure, their lungs are protected then, but those carcinogens stay on firefighters' clothes, they stay on their equipment and, oftentimes, it gets carried back to the station.

Thank God now that we have a lot of things in place to prevent this when it comes to cleaning fire gear. Back in the day, the fellow that had the dirtiest gear sometimes was looked upon pretty proud, but nowadays you have to make sure you keep everything clean.

One great thing I know we have in Grand Falls-Windsor – and I hope it's throughout most departments – are fan exhaust systems for a truck when they're coming in. You wouldn't believe how long it would take, very, very quickly for a fire hall to fill up with exhaust. That stuff gets into your lungs and gets onto your clothes. We don't want any firefighters to take that home with them; we want to leave it at the fire scene where it belongs.

We've definitely come a long way, but unfortunately it is a very hazardous job. It can be a very difficult job and dangerous job. We want to ensure that we have the backs of all the firefighters throughout this province, as they have our backs when we go to sleep at night.

We all go to sleep knowing that in a moment's notice they're going to show up. They don't ask questions, they just show up. We're very proud of that, we're very happy for that. But again we want to ensure that this legislation encompasses as much as we possibly can. So, again, I would urge the government to go back and take a look at that. Like I say, it's a hard pill to swallow if you're diagnosed on December 17, 2019, as a young man or woman firefighter to know that you missed it by a day. So I would encourage government to take a look at that again.

There's lots of equipment necessary as well for firefighters to ensure that they do their job safely. I want to thank the Minister of Justice. We put in for a new air compressor this year for Grand Falls-Windsor for the fire department. It's very important, of course. His department made it happen. I want to thank him for that and his department, because it's very important.

It happened right around, of course, when we had our wildfires in Grand Falls-Windsor in Central and now we're going to get that new compressor. So hopefully it's there sooner than later.

The housing materials throughout everybody's house and dwellings, whatnot, it's not structures like it was before. There are a lot more plastics, a lot more electronic sort of thing, so there are more hazards today I would argue. The structures aren't built quite the same. They're pretty flimsy. You look floor joists, whatnot. A firefighter today, in my opinion, he definitely has way more equipment and more PPE, but I think that the job is a little bit more difficult today than it may have been years ago.

Again, I just want to thank all the firefighters throughout the province. I want to make sure this legislation doesn't get lost and it encapsulates as much as we possibly can. Of course, I definitely support this piece of legislation. I'm sure my party will support this legislation. I'm sure the people across Newfoundland and Labrador will support this legislation as well. I want to thank the minister for bringing it forward because this one, we're going to knock it out of the park and ensure that the people that take care of our backs at night are going to be taken care of during the day.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to speak briefly on this. I guess it's plainly visible or aware that I'm not a firefighter. I'm not a volunteer firefighter, but myself, along with the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, a number of years ago, maybe five years ago, we went and did the fire ops program.

AN HON. MEMBER: 101.

P. DINN: Fire Ops 101. It was very, very much an eye-opening day. It was a fabulous day and we went through, I think, it was five drills. One was using the jaws of life to take a dummy out of a car. That was –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. DINN: See, you get it from the riff-raff. That wasn't so bad, that was probably enjoyable, cutting up a car and hauling a dummy out.

We repelled down the building. Again, not so bad. We did a role-play, which wasn't too bad, but what really struck home with me was when we had to put on the gear. We had to put on that helmet and we put on the gear and the breathing apparatus and the tank on the back. It was a pretty warm day to start with, and it got a lot warmer then.

I'm there with the firefighters, men and women – some bigger than me, some smaller – and they're doing a hell of a lot better than I am in the gear. So we had to carry a charged hose up three, four or five flights of stairs. Not so easy. Not so easy at all, and the last drill – the minister can agree with me – there was a lot of people who opted out of the last drill. The last drill was going through a tube. It seemed like it was 100 feet long but it was probably 10 feet in a dark, smoke-filled room to get out on the other end, beat down some gyprock and rescue someone.

I can tell you, for me, and I suspect for the minister, we're probably the same size, I would say. We are small, more or less. Worming your way through that pipe in a controlled environment, I can tell you was a bit stressful and there were some that never did it. Wouldn't go; not doing it. I talked to some of the firemen and the firefighters that were there and just listening to them tell the stories and, of course, we talked about mental health which was a huge issue for our firefighters. You know, we expect them to be – nothing hurts them. But I am telling you, mental health issues you take home with you and that was a big issue.

