PDF Version

November 6, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 85

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Gambin-Walsh): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that in accordance with Standing Order 65, the Public Accounts Committee shall comprise the following Members: the Member for Exploits, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the Public Accounts Committee Members shall be the Member for Exploits, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

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 Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Motion 12, second reading of

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, Bill 82, and I further move that this bill be read a second time, seconded by the Member for Waterford Valley.

SPEAKER: It's been moved and seconded that Bill 82,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 82)

SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

Good morning, Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to bring forward amendments to the Labour Standards Act . This act is designed to protect workers by requiring employers to establish conditions of employment that meet minimum legislated standards.

This government is committed to ensuring labour standards legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador balances the needs of both employers and employees. The act currently provides employees with seven days of unpaid sick leave per year, as well as several job protected leaves in the act such as parental leave, leave related to critical illness and pregnancy leave.

Speaker, the proposed amendments will introduce leave related to long-term illness, long-term injury and organ donation, which will provide job protected leave without pay for employees for up to 27 weeks. This extends to 104 weeks of employment for employees who were a victim of a crime.

Stakeholders such as the Cancer Society and Diabetes Canada have advocated for this change to ensure job security for sick and injured workers. The leave aligns with the federal employment insurance sickness benefit, which offers 26 weeks of benefits. We have added one additional week, Speaker, for the waiting period.

The requirement for leave related to long-term illness, long-term injury and organ donation include that the employee has been continuously employed with the same employer for 30 days; extended medical care or recovery time is required and certified by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner; and proof that the employee was the victim of a crime that result in an injury or illness, if applicable.

Employees eligible for this leave will be entitled to up to 27 weeks in a 52-week period or up to 104 weeks in a 104-week period, if related to a criminal offence. Leave must be taken in periods of at least two weeks in duration.

Speaker, we also propose to amend the act to strengthen unpaid leave for reservists. The act currently has job protected leave for reservists in place; however, the Department of National Defence reserves employer support program has advocated for a harmonized national standard.

To meet this request, we propose: reduce the minimum duration of civilian employment from six months to three, include military training as eligible for reservist's leave; limit leave to 24 months in 60 months with exception provided for national emergencies; reduce the notice of leave period from 60 days to 30 days; and extend the notice period a reservist or employer must provide if the return-to-work date is expected to change from two weeks to four.

Speaker, these proposed amendments to the Labour Standards Act ensure that employers who have to be off work for extended periods of time can do so without the added burden of worry related to job security.

I was thinking as I was driving in, the last thing somebody needs after getting, for example, a cancer diagnosis is to worry and they have to be off, if their job will be there when they get back, on top of all the other stress.

Whether a worker needs unpaid time off to recover from an illness, injury or organ donation, or if they are preparing to serve their country, it is important that we recognize the need for job protection during that time.

I would ask, Speaker, that all Members of the House of Assembly endorse those amendments to the Labour Standards Act, which lays the foundation for enhanced job protection for employees while supporting business entities with better continuity planning.

I certainly look forward to the debate on the successful implementation of those important legislative standards.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It's good this morning to get up here and talk about Bill 82,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act. It gives protection to employees, certainly for more job security, if they got the leave for illness or recuperating from injury. It provides some assurance, or it provides protection to the employees that need that.

There are supports for long-term injuries, especially for non-unionized employees. We all know that recuperating from injuries or illnesses can be a burden to families, especially that injured worker. It can be a burden to the employee who are trying to provide for their family and need some reassurance that they can continue to do what they've always done in those cases. So it's good that we can support those workers in those times of need and this bill will certainly provide some of that assurance.

We'll support the bill, no doubt about that, but we'll certainly have some questions when it comes to the Committee stage. The overview is that this bill will amend the Labour Standards Act to enable non-unionized workers in the province to take unpaid long-term illness, long-term injury and organ donation leave. It also provides the ability for reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces to take unpaid leave when it is necessary to prepare for deployment or in any national emergency risk without risk of losing their jobs.

This legislation is making sure that employees have jobs to return to, especially after long-term illness or injury, or organ donation. So it's nice to have the commitment there that they'll have a job to return to and they're provided protection while they're on leave protection.

The background for this was that these legislative changes follow public consultation. The Canadian Armed Forces were consulted as changes in the bill will allow part-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces to advance their military skills and careers with further protections, establishing and maintaining their civilian employment. Regarding long-term unpaid leave for illness, injury and organ donations, groups such as the Canadian Federation for Labour and Cancer Society will be consulted, so that was good in those terms.

So, in

summary, the amendments within this legislation will seek to rectify the following: To provide non-unionized workers in the province to be able to avail of the right to unpaid long-term illness, injury or organ donation leave while protecting their job. This adds 104 weeks of unpaid leave available to those injured or ill as a result of a criminal act. It enables members of the primary reserve to avail of unpaid long-term leave associated with deployment training or deployment. This is to align with other jurisdictions in Canada.

This bill will add to the reassurance to employees to have that type of protection. I'll just take my seat now and we'll wait for the Committee and we'll certainly have some questions in Committee stage.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

It's an honour to speak to this bill, and I need to compliment the department and the minister for bringing it in. I'm going to focus on just the one element of this Bill 82 today and that's relating to reservists and the accommodations, the changes, the enhancements that the minister indicated nationally that has been asked for as we try to harmonize how we support those who want to stand in harm's way and support us in their role as a reservist.

I'm also speaking today, and I guess it's my first opportunity to speak, as a parliamentary secretary of this new unit of government known as Veterans and Military Relations. I started that a few months ago. I must say, it's an incredibly busy place to be. There are all matters of expectation, needs, opportunities for lobbying and enhancement. I'm pleased to take it on. It's been very rewarding and here we are today, the day after a very dark day in the United States, but nevertheless we're making progress in terms of what this country can do and what role we can play in supporting our country.

I want to just mention for a second, because I look forward to over the next several weeks, months in this role in supporting military and veterans in terms of how we are approaching it, I think of it in terms of four time frames. First of all, in aspect of just look at the lifecycle, if you like, of recruiting. Everything from cadets, how do we encourage people to consider enlisting as a regular force or as a reservist, Canadian Ranger and so on, the different roles and capacities. So that whole time frame, what can be done there to enhance the great shortfalls that we have in our country right now.

There is also the whole aspect of supporting those who are currently serving, again, in these different roles. Whether they be overseas, here in our country, in responding to natural disasters, it's all the wraparound services and so on. This is not to replace the obligations of the federal government, but to see what we can do as a provincial jurisdiction and as a secretariat in terms of supporting those efforts.

Our veterans – I'm wearing a poppy. I'm very proud to say that today all of my colleagues in this House, and as I look around society, we are all recognizing what our veterans have done before us, what they're doing now and the need to support them – a very important part.

Then, to wrap it up, a very important aspect, that I feel goes right back to the whole recruitment phase is how do we pay our respects to those who are no longer with us, that have served this place, this province, this Dominion and our country. Paying due homage and respect to them is upper most in our thoughts.

I need to mention, just briefly, but I feel that the emotions I shared with all of my colleagues in this House, on the 1st of July as we watched the repatriation of the Unknown solider was truly a remarkable day. I was proud to be there with all of them. I could feel it across the entire province, as people still remark on the importance of doing that and establishing, recognizing our national War Memorial but also the repatriation of this Unknown Solider who gave so much.

So you're going to hear me speaking, if you haven't already, about this four time frames. I'm pleased to say today that the minister has brought through several changes that are going to result in, I feel, a great enhancement in terms of supporting those who are already there, but I also feel it would be a great attraction. When folks see that they can – as a reservist, by the way, I'll go to that. A reservist is essentially a citizen of our country who combines the military career with a civilian career. So for those who would like to do both and willing to give up so much of their time, this will make it so much easier.

I must say when I took over the position and started sitting with staff and looking at briefing documents and so on, this particular element about enhancing opportunities for those who want to do both was right there under the spotlight. So I was really happy to see these changes.

Military reservists can respond to a war zone. This is not part-time, in terms of a hobby. This is a very serious dedication that our reservists in our province make. They actually can very much be in harm's way. Often in support capacities, but it also could be in other roles. It's very important that we think about that, whether it be patrols, guard duties and so on.

It's interesting as I think about these four – may I just use the term – buckets of energy or fronts of activity that we need to deploy in this new secretariat, I'm thinking about the fact that – and just looking at some of the senior officials in our country – they're talking about the current shortfall of some 16,500 personnel. The minister of National Defence, the hon. Minister Bill Blair, just recently identified that 16,500 shortfall.

If you start thinking about the NORAD modernization plan, which we're going to speak to a little bit this afternoon, it also suggests that we need another 14,500 people involved in our forces. From a reservist perspective, we should be at 30,000. We are so far short of that now. So there are huge demands and I see this as a great incentive.

