PDF Version

November 14, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 41

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

call from the Order Paper, Order 5, resumption of the second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

I recognize the hon. the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a pleasure to rise in this hon. House one again and speak to Bill 32,

an amendment to the Labour Standards Act .

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, bills come before this hon. House that you often

see full agreement from all sides of the House. There are a lot of merits to

this bill, and things in the bill that we do like, Mr. Speaker. I will just talk

a little bit about some of the background of the bill.

Family

violence leave is intended to provide job protected leave for workers subjected

to family violence. It is currently in place in five Canadian jurisdictions,

with others considering similar legislation. In 2016, Mr. Speaker – and these

statistics are rather alarming – Statistics Canada reported that there were

336,487 police-reported violent crimes, and 86,405 of those accused were

actually family members. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there were 1,251

incidents of police-reported family violence. An interesting statistic in there,

Mr. Speaker, one that a lot of people are talking about recently, is that 746

were female, but 505 were male. And that, too, is quite alarming.

I would

concur that men are equally as deserving of our attention and supports, as are

women. You know, it has become more prevalent in today's society, more people

are talking about violence,

whereas in the past it was swept under the rug. I

think it's crucial that we continue the conversation, we continue the awareness,

and we do strive to make efforts to assist both men and women, recognizing that

all genders, all persons are impacted by this travesty of society.

What's

even more alarming is that the research also suggests that only 10 per cent of

incidents are actually reported. So, if you consider that 90 per cent of abuse

is out there, still continuing to this day, to be pushed under the rug or hidden

away or not talked about, it is very, very concerning, Mr. Speaker.

As an

MHA of a region that was seriously impacted – I mean, we'll never forget in the

Coast of Bays region, we had two very serious incidents of family violence,

seven months apart, all in the same year. It was the grace of God that we didn't

lose more people but, in both cases, we lost both partners, the husband and the

wife through domestic violence. It's a time of tragedy and hardship that will

never, never, never be forgotten, and we owe it to these people and their

families to do what we can to ensure situations like this never happen again.

So, this

bill is going to provide family violence leave; three days of paid leave and

five days of unpaid leave for persons who are experiencing family violence, to

try and avail of some of the supports needed, and the interventions needed to

circumvent or try and prevent any further violence, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask for just a little bit

of order, please. It is very difficult to hear the speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MS. PERRY:

The only thing, I guess, that

I would like to see in terms of the unpaid leave – there will be five days of

unpaid leave. That will still cause some financial duress. If, at some point in

time, we can revisit this and have the entire 10-day period as paid leave that

would be an improvement that we would certainly like to see.

The cost

of family violence to Canadian society is approximately $7.4 billion annually

and the cost to employers is approximately $77.8 million annually. Losses

through absenteeism, lengthy periods of leave, reduced productivity, higher

turnover and issues related to workplace safety are all components of that cost,

Mr. Speaker.

In this

bill, as we're bringing forward, like I just said there will be 10 days of leave

annually, three days paid and seven days unpaid. The purpose of these leave

days, they must be used to seek and receive medical attention, counselling or

other services from a health professional; seek and receive services provided by

a transition house, a policing agency, government or any organization that

assists those affected by family violence; move a place of residence and/or seek

and receive legal services or assistance. These are the types of activities

which would warrant this leave from an employer under the new law that will be

passed.

Terms of

eligibility – an employee has to have been employed for a continuous 30-day

period with the same employer. The employee, their child or a person for whom an

employee is a caregiver has been subjected to family violence by either a family

member, an intimate partner, a parent of a child with the employee, or a person

who is a caregiver to the employee.

The

employee must advise the employer as early as possible in writing or via

otherwise of intention to use the leave, the anticipated start date and the

duration. The employee may be required to provide the employer with reasonable

verification of the necessity of the leave.

There

will be responsibilities under this new law, Mr. Speaker, for the employers as

well. The employer must ensure the confidentiality of all information related to

any leaves under the Labour Standards Act ,

not just family violence leave. Mr. Speaker, that is crucially important.

I speak with some experience in terms of concerns around

confidentiality. If we are going to raise that number from 10 per cent to 100

per cent and close that gap of 90 per cent of people who are not coming forward,

it is crucial that

confidentiality be maintained. That is a very key component of this act, Mr.

Speaker.

As well,

the employer may disclose information where the employee consents to the

disclosure, or the disclosure is required by law, or the disclosure is required

for the administration of the Labour

Standards Act . These would be the only exceptions, Mr. Speaker.