I was talking to one firefighter who was probably a foot taller than me and I said: How do you get through – how do you do this? And he actually hauls the apparatus off his back and pushes it through ahead of him. I can't imagine. But it gave me a real, real appreciation for what our firefighters do on a daily basis for us. They're going into situations where it's unknown, in many cases. These were just controlled drills we were doing.

So I can't imagine how they do it on a daily basis and what they go through and what they put themselves through. As the Member behind me said, when many are running away from the fire, they are running to it and they're going into these buildings and rescuing someone, where they really don't know where they are when they go in.

These are men and women who have families at home and they're risking their life and limb to go save people. So when I look at this bill, this is a very positive bill; this is a very common sense bill and we have to realize nobody's won the lottery here. Nobody's won the lottery. This is what our firefighters should have had. This is what they deserve. This is what they deserve for putting their lives on the line every day.

The lives they save, this is the least we can do for them. I know there has to be a drop-dead date in terms of when something comes into effect or not, but I would really like to see government look at this and at least drop it back to the December 2016 date, when the act was initially amended to add some presumptive cases. Because like my Member behind from Grand Falls-Windsor had mentioned, what do you do for that individual who is December 17, 2019, and the ones after. Again, I understand there has to be a cut-off point, but why not take it back to December 2016, when it came into effect, the initial amendment was made to add presumptive cases.

Again, very positive, very common sense piece of legislation. I have no doubt it will be unanimous in being approved today. I can't see anyone not agreeing with this. I really do want to say thank you to all our firefighters here and throughout the province and throughout the world, for that matter. Every time you turn on the TV and there's a disaster of some sort, it's a firefighter that's there first, in many cases. I really appreciate what they do. I'm sure we all do. This is a good piece of legislation. I'm glad to see it here, and let's move it along and let's consider what more we can do for our firefighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand in this House today and speak to Bill 12 in second reading. I'm not going to take too much time; I'm not going to reiterate what has been said already today. This is a good piece of legislation and we will support it, and I'm happy to do that.

I want to speak to the personal aspect of a firefighter. As my colleague from Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans said, when the call goes off and the spouse or children are left at home. Well, I'm going to flip that, Speaker. My son Zacharey is a seven-year member of Pouch Cove Volunteer Fire Department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

So for my son Zacharey, for my father-in-law Lester, who is a 25-year, retired, member of St. John's Regional, and for my constituent assistant, Barb, whose son Kyle is a current member of Corner Brook Fire Department, this is all important and it hits home to know that the coverage is there now for that additional coverage for the 450 career firefighters, the 5,900 volunteers in our province who are the heart and soul of the 40 districts in this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. WALL: It is those that we keep in mind today. When I look at the two departments in my district, Pouch Cove and Torbay, I have spoken about them many times in this House and you have all heard me say that I am very proud of those two departments. The members that are there, Chief Sullivan and Chief Gaudet in Torbay, I realize the stress that they're put under, under a political position, being chief.

The work that they have to do – it was said earlier about the detailed records that have to be kept. Well, those two individuals keep detailed records on each and every member, of course, when they respond to house fires, structure fires, car accidents, MVAs, high-angle rescues and what have you. All these individuals respond to those calls and both chiefs do keep detailed records. In addition to that, they have the care, welfare, safety and security of their department first and foremost. I would like to thank both of those members today.

Speaker, yesterday in the House, I was proud to speak to the Town of Pouch Cove and with respect to their code of conduct. I'll also go to the Town of Pouch Cove today, when I was mayor, I certainly enjoyed my municipal political career for 7½ years. It was during that time that we brought in the extra coverage for the Pouch Cove Fire Department because we saw the need that was there and we saw the need to protect, not only the members of the department, but as my colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans said, the family members who are left behind or who are waiting for them to come back from each and every call.