Certainly, aligning the provisions to this act will relay to providing unpaid leave to members of the reserve force with other jurisdictions. It's interesting, you know, the lobby effort, the advocacy that we felt and the department responded to, with the minister, is to bring us in line with other provinces and territories across the country. I think we've all been provided with the jurisdictional scan and it's great to see that on every move, we have responded.

I look forward to just seeing how this rolls out. I'll look forward to speaking to people in my own district who are involved in it.

Again, it's providing harmonization, flexibility and certainty for those employers, also, who are wanting and willing to see their own staff avail of this very important additional activity.

With that, Speaker, I think I'll stop there, but I did want to make those important points on this aspect of the changes to the Labour Standards Act because it is most important for those who are serving for us.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I do want to start by saying there are some good changes here and we do appreciate, like the Member for lake Melville said, about adding that ability to harmonize what National Defence is looking for, for reservists. That is an excellent change.

Once again, I'll say there's stuff that we wanted to see and we hoped to see but it's not in here. I do want to touch on a point there. We do talk about precarious work, gig economy. Those workers and protections are required for a lot of those that we wanted to see but we, unfortunately, don't see here. We want to make sure that people understand that there are changes that need to be made to the act on those things as well. Precarious work is a new and upcoming thing, you look at Uber, you look DoorDash, all those things, those workers do have some constraints and there are some changes there that needs to be there to protect them as well in that precarious work environment.

Another thing that we want to talk about is, obviously, extended unpaid leave, but you also have to look at the need for 10 paid sick leave days because we don't want people to be forced to go to work if they're sick to make up for their lost wages and making everyone else at work sick.

It's been known, especially if we just look at COVID, 10 paid sick days is a good start to keep people that cannot lose pay while they take time to recover from common illnesses and stuff that are spread around and making more people at work sick and then it's an endless cycle. We all know it. I look at it when my kid comes home, they picked up something at school; I'm out from work and taking sick days. But for most of us here, they can't miss a day of work. They're living paycheque to paycheque.

So that's something that we wanted to see is paid sick days in the Labour Standards Act to protect workers, but also give them the opportunity to get better, recover and go back to work, instead of forcing themselves to go to work while they're sick making everyone else at work sick. We're just creating a vicious cycle in the environment because people can't take time off right now. You know, people are living paycheque to paycheque, things like that, so that's something that we wanted to see when we're talking about amendments to sick leave and leave and all that.

This is something that we really wanted to see in here but we haven't seen. We want to reiterate to government that this is something that they really need to take serious time to consider, adding to the Labour Standards Act to give more protections for workers. This is a better thing to help workers recover but also to make sure that they still have a job to go to, but, at the end of the day, they also are not having to fall behind on bills and fall behind on other things while they're trying to make themselves better and trying to keep others from getting sick in the workplace. So these are things that we really wanted to see, things that we think should have been highly considered.

The other stuff in here, yes, these are nice changes. We appreciate the changes but there is more that can be done when it comes to the Labour Standards Act to protect workers and make work environments better for those who are sick, but we also want them to get better and to make sure that they are able to continue on and have a better quality of life for everybody. That's what we wanted to see here.

We go back also to minimum wage and that. I know it's not here but you have to look at that. Right now, the reason we're asking for paid sick days for people under the Labour Standards Act is because wages are not keeping up with inflation. People are living paycheque to paycheque, so even that all cumulates, it's all connected. We have to look at the minimum wage and a living wage. People are just not getting by.

So we appreciate the changes, they are a nice small start, but we also want to reiterate that there is other stuff that the Labour Standards Act amendments need to account for. One of the big ones, obviously, is we need to look at paid sick days in the Labour Standards Act to make a healthier environment for workers, to protect workers, but, also, we have to take into consideration the constraint that workers are under right now in this province. One of them is, they are living paycheque to paycheque, they can't miss a single day of work so they're going to work sick and when they're going to work sick, it just makes a harder environment for everybody.

So we need to take this into serious consideration. It's just something that I wanted to mention while we talk about this other stuff with leave for organ donation, leave for reservists, unpaid leave for accidents and illness. That is great for (inaudible), but we have to take into consideration that there are people – actually most people right now – with minimum protections and they are going to work sick because they have no choice because they can't miss a single day of work.

Thank you.

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

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to thank my hon. colleagues in this House who spoke to the amendments we are proposing today to the Labour Standards Act . I want to thank the Member for Exploits. I want to thank him for his support. I'll just make a quick comment in a couple of things that the Member had said, just for clarity for the House, Speaker.

The changes do apply to both unionized and non-unionized. It's mostly, I guess I would say, non-unionized that will benefit, but the Labour Standards Act does set out the minimum standards for employment for all employees in the province, and collective agreements cannot contain less than minimum standards. The other comment I want to make is that the act does not apply – just for clarity in the House – to government employees.

I want to thank my colleague, the Member for Lake Melville, for his comments. He's doing a great job with the new responsibilities that have been added to him by the Premier around the whole veterans and reservists.

This close to Remembrance Day, I would be remiss myself if I did not mention that we think about the veterans, the families, we think about the impacts that have been passed down through generations with some of the trauma of those who served and certainly not lost on us is the debt of gratitude that we do owe in July.

I hope to get an opportunity to speak more about it in the House, but in July, as part of the 75th anniversary, I did get to take 10 Indigenous students on the Trail of the Caribou and the only thing I'll share with the House today, in the interest of time, was a comment that a veteran made to me, standing near a stone of a young boy, 16 years old. I said: What keeps the fire in you of remembrance, you keep coming back? I think it was 19 times this elderly gentleman had been there.

He said: We have 116,000 of our own men in foreign soil and if we don't pass this torch on to the younger generation, they will be forgotten and that will be a tragedy of epic proportion. I just felt moved in that moment to share that, Speaker.

I also want to thank my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, for his comments. He has made some great comments. I appreciate, any time that we bring in legislation in this House, that there will always be, I guess, an opportunity that we could have gone a little further. I want to say that when we look at labour legislation, lots of things – and I'm relatively new to the department, but I quickly picked up on and coming from a small business background myself, what I was raised in, is we the work that we do, we try and strike that balance between employers and employees.

This was something that folks had long lobbied for. We wanted people who were out on long-term illness, injury or organ donation – organ donation, pardon me, is a voluntary program but still if somebody feels compelled they want to do that, we want them to be able to take the time to heal and recover and not have to worry about whether the job is there when they get back.

So I just wanted to touch on a couple of points. I thank my colleagues for participating in debate in second reading and I look forward to taking questions in Committee.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 82 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act. (Bill 82)

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

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

J. HAGGIE: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 82)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for St. John's West, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 82.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 82,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 82)

CLERK: Clause1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Yes, we do have a couple , Chair.

Who was consulted in this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

During the consultation – I don't have the actual list, but it was employers and stakeholders that had an interest in the Labour Standards Act . I did mention when I was speaking that folks like the Canada Cancer, Diabetes, Crohn's – even up to last week, and I only came into this department late July, I was still getting emails from those folks asking for those changes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Did the Federation of Labour raise any concerns about the legislation or have any additional ask?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Certainly everybody that we consulted with, including the Federation of Labour, was largely supportive of this. Even as late as last night, that was one of the questions that I asked to my folks in the department who worked on this longer than me, that there were no concerns that were raised.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Have you consulted with the local business community, and do you have an assessment of how local businesses will be able to implement this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Yes, everything we do, as I referenced earlier, is about striking a balance between employers and labours. We're, often, always concerned about the impact, in particular some of this stuff, with small- and medium-sized businesses.

What this does really today, Chair, is somebody who might have a long-term illness, a long-term injury, victim of a crime and then there's the reservist piece, may need to be off work for an extended period of time and what we did was try and align those amendments with the national standards both on the reservist side and what the federal government is doing around the EI side with they give 27 weeks, we added one week, for the waiting period.

By enshrining some of this in the act, it actually provides for continuity for the employers. They're able to plan if somebody is not coming back, if they know a couple of weeks ahead, they won't be back on that date – they have to give a four-week notice to the employer. I had another train of thought that I'm missing but it might come back to me in a moment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Given that people are now eligible for unpaid leave with protection of their job for the ones who are sick, but what about those who have to provide care for the family member. Has there been any consideration to include caretaker to be eligible for unpaid sick leave?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: That's an excellent question. Actually, there currently is, right now, leave related to critical illness. There were amendments made to the Labour Standards Act , I think it was in 2013, that is currently there right now to provide leave for caregivers of individuals with long-term illness or injury; it's in place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you.

Can you provide the definition of injury or illness?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I don't have that in front of me, but I will endeavor to get it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you.

The Canadian Armed Forces requires troops to complete several courses to be considered fully trained. Following such initial training through their many courses, one may avail to further their skills or education or advance their rank. Will all optional trainings be included in the skills training or just those required?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: In terms of your first question, I'll say to the Member of Exploits: Definition of long-term illness or injury. That will be determined by a medical practitioner.