This

bill has received a fair bit of consultation before being brought forward to the

House. Some of the groups consulted include: the Newfoundland and Labrador

Employers' Council, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Provincial Advisory Council

for the Status of Women, the St. John's Status of Women Council, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre, and the

Violence Prevention Committee of Avalon East.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate here that we cannot forget that men are as much

victims of family violence as are women in today's society. We do need to ensure

that we increase our efforts for men supports as well.

Legislation in other jurisdictions was also reviewed before bringing this bill

before the House. Just to take a look at what's happening across the country: in

Alberta the government offers 10 days of unpaid leave; Saskatchewan has 10 days

of unpaid leave; Manitoba has five days of paid leave and five days of unpaid

leave. They can take up to an additional 17 weeks of unpaid leave if the issue

persists.

Ontario, there are five days paid leave and five days unpaid. They can take an

additional 15 weeks of unpaid leave if the issue persists. In New Brunswick,

five days paid, five days unpaid. They can take up to an additional 16 weeks of

unpaid leave if the issue persists. For PEI and Nova Scotia, legislation is

currently under consideration but none has been passed yet. And for Canada as a

whole, there's a proposal, which is not yet enforced, for five days of paid

leave and five days of unpaid leave.

that's where this issue sits across the country, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly

is a piece of legislation that is much needed. We do have a serious issue in

this province and in this country with family violence, and every effort we can

take to curb family violence and provide supports for people is certainly

something that we should be doing. I'm very pleased this bill has been brought

before the House today.

With the

many stressors that people in these situations face, the uncertainty around your

job could certainly be another factor in holding you back from coming forward.

So hopefully this measure will do something to help increase the numbers of

people who are coming forward and help them at least have some confidence that

their job is safe, there will be job stability for them and they can take the

remediation efforts necessary to try and rectify the situation they're dealing

with in their lives.

So I'm

certainly pleased that this bill is before the House here today, and we will be

supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand this morning and speak to the subject of Bill 32, which is an

amendment to the Labour Standards Act .

Certainly, initially in the presentation of the bill and in subsequent speakers

– the Member for St. John's Centre, for example, and just now, the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

We have

heard the details of what the bill is about with regard to recognizing the need

to understand the impact of domestic family violence as it relates to the

workplace, and we cannot, in workplaces, go around ignoring what is going on in

the lives of workers and not recognizing their needs. It's absolutely essential

that we do that. Today, we're dealing with something that's recognizing the need

in relationship to family violence.

I can

remember back in the 1960s, 1970s, major companies here in this province, for

example, recognizing the need of workers who had problems with alcohol

addiction. I actually had a relative where the workplace was very understanding

of the need for the person to have the time to get over that addiction, to give

time –

MR. KING:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member for Bonavista, if he has something to say he can get on his feet and

walk around to the other Member.

Please

continue.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

point I'm making is that we have had a history with some issues and people's

work as personal lives that have been recognized in the workplace and need for

accommodation. Back in the 1960s and '70s we probably didn't use that term, but

there was accommodation for people. We didn't have it in legislation and it was

the concern of the employers that made it happen, but it did happen.

So to

see us now recognizing the need to have legislation that covers domestic

violence is really a step forward, but we are behind in terms of what's

happening across the country. The majority of the provinces have been dealing

with this. We have two others in Atlantic Canada who haven't, but the majority

of the provinces have dealt with the issue of domestic violence needing to be

recognized as having a real impact on workers lives, and the need to have

something in legislation to help workers as they deal with domestic violence.

So it's

essential that we have this legislation. What's disturbing, and especially

because here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have the highest incidence of

family violence in the country. What's disturbing is that instead of looking at

the fact, okay, we're jumping in for the first time; well, let's not jump up on

the first rung of the ladder. Let's jump a little bit higher, because there are

other rungs there. Why go for the bottom one when there are higher rungs to jump

to? What I see with what we're doing is just jumping for that lowest rung, the

very minimum, and I would like to suggest that we need to be better than the

very minimum.

The

three days paid leave and seven days unpaid leave is definitely insufficient.

I'm just thinking, take if a woman on a Monday night gets beaten up in her home,

and does get out that night or the next morning with her children to a shelter,

even just the time that's needed to make that adjustment to getting the kids

into the shelter, the kids into the schools, now that they're in a shelter, et

cetera, that in itself could eat up the first three days of unpaid.

So it's

certainly insufficient and it certainly needs to be reconsidered in terms of the

number of days. I think the Member for St. John's Centre will have more to say

about that during Committee, because we have to make sure that we're not just

giving people a little bit of hope; that we're giving them more than a little

bit of hope. That somebody who's in a situation right now knows that if she –

and I'm saying she because the majority who suffer domestic violence are women;

I know there are men – but if she were to come forward now, she has a bit of

hope that she can get some assistance.