I am glad that my council of the day took the opportunity to bring that forward for the members. I am so glad that this hon. House is bringing forward this legislation today. It is important for each and every one. As I said, I won't go over what was said already today but I wanted to say how proud I am to be part of this today and how it is going to affect so many families across our beautiful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, I thank you for your time and, of course, for the government Members' attention.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 12. I, too, will be supporting it. I'm sure there is nobody in this House of Assembly who wouldn't be supporting it; it is the right thing to do. I think back on – there's been a few times in this House of Assembly over the years where you did something that you felt that we were all on the same page and we were doing the right thing for the right reasons.

I recall the last time we had been dealing with a matter relating to firefighters and emergency responders. PTSD, that was one of them; disabilities act was another, I'll say, feel-good moment, I think, where we all felt that we were on the same page and doing the right thing for the right reasons. No controversy, no disagreements, unanimity across the way, and we don't often see that here in this House of Assembly.

A lot of times a lot of bills come before this House, there's a lot of debate, a lot of controversy and I could think of a couple of bills that we debated just very recently that certainly had a lot of diverse opinions, and strong opinions on one side or the other. But this is certainly not one of them. This is another time, as been said, where we can all, in a united way, do the right thing for the right reasons.

This one here, for me, I think – and I don't want to be too repetitive, as other Members have made a lot of the same points. But I think the one thing that comes to mind, when we brought in legislation a while back that brought in some presumptive cancer legislation but was for other types of cancer, we're simply adding to it, is what we're doing, to the list. It's very unfortunate that we would have to add to this list but it is the reality of the profession and, unfortunately, it is what it is.

I can remember when we passed the bill a while back on presumptive cancer and speaking to some people in the community who – I guess it was in the media and so on. People generally were obviously very supportive of it, as I'm sure they will be of this. But a couple of people kind of challenged it a little bit, and said, I appreciate what you're doing for the firefighters there but shouldn't we be concerned about the safety of all workers and why are we singling out a particular group.

The response I gave at that time and I will say now again when it relates to this, is that in a regular workplace – I'll call it a regular workplace – it's guided by the Occupational Health and Safety Act , regulations and so on. There are all kinds of policies, there's training and so on. Employers have a responsibility to maintain a safe workplace, to train employees. If there are chemicals on the workplace, they all have to be trained in WHMIS. They all have to be given the PPE, engineering controlled ventilation, all of those types of things. Everyone has to be made aware of what the hazards are, how to protect themselves and so on.

So you have all those measures in place. But in the case of firefighters, while there are all professionally trained, obviously, in hazards and they do have their PPE and so on, the respirators and so on that they would be wearing, the reality of it is that there's no possible way they can know, in any given time, what they're going to face. And if you have a building and it's on fire, there's no real guarantee.

Now, they do have protocols in place – certainly St. John's Regional does. I can't speak to other fire departments, and certainly not volunteer departments across the Island, but I know that with St. John's Regional that they do have a process in place where they go around to a lot of the buildings and warehouses in the St. John's-Mount Pearl area and they do pre-fire plans. Where there's actually someone going in to find out exactly what's going on in this building, what is the layout of the building, what are the hazards in this building and what kinds of chemicals would be in this building and so on.

It can be a helpful tool, but then again if you're at the fire hall and at 3 in the morning all of a sudden the alarm goes off and you're being dispatched to the scene of a fire and you have to jump out of the bed into your bunker clothes, down the pole – if it's a station that has a pole. Old Central used to; I'm not sure about the new one. They're probably all gone now. Anyway, whatever the case might be. On that truck and on the scene within four, five, six minutes, whatever the case might be. You don't have time to contemplate all those things; you are just sort of out there, Johnny-on-the-spot. As has been said, when people are running away they're running into the hazard.

So it's not like a regular workplace where you have all this time to sort of consider what are the hazards and put all these other measures in place and everything else to keep everyone safe. You are running into an emergency situation, and that is the difference. That is the difference when you talk about having a special provision for workers' compensation and so on for firefighters, or having a special provision for emergency responders. That's the reason why those special provisions are there; that's why they're necessary. Because we are expecting people to run into the face of danger. While everyone else is running from danger, we're expecting them to run into danger.

It's important, obviously, they have training and they have equipment and so on and everything that they can reasonably have to keep them safe. It's a part of their job and it's a responsibility, certainly, of management within the fire service to ensure that the firefighters have all the training, have all the skills, have all the tools they need, have all the personal protective equipment and so on to keep them as safe as possible; but the reality of it is that it's a very uncertain situation. Realistically, you don't know what you're getting into.