So in terms of the reservist, that's one of the things that we're doing in this amendment, we're actually adding training. We're adding optional training. Up until now, a reservist, if they were called to go and serve their country, they obviously would be permitted that leave. But by adding in this amendment, if they decide that they want to do optional training, additional training, hone their skills, you know, we're living in a time of unrest and those people are very valuable and quite committed to their service, we want them to be able to do that and still have protection in knowing that they have a job to come back to.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Would a national emergency in context be defined as any form of domestic employment? For example, the forest fire in Central, the hurricane in Port aux Basques, if those people are deployed there, would they be compensated for that or only in times when emergencies are enacted federally?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

Was that your question?

P. FORSEY: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: (Inaudible) clause 22 now, actually, here the bill changes timeline requirement required for an employee providing notice to the employer for military leave from the current 60 days to the 30-day notice.

Was the timeline changed to align itself with forthcoming additions for long-term leave?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I think on the reservist's side it was done to just allow that flexibility for the reservist, recognizing the important work that they do, recognizing that they could be called to serve their country, that they now only have to be working with an employer for three months, as opposed to the earlier six months.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Okay, thank you.

Increases to timeline that the employer must be notified by a primary reservist on unpaid leave, if there are changes in returning date. A two-week period is increasing to four weeks in such cases where the employee does not inform the employer within the prescribed timeline, the employer may defer their return-to-work date up to four weeks, which is up from two weeks.

Why is the timeline increased from two to four?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

To answer the Member's earlier question, basically, the dates that we work with, that we put in place, reservist's leave was amended to harmonize our piece of legislation with what other jurisdictions are doing across the country. When we do a jurisdictional scan, we see a number of provinces that have also already gone down this road: Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario.

The notice from two to four weeks is that if somebody is off, that's to provide a little bit of continuity to the employer as well. So if somebody is off and they're set to come back at a certain date and normally they would give two weeks, but if they know they're not coming back then, we're just requiring that they – sort of leaning to more supportive on the business side because I know you asked earlier about businesses. So thinking about their best interest as well, we just extended it from two to four. Again, looking at what other provinces and territories are doing.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Just a couple of more questions.

What led to the timeline of 27 weeks to be decided for those finding it necessary for unpaid, long-term leave?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

Again, that was just looking at what the federal government was doing and trying to align and harmonize our proposed amendments. So EI sick benefits are 26 weeks, so we matched that and added one week for a waiting period week.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Why is it that victims of criminal actions may receive up to 104 weeks long term? How was the length of time decided upon this one?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: That's probably not an easy question to answer, but in terms of the 104 weeks, we looked at what some people who have already moved and are a little bit ahead of us in jurisdictions, what they have done. If you're a victim of a crime, you may have come out of that with physical injuries. There's no doubt about it, you're coming out of that with mental health injuries and there's a very holistic – you can be off on a long-term injury with maybe a broken leg or arm, but if you're off as a victim of a crime, there was a recognition that you may certainly need longer term off, I say that to the hon.

Member, as you work through that whole process, often PTSD trauma and things like that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

P. FORSEY: Thank you.

The timeline one must consecutively be employed by an employer to avail of long-term leave is 30 days. What led for this amount of time to be decided upon?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

Again, that pretty much aligns with the 30-consecutive days, similar to other job-protected leaves under the act. It's in the act for 30 days because it's important that before an employee needs to go off for one of the things that we're talking about in those amendments, that they be there long enough to have some history with the employer in that area.

CHAIR: Any further questions for the minister?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

When opening up the act and consulting with the Federation of Labour, they had some additional asks when it came to protections for gig workers and also adding 10 paid sick-day leave. Was this under consideration by the department while drafting these amendments as well because these were all additional asks that were asked of the government at the time?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

What I'll say to my hon. colleague across the way is that re: paid sick leave, we continue to look at this issue and what other jurisdictions are doing. And then I always just revert to my early comments about trying to strike a balance between the needs of the employer and employees.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Just an additional question. Under subsection (2), subsection (2) does not apply in cases where long-term injury was due to gross negligence on their part. How is that determined and what would you have to do to prove that in any jurisdiction or under any kind of court setting or anything like that for

section 43.43(2)?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I don't have that right in front of me; I'll get that in a moment. Are you referring to how will it be determined? Because a medical practitioner would determine that.

I also want to say in response to your earlier question about considering the more paid sick leaves, those conversations are still continuing between folks in my department right now with labour groups and employers as we look at jurisdictions like BC and Canada and what they are doing. So those conversations are certainly happening in real time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, and I appreciate that comment.

I'll ask the minister to elaborate for victims of crime offences having time off for that. It is substantially more than people donating organs or facing long-term illness. I know that they're trying to find a balance and stuff there and working through the system, but long-term illnesses can be a significant amount of time. Why wasn't that consideration made more harmonized in that situation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Again, those decisions, based on the consultations that we carried out with stakeholders, with labour groups and based on some of the things that we've heard around, I guess, the difference of victims of crime, I certainly appreciate the Member's comment that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. DEMPSTER: Chair, I'm having a lot of difficulty hearing myself here.

CHAIR: So am I.

Order, please!

Can I have some co-operation, please? Let's focus on the debate.

Thank you.

L. DEMPSTER: It's really challenging when you're trying to hear the Members and answer their questions in this debate.

CHAIR: It is.

L. DEMPSTER: I appreciate that long-term illness and injury is not cut and dry either. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention mental illness, which we're seeing more in the workplace now than we ever have.

So I appreciate that can be a long time as well in terms of working back toward recovery, but again, much of this was based on feedback and will be determined going forward as to what category folks fit in by medical practitioners.

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

P. LANE: Thank you, Chair.

I'll be supporting the bill. Minister, the act is quite extensive. I'm only seeing a couple of changes here. I'm not saying they're not needed or that they're bad amendments, but there's only a couple of them there.

I'm just wondering, when you did this review, was it specifically someone coming to you to deal with these issues or was it supposed to have been a more fulsome review of the legislation itself, everything in the legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the Member's question.

Those amendments were put in basically with a view of protecting workers who needed to be off sick. That was predominantly – so long-term illness, long-term injury, organ donation – giving someone who may, even though it's voluntary as I mentioned earlier, want to be an organ donor, ensuring that they had the time to sufficiently heal and recover before they went back to work. Having that in place for them. Then, of course, there is the reservist side, but again, consulted with stakeholders on both sides, looked across the country at what other jurisdictions were doing and looked to what the federal government is doing.

Also, a point that I wanted to mention to my colleague from Labrador West – and I had forgotten – was it's important that we note here for Hansard that anybody who feels an employer is not respecting the act and the changes that we are proposing, they still have that opportunity, obviously, to file a complaint with the Labour Standards Act . I want to mention that.

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

P. LANE: I thank the minister for that. I guess, you kind of answered it, I suppose. I'm just wondering, there are other issues that have been raised in this House of Assembly before that are not addressed here today. I know you can go back at any time and change legislation, but I would have thought that if you're doing a review and you're making changes of legislation, then you would look at perhaps other things.

A couple of things, one that came up – I know I've raised it here a few times in the past and I think it was the Loblaws strike that some of these issues kind of came to the forefront and we're talking about people working in the retail sector, grocery stores and places like that. One of those issues that I heard from workers about was the issue of split shifts and so on. This whole idea of an employee gets called in – for example, you get called in in the morning to work three or four hours and then go home and come back tonight. So your morning is gone at work, your whole day is shot because you've got to go to work in the evening time, then you've got to work in the nighttime.

On top of that, you might work in the morning and you might be scheduled to work for, say, four hours, and two hours into the shift the employer says it's not very busy now; you go home out of it. But they don't get paid their four hours; they only get paid two hours. Come back tonight.

Now, they could come back tonight or work the next night, and maybe they're scheduled to work for four hours, and they've got child care and everything arranged based on that, and all of a sudden the boss looks out and says no, we're really busy; you can't go home. Now you've got to stay for an additional hour or two hours. To which they say: Well, what am I supposed to do with my child, child care or transportation? Well, that's your problem. We're busy. You've got to stay.

So these are the kind of ways that they believe – the people I've talked to, and I believe, I agree with them – that they're really being abused as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to be called in for shifts, the shift should be what the shifts are. If they send them home early, then you should have to pay them. If they're scheduled to come in for four hours, pay them for four hours. If you want them to go home after two hours, no problem, but you're paying them for four anyway. If someone's coming in for a shift, you can't force them to stay. But this is not what's happening. A lot of these retail outlets, they're coming and going and people are just not being treated fairly.

I'm just wondering is that something – I know it's not here in this amendment – that you are aware of? Is that something that is at least being actively considered for future changes to the legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

The situation that the Member would be describing would be related to the Collective Bargaining Act, I would say to the Member. In comment to are these things that we considered, I want to say to this hon. House, this is not a fulsome review. There was not a fulsome review done at this time. The amendments today are related to job protection. They're in response to what stakeholders were asking for.