For

somebody who is on low income in a job that's minimum wage, et cetera, they are

not going to be able to afford unpaid leave. So that's why we need to look at

the number of days for paid leave, because workers who are low-income workers

will not be able to afford unpaid leave. So we really have to look at that.

When we

had the briefing, the officials noted that there was consideration given to

having extra weeks for unpaid leave available to add to that number, and it was

noted in the briefing that it was considered for the legislation, but – quote

unquote – a major proponent, who was consulted, objected to it.

Well, I

know the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour didn't object to that,

and I would consider the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour a major

component. So I would suggest that the eye of the government right now, with

regard to this legislation, should be looking at the workers. They are the major

proponent; not an individual, but as a body. They are a major proponent. And for

them, this really is very, very small in let's make our first step, the largest

step that we can make to be up with the other provinces who have made that

larger step.

There

have been individual workers who have come out publicly, especially in social

media. I saw one moving video of a worker talking about how it has to be more

than the minimum, and I'm sure others in the House have probably watched that

video as well. It was a very, very compelling video by this woman, not begging,

but imploring that we make the legislation stronger; that we increase the number

of paid days, in particular. If the 10 days even were all paid, that would be a

larger step and a good step.

One of

the things that we hear is critics who say that this leave will be misused, but

there is a study in the United Kingdom which showed there that only 6 of 12,000

prosecutions were found to be false. That's 0.005 per cent. It's not going to be

an issue. Nobody is going to be coming forward for this unless they need it.

Legislation will cover that. People will have to give proof that they need the

time, that there is domestic violence.

I think

the study in the United Kingdom has shown that the average worker is not out

there wanting to use the excuse of domestic violence as a way to get time off

work. So let's disabuse ourselves of those kinds of things that may go out

there. In actual fact, people who are being abused – women and men who are being

abused usually downplay abuse. They don't want to even recognize there's

domestic abuse going on. That's a major step forward. So I don't think we have

to worry about it being abused.

I put

that out right now in second reading and I think we will have more to say about

this in Committee.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly my pleasure to stand and speak again this morning, this time to Bill

32,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.

I'm not

going to take to long with this one. There have been a lot of people who have

spoken about it. I think it's pretty clear what the bill entails. Basically,

again without getting into all the details that have already been said, it's

providing both paid and unpaid leave for people who find themselves challenged

with family violence in their home.

I think

it's a good bill. It's certainly something that I support. It is being done in

most other provinces, as has been indicated. I realize, my colleague who spoke

before me indicated that in some provinces perhaps they've gone further. They've

been doing it for – the bill has been in place for – not this bill, but

legislation has been in place in other provinces for a while. Most provinces

have it. Some of the legislation arguably in other places is stronger. Perhaps

some is on par and some may be not as strong. There's a variation, and there are

a couple of provinces who don't have it at all.

At the

end of the day, this is a start. I think it's a good start. I think every Member

in this House of Assembly is obviously going to support the bill, whether we

think it could be improved or go further is obviously a matter for debate, but

what we have before us right now is a good bill. I'm sure we all support it. I

certainly do support it. It's unfortunate that we require this kind of

legislation but it's one of the realities of life, unfortunately. We've seen

tragedies here in this province as it relates to family violence and domestic

violence, and sadly it's there.

Really,

all that's being done here is providing an opportunity for someone who finds

themselves in a violent relationship to have the ability to get time off work.

In the case of the specifics of this bill, three days paid leave and seven days

unpaid leave, perhaps those numbers will change and increase over time. We have

to give time for this to evolve and determine whether or not the amount of time

that's given under this legislation is sufficient or if it is isn't.

I will

agree with my colleague who just spoke, I really don't believe this is something

that's going to be abused. I really don't think someone is going to come forward

to their employer with issues like this just to get a day off. I really don't

believe that's going to happen. I really believe that anyone who uses it is

someone who is, unfortunately, going to need it.

As the

Minister of – well, he's Minister of Education now, but he was Advanced

Education. I'm not sure what he is, but he's Education now. He was Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour last week. And to my memory, when he spoke he

talked about the fact – which I do agree with him on – that there has to be a

balance in all these things.