There are lots of chemicals that you will find on lots of sites and fires and so on, chemicals that can have different reactions and chemicals that can react together. Nobody knows, necessarily, what impact that is going to have on you after the fact.

I know prior to getting into politics, professionally, I worked as an OHS. That's what I did for a living. I can recall that trying to get employees on board with Occupational Health and Safety to protect themselves, to wear personal protective equipment and follow procedures and so on, it was a lot easier to convince a guy if he was up no scaffolding and he was up 20 or 30 feet, a lot easier to convince him you need to have a harness on and be tied off because, guess what, if you fall, you're going to die. He could get that.

It is a lot harder to convince a guy that was doing some welding and it was just a bit of welding smoke around that he needed to wear a respirator. Because he said: No, that won't hurt you; I've been doing this for years. But what he didn't necessarily realize was it's not what that smoke was doing to you at that point in time, it's what it was going to do you and the impacts it would have 20 years down the road or whatever, when you develop some kind of a lung disease or lung cancer or whatever the case might be.

Firefighters, while they are very safe in what they do and they're very well trained, the reality of it is they're still going into those uncertain circumstances and there are all kinds of smoke around them at all times, not to mention the fact that even when they're at a fire and they leave the fire, whether they're going back to the station or they're taking a break, whatever they're doing, and they take that mask off, and you have all this particulate and so on that's all over their clothing and so on that potentially could cause them harm, which is why they have policies in place about cleaning of equipment, cleaning of their bunker suits and so on, but that's another real risk.

So they can have all these policies, procedures and training in place to mitigate the risk, but I would contend that firefighters, it would be impossible to totally eliminate the risk. It cannot be done. There's no way they can do their job and not be at some form of risk. Just like it's impossible for a police officer.

They can have all the training and pepper spray and weapons and everything else, but if you're asking them to do their job, to go to some situation where there are guns involved or there's an armed robbery or something, they can follow all the procedures they want, but there's no way that you're going to totally eliminate that risk. It cannot be done; it's inherent to the job, and firefighters are the same way.

That's why we have to treat them a little differently. That's why we have to recognize that there is inherent risk to their job that does not exist in other professions. That's why this piece of legislation, of course, is being brought forward today to add to the list of presumptive cancers that have been identified through medical professionals, scientists, whatever the case might be, to say that if you are a firefighter, knowing what you're going to face, knowing the hazards that you will inherently face and be exposed to no matter what you do, that there is a risk of these types of cancers.

If we're going to expect somebody to literally put their health, safety and life on the line, then we have to be prepared to support them on the back end if anything goes wrong – them and their families. That's what we're doing here today. I'm certainly proud to do so; I know all Members are. I thank the minister for bringing forth this very important piece of legislation. I think we all agree today that we can all feel like we're doing the right thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

I certainly won't take very long here today. I just wanted to get up and have a little say on this as well. It has impacted the district as well on Bill 12. My wife was the first firefighter in Witless Bay in the volunteer fire department when she joined in I'm going to say, '90. She was the first woman volunteer firefighter in the area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: My daughter joined as well, I will say. Before she went to England, she was a volunteer firefighter for five years. So a pretty proud moment when you get a chance to speak.

I'm going to say Saturday night in the Goulds, I was at a volunteer firefighting event, as we all do in our districts, and you're there listening to the people speak in the district as well. While you're there having a beer and having a dance at the time, five or six firefighters are running out through the door, and I'm saying they got a call now. Sure enough, they had a call, a motor vehicle accident. They never know what they're running into to. So it's pretty important bill that you have here today, taking care of those people in these events. It's certainly something that I support and I'm sure we all do.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: If the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL speaks now, we will close debate.

The hon. Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.

B. DAVIS: I had to jump up, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure – I was so excited that I got to the opportunity to thank all my colleagues. I was going to list everybody but I'm not going to do that. I'm going to give an opportunity for those who didn't get the opportunity to speak; I'm going to try to sum up that we're all supportive of what we're doing here, on both sides of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. DAVIS: I'd like to take it one step further. I think we should all stand up and give an ovation to the people that we have here in the stands, but all the 6,000 or more that are not.

(Applause.)