I meant to say when I got up and did my opening comments in second reading, I wanted to acknowledge people like Andrea Seale from the Canadian Cancer Society, Maria Campbell from Diabetes Canada. Those are folks that really, really wanted to see this job protection, protecting sick employees.

I appreciate the Member's comments from Mount Pearl - Southlands, but not really relevant to the amendments here today, Chair, I would say.

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

P. LANE: T hank you, Minister, for that.

I would say that collective bargaining would come into play with unionized workforces, which some are, but there's also grocery chains and retail chains, big chains, that they're not unionized. So this actual act would apply to them.

I appreciate that's not specifically what we're dealing with today, but I wanted to take this opportunity to get it on the floor once again, because employees continue to be, I feel, abused by their employer in the way they're being treated with these split shifts and come in and go home when I tell you and all this stuff. It's just not fair to them and to their families.

The other point, I just wanted to raise again for the record, is the issue of overtime, which is currently, I believe, time and a half the minimum wage. So if I have a job, I'm working, I get $20 an hour; my employer only has to pay me, I think, $22.50 for overtime which would be time and a half, if it's $15, the minimum wage;

whereas, arguably, if you're making $20 an hour, overtime should be $30 an hour. That's something else that I've had lots of employees reach out to me about that issue. Again, I'm just asking – I know it's not here – is that under consideration by the department?

CHAIR: Thank you.

Before I recognize the minister, I just want to make a comment on relevance, I'm allowing it because it's still within the context of the bill, but I take everybody's point that we're on specific parts of it.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Yes, in terms of the relevance side, yes, the Member did acknowledge it wasn't relevant.

What I want to say to the Member is that, if he has constituents that he represents that feel they're in an unfair working condition, by all means, encourage them to file a complaint with Labour Standards. They certainly have the option to do that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: I thank the minister for the response. That will conclude my questioning on it. I just wanted to get it on the floor because it is an issue.

I would say, though, to the minister, in terms of Labour Standards, they can only enforce the act as it exists. So if the act says overtime is time and a half the minimum wage, then Labour Standards is going to say, if you got paid $22.50 an hour, even though you make $20 an hour, you're getting your time and a half the minimum wage. There's nothing we can do about it. So Labour Standards is not going to help that situation. The only way the situation gets fixed, if the will is there to fix it, would be to say if you're paid $20 an hour, then if you're working overtime, you're going to paid $30 an hour.

You're going to get time and a half your regular wage, not time and a half the minimum wage.

I just make that as a comment more than a question. I thank the minister for answering my questions and I, again, will support the bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

Just in response to the comment, I would just reiterate, striking the balance between employers and employees in terms of the act, we are continuing to review. Just in my short time in the department, in the first two or three weeks, you feel like you've met with every group relevant to your department, because everybody reaches out when a new minister comes into a department. So I've been sitting with folks from the Board of Trade, I've been sitting with folks from the Federation of Labour, many groups out in community and the groups are always opposing. The job, as the Minister Responsible for Labour and my folks, is always trying to strike that balance.

I want to thank everyone for their comments here and their questions on those proposed amendments.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Any further speakers?

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 34 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 34 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 34 carried.

CLERK: Clause 35.

CHAIR: Clause 35.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I move the following amendment: That clause 35 of the bill be amended by adding immediately after the proposed 43.45(4) the following: 43.46(1) After 30 consecutive days of employment with an employer, an employee, for personal illness or injury, is entitled, in each calendar year, to paid leave for up to 10 days;

(2) An employer must pay an employee who takes leave under subsection (1) an amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated by multiplying the period of the leave and the average day's pay, where the average day's pay is determined by the formula: amount paid/days worked where “amount paid” is the amount paid or payable to the employee for work that is done during and wages that are earned within the 30 calendar day period preceding the leave, including vacation pay that is paid or payable for any days of vacation taken within that period, less any amounts paid or payable for overtime; and “days worked” is the number of days the employee worked or earned wages within that 30 calendar day period.

This is seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will recess to consider the proposed amendment.

Thank you.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole have reviewed the proposed amendment and we find that it is beyond the scope of Bill 82. Therefore, it is not in order.

Shall clause 35 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Clause 35 is carried.

On motion, clause 35 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 36 to 41 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 36 to 41 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 36 through 41 carried.

CLERK:

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act. (Bill 82)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The title has carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 82 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

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

I know he likes that title.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much.

It helps. Thank you.

I move the Committee rise and report Bill 82 passed without amendment. It is seconded by the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

CHAIR: It is moved that this Committee rise and report Bill 82.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Gambin-Walsh): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters referred to them and have directed me to report Bill 82 carried without amendment.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 82 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

J. HAGGIE: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

J. HAGGIE: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of Bill 64,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics.

SPEAKER: The Deputy Deputy Government House Leader.

J. HAGGIE: I'm acting in all sorts of strange places today.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Corner Brook, that Bill 64,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics, be read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64 entitled,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics.” (Bill 64)

SPEAKER: The Deputy Deputy Government House Leader.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much.

Speaker, I'm pleased to get up today to introduce Bill 64. It's

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics. There has been a lot of work going on in the background and sometimes we don't acknowledge the amount of work that we see going on behind the scenes. I'd like to give a shout-out to the Department of Health and Community Services, the Health Research Ethics Authority and the research community in general in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the House is aware, the topic of health research which involves human participants is regulated by the Health Research Ethics Authority Act , which was proclaimed initially 13 years ago. That act established the Health Research Ethics Authority, whose mandate was to ensure that all health research involving human participants within the province is conducted in an ethical manner, and to enhance public awareness of the ethical dimension of health research involving human subjects.

That act requires that all health research involving human participants conducted in the province has to be reviewed and approved by the Health Research Ethics Board, or an approved research ethics body.

In 2019, Speaker, the authority commissioned an external review of the health research ethics process. The review made several recommendations to improve the Research Ethics Board, review timelines and processes, as well as to recommend improved resources, some changes to workload governance and accountability.

The authority's board of directors then commissioned, on the basis of that, a legislative review of the act and, in 2019, the Department of Health and Community Services, in turn, commissioned a Working Group to assess the recommendations of the authority's legislative review.

Upon review of the report, the Working Group then determined that more consultation with stakeholders was required. In February of 2023, those consultations were held. It included the Research Ethics Authority, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, Eastern Health, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and individual members actively involved in research in health in this province.

The result of that is this: Bill 64. It repeals and replaces the old Health Research Ethics Authority Act with a Health Research Ethics Act – slightly shorter title. The purpose of the bill, the need for it, is to update language in the act; it provides more flexibility for emerging research, including new methodologies and areas of studies; updates to the language in the act will reflect new drafting conventions – they've changed a lot in that last 13 years; it aligns the terminology in the act with a group called the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . It's a

long title, but basically this is a group of three national research bodies who have combined to produce guidelines for the ethical conduct of research involving humans and/or human biological materials in Canada. It is the gold standard and the foundation piece for health research and ethics in this country.

The act will also change reference from Health Research Ethics Board, simply to Research Ethics Board. This is a sensible thing because you can hear when I introduce the bill, there's a lot of confusion about titles between the name and that of the Health Research Ethics Authority. This attempts to inject what clarity can be. There was language in the current act which needed correcting in miscellaneous spots.

So starting at the top with governance, the board of directors will be changed. It adds two public representatives to the board of directors. It also clarifies that the chairperson of the Research Ethics Board is a non-voting director on the authority's board of directors.

The two additional public representatives have been added because the size currently of the authority's board is not sufficient to allow it to meet quorum and, therefore, render decisions as frequently as the community want. Additional representatives also give the opportunity for increasing diversity of individuals on the board so it is more representative of the citizens of this province than is currently perhaps the case.

The bill will also make changes to the authority's board of directors by providing that only the directors that are appointed to represent the public interest are subject to maximum appointment terms of three years. Although they will be eligible for a total period of no longer than nine – so they can be reappointed three times. This assists in longevity and continuity and, also, keeping the board of directors positions filled.

The bill also clarifies the responsibilities of the authority itself. They redefine the powers of the authority to better reflect its current role, which is to oversee an ethics review process and to also enhance researchers' awareness of ethical standards, rather than actual enforcement activity. It also establishes that the approved ethics research bodies must satisfy criteria established by the authority and still requires that the research ethics bodies it references be not-for-profit. It also clarifies that audits of the authority are to be performed by the Auditor General, in accordance with

section 19 of the Auditor General Act , instead of annually by an auditor appointed by the authority itself.

The next layer of governance is that of the Research Ethics Board. That will be changed to require appointments to the REB to consider persons who represent gender diversity and, also, the appointment of a member who is knowledgeable in matters related to privacy. Those were areas of skills and views that were regarded as missing. It will then allow the Research Ethics Board members themselves to select a chairperson to represent them on the authority's board. This would be the non-voting director I've already mentioned. Currently, the authority actually appoints the chair of the Research Ethics Board. This was felt to better reflect current governance practices.