Yes, we

have to be cognizant of the needs that are out there and provide legislation

such as this for people who have these issues in their lives; but, by the same

token, there also has to be a realization for the people who – for the employers

who have to provide this time off, the paid leave, and even the unpaid leave,

because there are issues about replacing people and so on. It's great to say it

should be all about the person having the issue, and I'm sure that's where we're

all focused right now, but there is also a reality that we all have to be

cognizant of when it comes to the actual employers that have to provide this

leave.

So it's

like everything, like all kinds of legislation, whether we're talking about

this, whether we're talking about minimum wage or whatever we're talking about,

quite often when we're talking about workplace benefits and changes to labour

standards, there always has to be a fair balance between the needs of the

employees and the real needs – and they are real, legitimate needs – of

employers as well. Because they have to operate a business, they have to be

viable. If they're not viable, people don't work. If people don't work, they

don't pay taxes and we don't have any programs. So that is a reality as well.

I think

this reaches a fair balance, and I'm sure that as this unfolds over time and it

gets tested, I'm confident that if there is an overwhelming need brought before

the government of the day – whoever that government might be – to say that we

need to make some changes and amendments to this to strengthen the legislation

one way or the other, I'm certain that based on the seriousness of what this

bill is all about, which crosses all party lines – it's not a rural versus an

urban thing, it's not a political thing, it's a people thing – that could affect

anybody, including the families of anyone in this House – anybody – if there are

amendments that are required down the road to strengthen it in any way, I'm sure

that whoever is sitting in this House of Assembly, I would think, would be more

than willing to do just that.

For now,

as I said, it's a good start. It's a good thing to do. It's the right thing to

do. I certainly commend the minister and the government for bringing this

forward. I will be supporting this legislation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour again to stand in this House and address my colleagues and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but particularly around a very important

bill. Ideally, it would be better if I didn't have to speak to this because

there wasn't a need for it, but the reality is there's a need here, that we do

have a serious issue in our society that needs to be addressed. I know it's

across the board. It's not segregated to one department or one agency, it's

across the board and we all have a responsibility to find the mechanisms to do

three things as I see it.

One –

and the primary one – eliminate domestic violence. We need to do that through

education. We need to do that through better awareness. We need to do that

through supports. But also while we're addressing that and trying to make

strides forward, we need to ensure that those who are adversely affected by

domestic violence, the individuals involved, the families involved, the

communities that are involved, are also supportive in a mechanism that works for

everybody. We need to ensure, thirdly, that our society has a better

understanding and takes responsibility for addressing this issue, with the

ultimate goal of eliminating it.

It was a

pleasure to hear that this was being presented and that there had been dialogue

and discussion around how do you implement something that addresses and supports

the need of the individual who's facing domestic violence and their family

while, at the same time, being cognizant of the fact that you don't want to put

a hardship on another part of what that individual is involved in, the business

they work for or the entity that they're engaged with as part of that. How do

you find that balance? In life, unfortunately, you never get the perfect

balance, because there's always the pendulum, there are circumstances that

change on a day-to-day basis that dictate things don't flow as fluently as we'd

like, and the supports one day don't cover what you needed for the next day.

I will

say, at the beginning, as I will end in a few minutes, I support where we're

going with this. I support the intent, I support the process and I support the

engagement. Does it go far enough? I don't think most of our legislation goes

far enough, because it's into it after that we discover, you know what,

hindsight, we probably should've did this and should've did that; but that's

part of having an open dialogue, which I would think would give us an

opportunity to identify, are there holes in what we're presenting, are there

other ways that we could provide the service and the supports that are

necessary, particularly when you're dealing with something as dramatic and

life-altering as domestic violence, and the impact that it has on the

individuals involved here, and our own society.

So,

while I'm supporting this, I'm very cognizant, and my colleagues earlier had

said we need to be open to making sure that once this starts moving forward, if

we identify that it falls short to where we want to be, we need to be able to

quickly react to ensure we provide or fill those gaps and move things forward.

Coming

from where we were in the past, and it's alarming that it took us this long to

get to where we are, knowing this is not something that just happened in the

last few years or the last decade, domestic violence has been around forever and

a day. Unfortunately, it was taboo to speak of it, it was hidden, people

unfortunately put up with things that they should never have to put up with when

it comes to violence and being controlled and ridiculed, and this was never the

intent of our society. We've come a long way in the openness; we now also got to

come a long way in the supports that we put in play.

So I do

like that the legislation is addressing some of the financial struggles that

people would have, and that becomes one of the big ones. I mean, the key thing

is about safety, and being able to get control of your own life and your

family's life when dealing with domestic violence. But to do that, sometimes the

restrictions dictate that you can't become independent; you can't make that

first step forward in getting control of your life again because of the

financial restrictions.