B. DAVIS: These are some of the faces that we see. Everyone had such great comments; I don't want to summarize what everybody has said. I know we have an opportunity when we do in Committee to have questions and I look forward to that.

I do want to address a couple of little things that we can do, a little bit previous to that. Every person that works in the province has the ability to apply to WorkplaceNL to receive benefits. I just want to make sure everyone understands that what we're doing here today is a presumption that, in relation to their work, they're getting this coverage.

They could always apply for it, but as I think the hon. Member for Exploits mentioned, that there were more of hoops they had to jump through. We're trying to remove those, and that's why we're trying to do that. So I don't want to leave the impression that there was no opportunity for coverage; this just expands it, makes it a little bit better.

I do want to take the opportunity to say thank you to the Member for Topsail - Paradise. We did do Fire Ops 101.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

B. DAVIS: We struggled during that, yes, it was quite – he's exactly right on what he said. Some of the things that you see firefighters do in general terms look a lot of fun. Like cutting a top of a car, sounds fun. It is fun. Coming off the side of a building, even if you're afraid of heights, like me, it's fun. But I can guarantee that when you go in a confined space, in a controlled situation, trying to get over and under things, through, as he calls it, a tunnel – and I know that if I reached out, one of these people here who were there, I could grab them.

It was still very, very nerve-racking and that's going into a controlled situation where each and every person goes in, knows full well that they are completely supported; nothing bad is going to happen. That's not what our firefighters, whether career or volunteers, face every day. That's now what they face.

It's great that they're well trained, which is very important. I thank the union for the great work they do on that. It's an amazing amount of investment they put into the firefighters that are there. Thank you to the association for volunteer firefighters as well. They put an awful lot of work in. The MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans mentioned some of the items of that; that they're all well trained. We want to make sure they're well trained. We want to support them as much as we can and I know the minister responsible for Public Safety and Justice does as best he can, given the budget that we do have with respect to that.

I don't want to give the impression that what they do is easy by any stretch. It's not and it's different than some of the other professions that would be in the scene with them. They're going into this where their clothes, their PPE they have does not protect them fully from the carcinogens they have to breathe in, work with and go around. That's the difference. That's the rub that's a little different than other first responders that are there. They're not saying that those first responders are not important because they are and they're very much important to me and this government and everyone in this House. But that is a difference.

I could go on and on about this, but I'm not going to because I know how uncomfortable those chairs are. So I do want to sit down and just say thank you to the firefighters that are here in attendance but the many thousands that are not here, this is for them and thank you to my colleagues for the support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 12 now be read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: A bill,

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

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

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

S. CROCKER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on today, Tuesday, October 18, 2022.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye,

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 3.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 3,

An Act Respecting Pay Equity for the Public Sector and Pay Transparency for the Public and Private Sectors.

A bill, “An Act Respecting Pay Equity for the Public Sector and Pay Transparency for the Public and Private Sectors.” (Bill 3)

CLERK (Barnes): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

It's becoming customary now that I do acknowledge somebody from my district who I know is watching. With the Chair's permission, I just want to acknowledge someone who's very interested in pay equity legislation in the District of Bonavista: a lady by the name of Tammy Keel, who is watching this afternoon. I just want to reference her son Keon, who's a Grade 12 student who would be watching right now, being home, and again, I would say very interested in pay equity as well.

Just one 10-second note would be is that when he watched it previously, the thing that stood out in his mind was how many times we used the word “Speaker” in the House, which is customary in our system. But he did note that.

And we don't play cornhole in the District of Bonavista. In fact, I've never heard of it, but I'm sure it's a good game. My colleagues here on this side are talking very highly of it, so it's a game that I've got to learn.

Pay equity is probably a little more than equal pay for work of equal value. I know in The Telegram and the SaltWire reporter – and I think I can mention her name, Juanita Mercer, who was the reporter of the articles that came out. I know she was asking the questions on pay equity significantly and I know that she had asked the Premier. The Premier's response was that this fall we would see a piece of progressive legislation that would be brought to the House.

We support Bill 3. We support initiatives into pay equity. I think we all stand with that, but I would say the realization would be that there are many disappointed that it didn't go as far as what the expectations were. And where did the expectations come from? It may not have come from consultation, because some were questioning that we may have been a little short on consultation. The minister probably addres