It will also allow the Research Ethics Board or an approved research ethics body to conduct

summary reviews or accept ethical approval from not-for-profit boards or bodies in other jurisdictions, subject to criteria established by the authority. This means that the REB here does not have to redo work that's done by a legitimate, well-recognized ethics body in another jurisdiction. It simply has to satisfy themselves that that body is legitimate.

It requires Research Ethics Board also to appoint its committees in accordance with regulations and it also defines a category of minimal risk health research, which would be considered in the province without obtaining approval of the REB or a research ethics body in this province.

For this to apply, it would be minimal risk health research, but it has to be approved by somebody of standing somewhere in the country. So it would be a body prescribed in regulations or, alternatively, which satisfies our criteria which exists in, say, Alberta or Ontario.

Bill 64 will also clarify provisions in the act around processes. So it will clarify that the approval of the REB or another research body is required with regard to substantive changes in a research project but not necessarily minor ones. It will also recognize that the principal investigator on a trial may not actually be the keeper of the records required for audits and monitoring, may not actually have access to them on the premises where they're stored. This has been an issue because of the way some trials are organized logistically.

They will also specify that the decisions of the authority are to be made on a majority vote and it will broaden the category of persons in the authority who are protected from liability by operating in good faith.

It will also provide that the authority shall refer completed applications to the REB in accordance with regulations and add new specific regulation-making authority, because the act at the moment is pretty broad and general authority really doesn't meet the current drafting standards.

It also specifies that failure to comply with the regulations or a determination or direction of the REB constitutes an offence under this act. It will specify that the authority can charge an application fee for an assessment, and it also removes the requirement for the authority to consult with a minister, Memorial and NLHS when appointing appeal panels. This is to speed the process up and make it more flexible.

It also removes the requirement for the minister to appoint an advisory committee, instead, making it an advisory committee optional on a decision of the authority.

It amends the reconsideration and appeals process. Again, in line with this tri-council policy statement I've referenced earlier on. Under the current act, applicants do have recourse to an appeal without having to go through the reconsideration process. The tri-council feels that that reconsideration is important as a step before going to an appeal.

In

summary, Speaker, the bill modernizes the legislation to be more in line with current practices and ensures that research ethics review practices in the province are in line with national guidelines. It will help facilitate research. It is what the bodies have been asking for and it will improve timelines considerably; a problem, certainly, that was an issue some six or eight years ago. It also ensures that research will happen in an ethical manner that protects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In today's health care context, improved research is crucial to generating opportunities for breakthroughs and, thus, improving health outcomes for our residents. With this bill, I think the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can feel assured that this innovative province remains at the forefront of health research and so does this act.

So I would suggest that the Members of this House support this bill and I would be happy to listen to debate and look forward to Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm not going to be near as long as the minister just was. I said to my colleagues, and as you know, I don't hold much back, but it's very dry legislation and I've got a feeling anyone that happens to be watching or listening to this does not have the faintest – it would take a lot of reading and research.

So the minister had a lot of sheets he read, and I do respect the good staff the Department of Health and Community Services that did a great job of writing it up. Anyway, I'll leave it there. I've got a lot shorter response to it. I will have questions in Committee and, yes, here we are.

Speaker, this bill will replace, as we said, Health Research Ethics Authority Act with the Health Research Ethics Act which makes sense as it is less wordy and easier to say.

The bill is replacement legislation to govern the health research in the province. With it, makes the following changes to the Health Research Ethics Authority: increasing number of directors – and we have questions in Committees around a lot of this stuff, of course – ensures that at least one member is knowledgeable in privacy; increase the independence of the Research Ethics Authority; clarifies responsibilities; reduces red tape, which is something that we're about, for health research where the proposed research has been approved in other provinces; and allows minimal risk health research to be conducted without specific approval.

We believe in health research, but there must be a balance between science and privacy. We must have regulatory framework that encourages research but also protects the individual. Proper health and research include ensuring participants have full and informed consent, including knowledge about their personal information will be used, possible negative consequences to the participants.

Proper health research also puts the proper framework for how information is shared and stored. This legislation is important because it outlines authority that governs health research. How the body is structured will have direct impact on what research can be carried out in the province.

As I said, we have questions for Committee. I'm not going to say any more than that because, if not, I'll go even dryer than what the minister just went. So I'll leave it at that and I'll wait for Committee to have some further debate.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

For the most part, like I said, it is a lot of housekeeping in a lot of stuff there, but there is just one thing I want to mention here now and I'll have more questions in Committee about it.

It's just under the minimal risk health research, just under clause 11. It's more for Committee but I just wanted to bring it up that, some of the stuff going around the application process and how will that mesh in with other jurisdictions, the rationale behind clause 11 and how it is written and, you know, the authority with the minister and that.

So I do have some questions around that and I'll ask them in Committee, but I just wanted to give a heads up there now.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Seeing no further Members, if the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs speaks now, he shall close debate.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm interested to hear what the questions are. Yes, it is dry, but this is a crucial piece of legislation. We listened to the research community and we have acted on their concerns.

For those of you who sat in the House in 2018 and 2017, this was a considerable topic of debate and exercised a lot of the Members opposite over Question Period about processes and these kind of things.

So it is a very focused piece of legislation, but it's entirely consistent with national standards. I would be happy to entertain questions from the Members opposite in the hope that we can all receive a consensus at the end of this and move forward with the bill.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 64 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics. (Bill 64)

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

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

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 64)

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I move that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 64,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics.

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.'

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 64,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics.

A bill, “An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics.” (Bill 64)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, who was consulted on these changes? I guess a double question: How do these changes compare with the governance of health research in other provinces?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Okay, the list: Memorial University; researches in the community, what were then the regional health authorities; NL Centre for Health Information, which are now all rolled into NLHS; we spoke to community representatives; Indigenous communities; government departments; OIPC; industry rep; businesses. In addition to that, there were 15 interviews conducted with a total of 37 key stakeholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

J. HAGGIE: Pretty wide consultation. We are leading the country. We are the only jurisdiction, and have been since 2011, that actually has health research ethics enshrined in statute. They all do it in policy but the basis is the same. It is the tri-council statement. The difference is we have ours in law and they have theirs in policy.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Minister, when it comes to that, are the directors for the Health Research Ethics Authority appointed through the public appointment process?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: One moment, I think these are level two so I think the short answer is yes. If that's any different, I'll let you know, but that's my understanding.

B. PETTEN: Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Chair.

There's an appointment made in consultation with the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. What if the president and minister do not agree on that person?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That's a subject of a negotiation. Quite frankly, in the past, there have not been an awful lot of people rushing to sit on this board.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: I can see that, I guess, yeah.

Under clause 5, Chair, authorities, bylaws and responsibilities: Minister, can you give some examples of the types of bylaws the authority can enact?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Certainly, it's essentially to put in place processes and timelines. If the Member opposite remembers, in 2018, there was a legal action because the timelines were not met. So we've done two things: one is we've beefed up their resources, but the other thing is that the bylaws will specify timelines for an REB to return a decision and those kind of things. So that's process.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you.

Under the ethics board composition, the Research Ethics Board must be not less than 10 members. How many will there be? Is that where you're going to seven?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, I think I would like an odd number and, quite frankly, again, it is difficult to populate this board, which is why we have picked a number whereby some of them will be available for meetings more frequently than has been the case in the past.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: So it will probably be a larger number, but just an odd number to make sure you've got quorum, correct?

The key skill sets of these members are outlined. Who determined these skill sets? How did they arrive at that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The authority to appoint the board will rest with the Health Research Ethics Authority.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: And they'll determine the skill sets required?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It could vary from one particular application to another. Projects differ in their scope: you may need a genomics expert for one; you may need an oncologist for another. So you need to have some choice.

B. PETTEN: Okay.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Under the approval for other research ethics bodies, can you give some examples, Minister, of other research bodies that meet this criteria?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Yes, essentially, the requirements would be that they are Canadian, that they are not-for-profit and they are affiliated with either an academic health sciences centre or a university. Trillium in Ontario have research ethics boards and most jurisdictions have at least one set up at a provincial level. Some do them on a more localized level. I'm trying to remember what Alberta did but they keep changing so I'm not sure where they're up to at the moment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Under clause 11, Minimal risk health research: Minister, can you give an example of the minimal risk health research project that was approved elsewhere and thus would not require approval here?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal And Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

Firstly, they would need to go through a checklist by the Research Ethics Board, but minimal risk, the one I would use is like the start of my Ph.D. which was a questionnaire. The harm piece is minimal by filling in a questionnaire; yet, that, because it's medical and it's health related, would require, by our legislation and still does at the moment, an ethics approval.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Interesting.