People

still have to pay their bills; people still have to deal with their family

needs. They don't want to make a step backward while they're trying to deal with

something negative in their life and change so that it's a positive. So, the

financial support upfront is very valuable. The three days' financial support at

least gives a bit of a buffer that an individual or family can look at where

they are financially and what their living arrangements are going to be, what

expenditures are they going to have, how are they going to be able to deal with

that.

The 10

days – and I understand there has to be a period there, because this just

doesn't solve itself overnight. The first day or two, as people will tell you in

domestic violence, is collecting your thoughts and realizing you're not at

fault. There's somebody else who is doing this. You need to get to that point

where you now get your thought process in line so now you can start addressing

how you deal with this.

The

three days financially at the beginning, while not a lot, at least gives

somebody some breathing space to be able to collectively think at least I'm

dealing with all kinds of hardships in my life because of what's happening, at

no fault of my own, but financially it's not going to be a burden on me for that

period of time. The 10 days gives me time, with family supports and community

supports, to be able to address how I'm going to move forward as part of that.

Again,

we're all weary, but we're all cognizant of how you do this from a financial

point of view. I think a priority has to be – and we've all agreed to that here.

The first priority is supporting the individual who is facing this situation,

and that we have to scorn and send a message quickly, domestic violence is not

acceptable and that we all support it. If it means, financially, it's going to

be a cost to our society in some way, shape or form, to address, deal and

support this, we've got to accept that. But we need to find a balance so it

doesn't, in another avenue, do harm to what we're trying to provide here that

after somebody gets control of their life and starts to move forward, that they

still have gainful employment available, that it hasn't hurt them financially or

put them too far behind.

When we

look at this legislation, I think we've all agreed to the point we're moving in

the right direction. I think this would be the stepping stone to some other

things we may do around how we deal with it from a criminal point of view, the

counselling that may be engaged here, the communities' role in supporting

individuals, the counselling services that may be available to those

individuals, how even our educational institutions – because in a lot of cases

we're dealing with people who either have children who are in school or

themselves may be people who are in educational institutions, and how we use

that mechanism. Because we have a good, safe mechanism where people who are

there for a multitude of hours during the day, how do we better partner to be

able to provide particular services, be it counselling or supports within those

mechanisms.

I do

have some concerns, and it's been echoed by my colleagues in the Third Party

around the length of time that it can be done as part of that process. I've

struggled. I've struggled with is three enough, is five enough, is 10 enough,

the 10 days and these type of things. I'm like anybody else, my first priority

would be supporting people and it would mean if it takes six months of payment,

we'd do that; but, unfortunately, we still have to have the balance. We have to

make sure what we do in the front end doesn't hurt the same individual in the

back end. How do we find that balance?

So, I

don't know if this is the exact balance. Maybe there's a discussion and an

alternative that comes, but I do like that we're getting somewhere. But I do

hope – and this my part, if I add nothing else to it – that it would be on

record that this is not where it stops. Whatever is approved here today is not

where it stops. This is the starting point, and I compliment government for

that. This is the starting point of moving the next level of supports around

domestic violence and, particularly, dealing with their employability or their

sustainability in their employment and their financial supports while we're

doing that.

So, I do

support all of those. There will be some questions that we have in Committee for

clarifications. And then we'll figure out from there how we help move this piece

of legislation forward, and what will meet the needs, particularly of those who

are struggling with domestic violence.

I just

want to end by saying it's a great dialogue here, it's a great opportunity for

us to do the right thing, and getting the right balance. But in the balance,

ensuring that this is, again – I want to reiterate; this is the starting point

of us really putting our foot to the pedal of ensuring that we find ways to

start eliminating domestic violence, but supporting those who are going through

it at this point, to ensure that they can move on with their lives, and be what

they always have been: productive citizens in our society.

So, I

thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

If the

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour speaks now, he will

close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my

pleasure to stand today and close debate on Bill 32,

An Act to Amend the Labour

Standards Act. I'd also be remiss if I didn't say a big thank you to the

previous minister for all the heavy lifting on this bill. I get the opportunity

to stand up here and give closing remarks, but he did all the work on the front

end of this, so I want to thank him for that.

Also,

I'd like to thank the numerous speakers that spoke to the bill, many of which

spoke in direct favour of this, which is fantastic: the Minister of Education

and Early Childhood Development; the Member for CBS; the Minister of Natural

Resources; the Member for St. John's Centre; the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

La Hune; the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member for Mount Pearl

– Southlands; as well as the Member for the beautiful District of Conception Bay

East - Bell Island, as we likes to refer to it.