Clause 13, Monitoring research projects: How will participants of research be notified if any adverse effects are determined throughout the research process?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal And Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: It's an iterative process. I mean, the researchers themselves, depending on the nature of the study, would actually have access to the data and, if not, then, particularly in drug trials where they are what's called blinded, so nobody knows who's getting what, the codes are broken at certain periods and so the researchers themselves will become aware of it. The Research Ethics Board will have a monitoring role, as well, and that would be an iterative process that would be (inaudible) over the course, of say, a drug trial.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: So to be clear, we would have regular correspondence with the participants. They would not be not notified if anything were of concern.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal And Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: You're right. I mean, it depends, the exact nature of the discussion and the frequency would depend on the nature of the trial and the nature of the material being studied, but, yes, the short answer is that both parties would be in touch with each other.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Reimbursement of expenses, clause 26: Minister, can you outline how much the expenses cost and is there any estimate for reimbursement per member?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal And Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: That would be, I think, a bylaws decision for the authority. I will check and find out what the reimbursement would be for the authority board.

CHAIR: Any further questions?

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Chair.

Under clause 11, for the engage in minimal risk health research, will there be a definition in the regulation, or should there be a definition in the legislation on what is minimal risk health research? Like you said in your time in health, a questionnaire was considered that. Is there a broader definition of that? Because where the minister could put in a regulation that could bypass some of the other application process, it could almost possibly create a bit of a loophole on getting through, like, consequentially?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Okay.

Under (

j) in the

definitions: “'Minimal risk health research' means health research in which the probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research are no greater than those encountered by human participants involved in the health research in those aspects of their everyday life that relate to the research.” It's a long-winded way of saying it's a relative harms thing.

There would be an opportunity for the REB to say well this doesn't fit our definition of minimal risk health research. Again, the foundation for this is the tri-council piece as well. But that's the generally accepted definition used in policy across the country.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Yes, and I understand that part. But I mean, like, a questionnaire is another thing, and we're just wondering because in the section, it almost creates a possible hole where you can go through the ethics body, but you can also have the minister prescribed in that, you know, a group or this project could kind of bypass it a little bit. We're wondering, just some reassurance that it is going to be pretty tight in the sense that people are protected, information is protected and that.

We just want to make sure because it kind of creates a little bit of a conundrum of things that could possibly bypass the actual – under

section 11(1)(

a) and (b), some sort of organization would need to be prescribed it versus a normal application process to conduct such research.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

The bottom line is the authority is the oversight of the board and the board is the oversight and determinant of what is inserted in this definition. A body prescribed by the regulations is one that fulfills the same criteria that we're using, which is Canadian, it's not-for-profit, and it uses the tri-council statement, TCPS 2, as its basis.

So some of these can be quite abstruse. But, I mean, for example, if you wanted to do a piece of research on, say, a skin tumour, for example, that skin tumour would be removed anyway and the risk of participating in the research – because what happened to it would happen in the lab, would be no different as to whether or not you were in the trial or not in the trial. The thing is because it uses human biological tissue, it has to get ethics approval, but it would be regarded as minimal risk under these

definitions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Under that same clause, would the authority have the right to veto the minister's regulation regarding that particular clause if there's something there? Would they be able to say, what was prescribed in regulation is kind of not matching here? Would the authority be able to say no, that's a little bit too much?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The minister and the board making regulations cannot make regulations if this act is passed that is contrary to the intent of the act. I think that's called acting illegally or contrary to regulations and, as minister, I wouldn't want to find myself in that position.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Just for clarification because the minister shall consult with the authority before making regulations referred to in the paragraph, because there's a way but there's also a way through on the other side with the regulations. So we're just making sure that there's no loophole there if a group or an organization or someone doing research can kind of work around that would be questionable and that's what we're just trying to make sure that the loophole actually isn't there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I mean this is a consultation. It's not a veto. It's a discussion. Whilst I understand your concerns, I think they are probably more theoretical than practical. As I say, the default is to look at the tri-council, TCPS 2 guidelines and, quite frankly, I don't envisage a scenario whereby they're offside with the board and/or the minister.

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.

I have one question, Minister. It's clause 13(1): “The research ethics board or research ethics body that approved the health project, (

a) shall monitor the research activities of persons engaged ....” Although (

b) says “may conduct a review ….”

Yesterday we were in the House when the Member for Corner Brook brought forward his Bill 65, “may” and “shall” was certainly two different things. So why would “may” and “shall” be used here rather not both having “shall”?

Under (

b) you have record keeping, research methodology, conduct towards human participants, but it's listed as “may.” Could you explain why, please?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

I think the standard is that shall monitor the research. If you create a requirement every time, regardless that you have to look at the record-keeping or conduct, the facts of the case are that might be onerous. But again, the review could look at other things.

The facts of the case are that each of those episodes there, record-keeping, research methodology and so on, they actually have to be stipulated in the research protocol to actually get it through in the first place. If the research strays offside with the protocol that they submitted with these criteria and was approved, then the board can pull it.

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

J. WALL: Thank you, Minister.

We all know the importance of good record-keeping. My thought initially went to it “shall” conduct a review, not “may.” That's the point I'm trying to make with respect to what we have here. And, of course, going on with conduct towards human participants and research relating to health projects, I firmly believe that should be “shall.” But I look forward to your answer on that as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: The thing is they've got to monitor it, but if the research is going smoothly and they are conducting themselves appropriately towards human participants, you wouldn't necessarily need to review it. If the monitoring, which you shall do, produces a problem, (

b) gives them the authority to decide to dig further.

CHAIR: Any further questions?

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 36 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 36 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 36 carried.

CLERK:

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Health Research Ethics. (Bill 64)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 64 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 64 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: It is moved that this Committee do rise and report Bill 64 carried without amendment.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Thank you.

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

SPEAKER (Gambin Walsh): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Chair of Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole reports that they have directed to me to report to this House that Bill 64 has been carried without amendment.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 64 without amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now?

L. DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

L. DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that this House do now stand in recess.

SPEAKER: In accordance with paragraph 9(1)(

b) of the Standing Orders ,the House is in recess until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Gambin-Walsh): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

In the public gallery today, I would like to welcome public service employees and their Grade 9 children visiting us this afternoon as part of the national Take Our Kids to Work Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today, we will hear Members' statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Humber - Bay of Islands, Labrador West, Lake Melville and Mount Pearl North.

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

E. JOYCE: Speaker,

Heroes should be recognized for their valour and unselfish acts to help others. It has been brought to my attention about a heroic act by Edward MacDonald of Frenchman's Cove in 1961, which has surfaced through an archival clip.

Three men and one boy were crossing from Woods Island to Benoit's Cove in a boat loaded with lumber and the boat became swamped. The young boy, Howard Hynes, was placed on the lumber while the three men, Albert Hynes, William Hickey and Stephen Hickey, were clinging to the sinking boat. Mr. MacDonald noticed this and sprang into action to save the three men and the young boy, which was not an easy and safe task, taking people aboard an open dory sinking. He put his own life and safety at risk to save these four individuals.

Mr. McDonald rarely spoke about his heroism, but I want to ensure the family that his heroic deed is to be commended. The MacDonald family must be proud of their dad and we commend his bravery.

I ask all Members to join me in recognizing this act of bravery, and on behalf of the MacDonald family, your dad was a true hero.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge and thank those who helped the constituents of Labrador West in their time of need this past July. We are thankful to be back in our community and as we begin to reflect on that time, we have many people to thank.

Thank you to the essential workers, the volunteers who stayed behind to help the constituents of Labrador City and Wabush, the individuals providing health care, emergency services, provided essentials to the community of Wabush and looked after family pets.

Thank you to Churchill Falls, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and surrounding communities for opening up your communities and providing shelter to many constituents of Labrador City. We'll never forget the hospitality and the enormous help you gave to both Labrador City and Churchill Falls while they were evacuated from their communities.

Lastly, thank you to the first responders, the forest firefighters, for keeping our community safe. The countless hours helping communities such as ours is remarkable. Thank you for your efforts.

I encourage all Members in this hon. House to join me in thanking everyone who helped Labrador West in its time of need during the forest fires in July.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER: I have to add that we didn't coordinate this, but it's good to hear from the Member.

Speaker, today, I salute the people of Lake Melville and their response to several serious emergencies in 2024.

Individuals, organizations, businesses and communities in my district faced and overcame great adversity. With each event, Happy Valley-Goose Bay established its emergency operations centre to coordinate the many stakeholders and support those in harms way.

On the 19th of April, a fire on the north side of the town caused a local evacuation and closure of the airport that interrupted trans-Atlantic traffic. On the 19th of June, a forest fire near Churchill Falls caused the evacuation of everyone except essential personnel. On the 25th of June, the fire jumped the Churchill River, causing the complete evacuation of Churchill Falls. On the 12th of July, another forest fire near Labrador City forced the largest evacuation in the history of our province.

Most of the 7,000-plus residents went east, staying for several days in Churchill Falls, who were glad to reciprocate, or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The YMCA, SPCA, churches, schools, 5 Wing and individual homes were ready to help. Host communities swelled on each occasion to care for our Labrador neighbours. The many new friendships that have been forged are the true legacy of this challenging year.

Well done, Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

L. STOYLES: Speaker, on Sunday, October 27, 2024, I had the pleasure of presenting 17, 75th anniversary medals to the people in my District of Mount Pearl North.

The people receiving these medals have contributed to the community in many different ways. Some have volunteered with different groups and organizations, while others have given time and their service, which has made a tremendous difference on our community while making our lives better.

I would like to acknowledge the following people: Bronda Aylward, Steve Best, Jim Bulger, Sarah and George Chafe, Tracey Dwyer, Peter and Patricia Furlong, Barbara Garland, Scott Hillyer, Sharon King, Gus Larkin, Gary Martin, Neil McLeod, Basil Meaney, Nancy Noseworthy, Patrick O'Keefe senior, Roger Learning and Rosalind Pratt.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating these individuals for their contribution to our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

K. HOWELL: Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to highlight the resources available and initiatives under way to commemorate Confederation 75 within the K-12 education system.

Our government has a cultural strategy for K-12 education in Newfoundland and Labrador titled Cultural Connections. This initiative aims to increase the presence of cultural content in the school curriculum and foster links between the arts and school communities. To enhance this strategy, and in support of Confederation 75, additional resources are available to educators through the K-12 professional learning platform.

Speaker, to complement the 75th anniversary of Confederation this House of Assembly is offering a professional development opportunity for educators on democracy, governance and citizenship.

Furthermore, in partnership with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation, Confederation 75 educational resource packages are being offered to schools and scholarships will be presented to 75 Grade 12 students in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. HOWELL: Speaker, all K-to-12 students will enhance their understanding of Newfoundland and Labrador's vibrant history and its path before, during and since Confederation. I encourage all K-to-12 educators to take advantage of these insightful resources and opportunities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for a copy of her statement.

I do want to say that my colleagues on this side of the House certainly appreciate the significance of Confederation 75. However, we're shocked and appalled that this is the priority that's being announced today on the K-to-12 school system.

Daily, we hear complaints on violence and bullying in our schools, and there has not been a peep from the minister nor this Liberal government on this. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association has called out the failure of this leadership in the Department of Education and actually called it – and I quote – non-existent.

Speaker, teachers, students, families and others are tired of empty promises, photo ops and studies without substantial improvement in the school system. We have had the Premier's task force, Child and Youth Advocate reports, PISA reports, the teacher allocation reports and now we wait for the Education Accord. How many more studies of problems facing our school system is this government going to wait for before they act?

Speaker, it is time for leadership, it's time for action and it's time for better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, like Education Accord NL, this is yet another distraction from the real issues facing our school system. What is the use of pumping out curriculum resources and encouraging all teachers from K to-12 to take advantage of them if government hasn't addressed teacher allocations, violence in the classroom, resourcing for EAL and student supports?

If the minister and this government wishes to truly commemorate Confederation 75 in a meaningful way, address those long-standing issues for both our students and our teachers. Do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for the Public Service Commission.

S. COADY: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: I'm pleased to recognize the significant contribution to the protection of merit in our province, through recruitment practices that are fair, equitable and transparent.

The Public Service Commission is responsible for many crucial programs and initiatives that help our government operate every day – from training and development to employee safety and wellness initiatives and hiring of staff for core government departments.

So far this year, more than 15,000 courses have been completed through our learning and development programs. Our ergonomics team has performed more than 150 ergonomic assessments, which contributes to the health and safety of our employees.

Today, the Public Service Commission has a head start on recruiting the next generation of public service employees. They've invited employees with children in Grade 9 to visit the House of Assembly as part of the national Take Our Kids to Work Day, and we welcome these employees and students here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. COADY: Thank you to the Public Service Commission and its dedicated employees for their service to the province over the past 50 years. I'm proud to be part of their journey as they continue to build a strong and professional workforce, while supporting the well-being of every member of the public service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, I thank the minister for advance copy of her statement.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Official Opposition, I want to thank the hard-working and diligent public service, workers who come to work each and every day in an effort to make our province a better place to live.

I thank the Public Service Commission for their administration of the merit-based principle and for promoting the public service as a respectable career. We must also remember the principle of impartiality for our public service.

Looking up, I also want to welcome the students who are visiting us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: I hope that you find your experience enlightening and that you gain a greater understanding of all the moving parts that keep our democracy running.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

We also commend the work and devotion of our Public Service Commission; their work is critical. But if we're going to build a strong public service, we're going to have to do better with recruitment of more staff and keeping the ones that we have here.

That begins with reforms to the Job Evaluation System so workers feel like they're getting fair pay for the hard work they put in. This also means investments in our universities and colleges to make sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have every opportunity to get trained right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

While the Premier was reannouncing a replacement for St. Clare's, the NLMA has confirmed the continued erosion of primary health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador saying, the crisis over access to doctors in rural areas is – quote – getting even worse.

Speaker, why is health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador not a priority for this government?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the question.

Of course health care is important to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, regardless of where they live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: That's why we embarked with multiple stakeholders on a transformational document called the Health Accord, which will take time.

Of course, we all want this done immediately, but it is going to take several years to ensure and recreate a new system that meets the modern demands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where they live, Madam Speaker. We have taken extraordinary steps to try to recruit and retain doctors in rural and remote areas in the province, including incentive bonuses of up to $650,000. That's not the pay; that's an incentive to sign up to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, the Health Accord is a good document. The problem is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM: The problem is the execution of the Health Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM: That's the problem. It's the execution of the accord.

So I ask the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member who is identified is the only Member who can speak.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

So I ask the Premier: How does he respond to Dr. Major when says – quote – if they don't change the way things are, we will see a continued erosion where family physicians leave this province to go elsewhere to work?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Speaker.

Of course we work closely with the NLMA and we respect their opinion. In fact, they were a great source of input into the Health Accord and the evolution of different payment schemes to meet the demands of family doctors in a modern environment. They have multiple options in front of them now, all which they brought to us and all that we acted on for them.

We'll continue to make sure that there are options available to them, including being part of Family Care Teams, which was a new concept a few years ago. It's working in the communities. We'll continue to grow on it. We'll continue to build them and we'll continue to execute.

We know what the Member opposite did when he was in a leadership role, a definitive leadership role: Instead of taking leadership, he decided to cut nurses and close clinics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

T. WAKEHAM: Deflect, deflect, deflect.

The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve better than that and we will give them better than that.

To the Premier's comments about the doctors being involved, Dr. Major also said: The province imposed the collaborative care model on the province without consulting with health care providers. That's not what the Premier just said.

Speaker, Dr. Major confirmed that 30 per cent of residents do not have access to a family doctor. The NLMA have been waiting since 2018 for a human resource plan.

Why is the government part of the problem and not part of the solution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

If you go back to 2016 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

If you go back to 2016, we were engaged with the NLMA about a patient medical home. This then changed into a primary care team and then became a collaborative care team. Nothing was imposed, Madam Speaker. Indeed, I have here, and happy to table it, a document from the NLMA website from the 8th of December, which is an affiliation agreement between the NLMA and NLHS and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to populate these teams with physicians.

We continue to work and our results, with the incentives, are bearing fruit. I'm happy to elaborate on that when the Member gets up again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, Dr. Major also confirmed: Physicians feel threatened and intimidated to speak out for fear of losing their job and privileges.

Is that what health care has come to in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Certainly, that's unacceptable if that's happening anywhere, that's not anything that I would endorse here or anybody in our government. If there are complaints, I suggest that those physicians bring them forward. We want to hear their voices. We want to make sure that we're enacting policies that work for them.

I can't comment on specifics. I'm not sure if the Member opposite has specifics, but I can tell you that won't be stood for. People deserve to have their voices heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Here again, these are the words of the NLMA and the president of the NLMA.

Speaker, my office continues to hear the horror stories of residents trying to get access to ambulance services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Specifically, we have been told that under the new system decisions are being made that are – quote – centrally controlled and micromanaged.

I'm aware of one senior who was discharged from a hospital at 8:30 a.m. but was not actually transported back to her nursing home until 10:30 p.m., some 14 hours later, despite that fact that the ambulance and the paramedics were parked outside the front door. This is how we have transformed ambulance services. These are routine transfers.

SPEAKER: Question, please.

T. WAKEHAM: They need to be dealt with at the local level.

I ask again: Why is this good enough?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

In line with the Health Accord, we are in the process of streamlining ambulance services. It is true, there is a central medical dispatch. This determines priorities for emergency calls and for elective transfers to home. There is a parallel system.