So, I'm

thankful that they all got up and added their comments to this great piece of

legislation that we're bringing in here today. I would also like to acknowledge

the input from the efforts from the Federation of Labour and the employers

throughout our province.

This is

an important amendment, one in which will provide a new form of leave from work

to help employees and their families better deal with the consequences of family

violence. I know we all agree that family violence is a very, very serious

issue. We've all discussed it here today. In our province, Mr. Speaker, the

total number of victims of police-reported family violence – and it's very

important to highlight the police-reported aspect of this – is approximately

1,200 people; however, we know, through all the research, that it suggests that

around 10 per cent of those incidents are actually reported, so it is a fairly

big problem in our community.

According to the federal Department of Justice study, the cost of the family

violence to the Canadian society is approximately $7.4 billion annually. This

includes an annual economic cost to employers as well, Mr. Speaker, of $77.8

million annually. This is due in large part to absenteeism, lengthy periods of

leave, reduced productivity and issues related to workplace safety.

Unfortunately, family violence is far too common an occurrence and effects of

this violence can be devastating to the survivors and their loved ones. As

noted, studies have shown that there is a huge cost to family violence. That

people who are experiencing family violence report that it is negatively

affecting their performance.

With all

this in mind, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we all take steps to address

family violence. One incident of family violence is too many. The introduction

of this leave, specifically for victims of family violence, is a step to the

front.

Family

violence leave will help individuals and their families, while acknowledging and

balancing the ability of employers to meet this obligation. It applies to an

employee, their child or person for whom the employee is a caregiver who have

been subject to family violence.

It will

come into effect on January 1, 2019 and can be used for the following purposes:

seek and/or receive medical attention, counselling and/or services from health

care providers; seek and receive services provided by transition houses,

policing agencies, governments or organizations that provide services to people

subjected to family violence; to move a place of residence; to seek legal

services or assistance.

The

amendment will also ensure job protection for employees who avail of this leave.

The introduction of paid leave is new for labour standards legislation in this

province and across the country. Previously, the only form of paid leave in

Labour Standards Act which established

the minimum terms – and I like to repeat that, the minimum terms – and

conditions of employment in this province was one day for bereavement leave. Any

time we amend the labour standards legislation, we have to keep in mind the

importance of balancing the needs of both the workers and their employers.

I'd like

to address a concern that was brought forward by the Member for St. John's East

- Quidi Vidi. We understand that we've done jurisdictional scans. Our officials

in our department met with the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of

Women, the St. John's Status of Women Council, NL Sexual Assault Crisis and

Prevention Centre, Violence Prevention Avalon East, Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour, Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, Canadian

Federation of Independent Business, St. John's Board of Trade and Chamber of

Commerce were extended invitations as well.

So,

we've consulted with a wide variety of people and stakeholders across our

province. In addition to that, we did jurisdictional scans. While jurisdictions

– as mentioned by some of my hon. colleagues across the way, and in our side of

the House – have five days of paid and five days of unpaid, Ontario, Manitoba

and New Brunswick; a number of jurisdictions, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have

none. They just have all unpaid leave. And PEI has a similar model to us that

we're proposing here today: three paid and seven unpaid days.

One

thing I'd like to highlight is the fact that this is a first step. Any good

legislation that's brought to this hon. House is always evaluated and looked at

for the betterment of the people that are utilizing it. We're always looking at

improvements on the legislation side.

In the

introduction of three-day paid leave and seven days unpaid leave, we believe

we've achieved this balance that will help the victims who are experiencing

family violence, while also recognizing the impact of employers, and it is a

very good first step.

Mr.

Speaker, this government is ensuring that our labour standards legislation

remains relevant and responsive to the ever-changing challenges we are facing in

the workplace each and every day. When family violence occurs, this amendment

ensures that the employees will have the leave available to do what needs to be

done when they need to do it. Providing three days paid leave and seven days

unpaid leave strikes this balance.

believe these amendments to the Labour

Standards Act is a step in the right direction to help those who are subject

to family violence. Let me be clear, we hope we never have to utilize this, but

we understand with the numbers that we've seen come forward from Statistics

Canada and others, that this is a need in our province.

We will

monitor the roll out of this new leave and determine the levels of uptake and

whether it's meeting the intended objectives. Our government is sensitive to the

needs of the victims of family violence. We remain committed to improving the

lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and our community through the

introduction of relevant and responsive legislation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 32 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.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

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

32)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 32.

MR. 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.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.” (Bill 32)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through

the debate on the bill, we've collectively – I guess we all kind of agree with

this bill in its entirety. We have some questions, though, I think we'd like to

have some clarity on.

When you

look at groups that were consulted – I had it here somewhere – was the Board of

Trade consulted in this process? I know they're not listed here, but was the St.

John's – I know the Employers' Council and CFIB were, but was the Board of Trade

consulted?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, the Board of Trade was

consulted; the St. John's Board of Trade was consulted. We also reached out to

chambers of commerce and extended an invitation, but they did not respond.

So we

reached out to those, and hopefully that answers your question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I

was aware – the St. John's Board of Trade, apparently, provided some feedback on

this legislation and expressed some concerns, but they never did receive a

response. Do you have any information as to why?

The

question came up as to – they provided feedback but there was no communication

back to them after they submitted their feedback in May of this year, and there

were some concerns addressed or brought to my attention on that issue. Can you

elaborate any further, Minister?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I can's speak directly to why

they weren't responded to at the end. I know the information that was received

in the consultation process was what we developed the bill with, so I guess the

consultation back to the groups that we've dealt with would be bringing forward

this legislation as it is today.

I can

get the answer for why they didn't receive, at a future date for you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

On the consultation with the employers' groups, Minister, can you – I know their

list is being consulted. So are all of these groups in favour of this

legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I know they were consulted on

the legislation and played a vital role in us developing the legislation. I

can't speak to each individual one, if they were supportive of the three days

versus 10 days unpaid leave. That was a culmination of all of the consultation

processes.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much.

Minister, what checks and balances can be put in place to protect employers? And

some employees as well, because there are going to be a lot of employees that's

going to legitimately use this leave.

We're

going to have some situations where we know that where there's a will, there's a

way around the system, people tend to do so. So what checks and balances are

going to be put in place to protect those that are entitled and to help

employers deal with those that are not entitled? Because we know, unfortunately,

that's the reality of society.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Labour Standards sets the

minimum standards for what employers have to deliver. We're leaving it so that

the employers can have that discussion with their employees to see what they

would need to bring forward, whether it be a doctor's note or – it needs to

provide reasonable verification. So we're leaving that open for

interpretation

between the employer and the employee.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder

if the minister could just reference

section 43.34(1), and it lists some

definition of who an employee would be. Under that heading, (

e) says: “any

person who is a member of a class of persons prescribed in the regulations.”

I wonder

if the minister could just expand on what specifically that would be, and who

would be involved in that group – that is, I guess, yet to be prescribed in

regulations.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I'll get that information for

you during the debate here today.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Minister, on another issue

with this legislation. We deal all the time with confidentiality – I know we all

do as elected officials. We sign consent forms if anyone comes in to get any

help or assistance from our offices.

On the

flipside, we're dealing with confidential information and very sensitive

information that employers will hold. And we got right down to the basics of a

three-person, small little business to the biggest operation. They're going to

possibly have very sensitive information belonging to employees and they're not

going to want this stuff divulged to – they're not going to want this to get

out, for obvious reasons. So how do we protect, or what do employers have to do

to protect this information? Because that can be very sensitive.

today's world, confidentiality and personal files and issues like that, it's

very sensitive information. So are there any safeguards in place, or any

requirements going to be placed on employers to protect this information on

behalf of their employees?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, there is, and that was a

very good question.

Employers are required to keep the information confidential, except when the

employee consents to disclosure. The disclosure is required by law, and the

disclosure is required for the administration of the

Labour Standards Act .

We're

encouraging the employers – they already have this in legislation to keep that

confidential. So that's what we're doing through the legislation here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In that

same

section I referenced earlier, 43.34(1), as we go down through that, there's

a subsection (3), and that references: “An employee who wishes to take a leave

of absence under this Part may be required to provide the employer with

reasonable verification of the necessity of the leave in accordance with the

regulations.”

I wonder

if minister could speak to the context of reasonable verification, and what the

intent is in regard to meeting that standard.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Some of examples of that, Mr. Chair, is a doctor's note or a note from a service

provider. We didn't want to be too prescriptive on this. We wanted to make sure

the employer and the employee had the ability to make that arrangement

themselves. We know that there are many arrangements around. In different

employee-employer relationships that occurs right now in our society, there are

many different relationships.

We just

want to set the minimum standard, so we wanted to make sure that they had to

provide reasonable verification, but that's between the employer and the

employee to be determined.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. Just further to that, and we go down to 43.35: “An

employee who intends to take family violence leave under this Part shall give

written notice to his or her employer as soon possible before the leave is to

begin of that intention, unless there is a valid reason why that notice cannot

be given.”