If the Member opposite has a particular example like that, as an MHA, he should bring that to me with an MCP number and consent and I will look into it. If he doesn't, he's not doing his job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, if the system wasn't broken, I wouldn't have to worry about hearing these stories.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: I wouldn't have to bring them if the system was implemented properly.

Speaker, I'm also aware of ambulances being routinely diverted to the Northeast Avalon from outlying areas because of constant shortages and red alerts; however, this strips away coverage from rural areas, often for long periods of time.

Again I ask: Why are we deliberately jeopardizing health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Member opposite chooses to pick at one aspect of what he's called dynamic dispatching. When an ambulance is on the run, it doesn't sit in a depot, it's out there running, working. What happens is the nearest ambulance is called to a priority call, a 911 call and to backfill that, other ambulances move into cover.

It's a dynamic process. It requires adequate management. We have the technology. We have some very skilled staff at central medical dispatch and this can be coordinated in real time, courtesy of technology we put in the ambulances about seven years ago.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Dynamic processes are not helping people in rural Newfoundland trying to access urgent medical care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Another failure.

Speaker, our office has been contacted –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

B. PETTEN: Our office has been contacted by a family of a cancer survivor with concerns over ambulance protocols for transport from their home in Whitbourne. Despite being told by her medical team to return to St. Clare's if she needed help, this lady was refused ambulance transport to St. John's.

Speaker, this family was told to return to St. John's in case of complications to access their specialist and cancer care team.

Why is government forcing this cancer patient to a facility that can't help her?

Minister, before you come back and tell me I'm not doing my job, this family asked me to bring this to the floor of the House of Assembly, so I am doing my job and we want an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, the Member opposite should finish the job he started and give me the details.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: The architects of our health care crisis themselves, in the flesh here today. The architect –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

We can waste the time.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll take no lectures from that side of the House today or any day for that matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: Speaker, this woman needs to be assessed by her specialized cancer care team, but this heartless government's policy requires this woman to go to the nearest facility in Carbonear to be assessed, then proceed to St. John's, if required.

Why, Minister, why?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Madam Speaker, no politician, no administrator makes a decision as to priorities for ambulances. That is done on clinical criteria. If the cancer doctor in St. John's feels this woman needs an ambulance to go from her home to see him or her, he can organize it. It's not a problem.

Again, if the Member opposite has specific instances, he should finish his job and bring them to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, this lady's specialized medical team was in St. John's. The only option she had was paramedics helped her husband load her into the car, their car, to make the drive to St. John's where she could be assessed by her cancer care team.

Speaker, why is government wasting time and resources, not to mention risking the woman's health, by diverting her to another facility for an assessment, then being transferred a second time where she needs to go?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I can do little better than repeat my previous answer. If the physician wanted this lady to travel by ambulance and it was a priority, they can organize it. I would suggest again the Member opposite brings the details to us and we will examine them and see where the breakdown in communications was.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Speaker, if you truly cared about the people of this province, you'd have a system in place that would deal with that sort of thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

B. PETTEN: There's no right answer to say you got to be transferred from Whitbourne to Carbonear when you're a sick person and you're care team is in St. John's – there's an answer to that; she should've been transferred to St. John's. That's what the minister should be telling me now, it's not acceptable and he will direct them in the future that will not happen again. That's what the minister should be telling us.

Speaker, this family feels her life and health is being put in jeopardy by the bureaucratic policy that denies her quick access to her cancer care team that knows her medical history and treatment plan.

Again, why is this government putting policy and cost above patient care?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: I seem to be having difficulty getting through the concept that ambulances are based on clinical decisions, not political, not administrative. If there was a need for this lady in the view of the clinician, the clinician should have made that obvious and can organize an ambulance very easily. The clinic staff do this regularly, Madam Speaker. They used to do it in my clinic.

Again, there's obviously been a failure of communication. Delighted, and it's important that we look into it, but making hay on the floor of the House here by perseverating with the same questions is not actually helping.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.

Those words don't mean anything to most people out there that are listening. I'd say the family may be listening. But they know they're being disrespected by this minister and this government. That's what they're hearing and that's what we're hearing as well.

These people who called the medical dispatch and they looked for an ambulance to get to St. John's. They were told they could only to Carbonear. That's the question that nobody wants to answer. I can give them all the details. He just heard this story and all he keeps coming back with is throwing shots at us. We're doing our job, Speaker.

Yesterday I raised the issue of a senior who was offloaded from an ambulance into a cold, hard waiting room chair because the ambulance was needed. Now today I have this example of a lady who had to find her own way to St. John's where she really needed an ambulance transport.

Will the Premier admit that these incidents are happening because they have failed to ensure we have good enough paramedics?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We do recognize there are challenges with offload delays, with getting patients into the emergency departments and we're working on those. We have an approach to manage that through NLHS and our new integrated ambulance service.

Once the patient gets into the emergency room, decisions about where those patients go and how they are managed are clinical. I don't make those decisions; a hospital administrator doesn't make those decisions. It is a triage nurse; it is an emergency room physician. Those are the people who make the decisions.

Again, if somebody feels that they have been treated inappropriately, there are mechanisms locally to raise that. If that doesn't work, the Member opposite, again, can supply me with details and we'll look into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, following a violent shooting in CBS on October 20, the father of the victim was shocked to actually arrive to the scene ahead of the ambulance.

Can the minister confirm that the ambulance had to drive from Whitbourne?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Once again, Madam Speaker, to bring this to the floor of the House is an interesting way to start an investigation into what may or may not have happened. For all I know, the proximity of the ambulance may not have been an issue. But unless we have the details, I cannot look into it any further.

I will be able to tell him exactly where the nearest ambulance was at the time the call was received, provided that call was received by 911. It is only the integrated 911 system that provides you with those time stamps. The old mechanism does not.

I would use this opportunity to encourage anybody who needs emergency services, that's the one number you use: 911.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: That's an interesting response, given this was all over the news.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. DINN: As a responsible minister, you would have done your job and reached out and dealt with this issue.

Speaker, while the father waited with his son, who had been shot in the back, the only ambulance available was dispatched from Whitbourne.

In an emergency, minutes matter, seconds matter. Speaker, this could have been a tragedy.

Why was there no ambulance available in the area?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Obviously, these are issues that require investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. HAGGIE: Thank you.

It sounds like the outcome was fortunately not as bad as it could have been. Again, happy to look into the incident and the details. Obviously, without those, it is not possible for me to speculate – or inappropriate for me to do so – on the floor of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, this shooting happened just minutes outside of St. John's, yet the ambulance had come from Whitbourne. Earlier this year, the minister announced a new road ambulance system and I think the minister, in responding, touched on this already but I'll ask it.

Will the minister do his job and review this dynamic approach to responding to this incident?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

There is an ongoing and active review system of ambulance calls response times, and data is provided on a regular basis. As we strive to achieve, what we believe, are reasonable yardsticks, as there isn't a national one, we have adopted one of our own for response times. Certainly, that is part of our regular and ongoing activity.

When the new ambulance provider is up and running fully, that data, particularly with our computerized system, will be a lot easier to access and we will be able to provide more real-time reports, but that activity happens at the moment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, let's go a little further across the province this time.

In May, during the Baie Verte - Green Bay by-election, a commitment was made to restore health clinic services in the fishing communities of Triton and La Scie.

When will these clinics be open?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Thank you, Speaker.

Those were certainly commitments that were made; they will be commitments that were honoured. They were commitments that were made by the former minister of Health, who happens to be in the gallery today. He's milking his return for all its worth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A. FUREY: But certainly we'll continue to work with those communities to ensure those services are delivered in a timely fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, these communities are still waiting and it has been six months.

Will the Premier admit that he was just playing politics during the by-election?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

A. FUREY: Playing politics? Speaker, imagine politics in an election; that's a strange concept.

What I will say is that we committed to the people of La Scie and to the people of that peninsula that we will reinstate the clinics that were there, the former minister did. We're committed to doing it. As I understand it, one of the physicians there already started to provide increasing coverage to La Scie in particular. We'll continue to make sure that we're recruiting to fill those positions long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

Promises made during election, I guess, they didn't win it, so we're not going to see it, that's the way that's going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: That's how election promises work.

Speaker, I have a simple question for the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: How many elevators in this province have an expired inspection certificate?

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

E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Speaker.

I do have to ask him – I missed the first four or five words of his question – can I ask for him to repeat the question, please.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

How many elevators in this province have an expired inspection certificate?

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

E. LOVELESS: Well, the one that I was on today is not expired because I was using it, but in all seriousness, I do not have that number, but I certainly will get that information for the Member and report back to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

The one that he was on today is not inspected, by the way, if he's wondering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: As a result of shocking access to information requests, we have learned there are 500 elevator inspections that have not been completed in the Department of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: Speaker, thousands of residents use these elevators every day when they go to work, school and shopping.

Why is your government not doing their job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

E. LOVELESS: Again, Madam Speaker, anything that deal