So, I

guess my question is: In all cases, is there a requirement to give reasonable

verification and, if there's not, what would be acceptable in regard to where

the notice cannot be given? I wonder if you could just some comment on that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

We want the employee to make every opportunity to do it as quick as possible

but, obviously, we understand situations may arise that they may not have the

ability to do it as quick as possible, because the violence may have happened on

a Monday, as an example, and they may have to seek medical attention right away.

So they

may not be able to provide their employer with the written notice, or anything

like that, at that time; but, at the earliest convenience they could, that would

be what we're requesting in the bill.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you, Minister.

That

makes sense. It's really a timing issue what we're referring here in regard to –

okay, thanks very much.

I was

just wondering – it's three days paid leave, if it's approved, and then there

are seven with the unpaid leave.

regard to that – and this may be outside of the realm a little bit, but has

there been any review done in regard to insurable earnings, and any effect those

seven unpaid days would have related to somebody filing something like

employment insurance benefits? Is there any effect in that regard?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Through the consultation

process with the groups that we consulted earlier with that I listed, it was

arrived at that EI is probably not the best fit for that. But what we're looking

at is obviously the three days paid and seven days unpaid, which puts is in a

great first step for providing that service for the people of the province.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I think my question was a

little bit different on that respectfully. I particularly think of seasonal

employees and from my experience, my district, someone works in a fish plant or

a construction industry and sometimes the days that are used for insurable

earnings are very tight.

someone was to avail of this leave and they had 10 days and seven of those days

were unpaid, the question is: How will that affect their claim for EI? Would,

therefore, there be seven days removed and need seven extra days to meet their

420 hours, we say? That's my question in regard to have you done any looking at

what that unpaid leave would do to a claim for EI and especially related to the

seasonal industries.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I'll get the correct answer

for the hon. Member for that for sure. For continuous employment, 30 days prior,

that's all you would need to be available for that. I understand you're asking

about seasonal workers and I'll get that answer for you as well.

Other

than that, the main requirement is you have to have a continuous 30 days of

employment with the employer in order to avail of that legislation that we are

putting forward today – or that leave, sorry.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm getting to the bottom of some of my questions, but getting back to

the approval or the verification of – under 43.34(

b) it says: “a person who is

or has been in an intimate relationship or who is living or has lived with the

employee.” How does this be verified? Who's the verification – whose word is

taken? Because anyone unfortunately could come in and file in any one of those

brackets. Who is the go-to person to verify this stuff?

You're

working for an employer. Employers don't know, most times, what their employee's

personal lives are. This is good legislation for people that are affected, but I

go back sometimes that this opens the door sometimes to – so how do you keep

this all in check? Again, it's checks and balances.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you for the question.

The

victim is the key here in this process. So we want to make sure that they

provide reasonable verification, and that's all we're requesting, and that'll be

worked out between the victim, the employee, with the employer.

So it's

important that the victim gets the services that they require, and I'm sure that

between the employer and the employee will be fine to determine that there.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Reasonable verification, that's fair enough, but can you give me an example what

you or what's considered to be reasonable verification? Because that's where I'm

kind of stuck to.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Another good question. As I

mentioned earlier, an example of that would be a doctor's note or a note from a

service provider that the victim is seeing. That wouldn't be provided the day

they make their statement or written notice to the employer because they

wouldn't have received the services at this point.

But an

example would be the doctor's note or the service provider's note.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

had a question for the minister in regard to seasonal employment again. Someone

who has a pattern with employment insurance earnings, with seasonal employment

year over year, and returns to work at a particular time during the year, they

may return to work and may not reach that 30-day period to avail of the

particular requirement, yet we know they have a pattern of employment with that

employer over a number of years.

Would

there be any accommodation made for that person if they were a victim of family

violence prior to that 30-day period, recognizing the fact that they have a

pattern of seasonal earnings? This specifically says you have to have 30 days of

employment.

So, say

they return to work, and on the 20th day they were unfortunately a victim of

family violence, is there any way they could avail of this leave, as they have a

pattern of being a seasonal worker and a pattern of being with that employer?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Absolutely, I think that

that's important. The 30 days is for a new employer – if they start employment

with a new employer, it would have to be 30 days, but if you've got a consistent

track record with the employer, I can't – this legislation is all about

protecting the victim here. So, we're about trying to make it as easy as

possible for the victim to receive the services that they require, and making

sure there's a balanced approach with the employer.

So, I

think we've established that here with respect to that, but I will get the

answers to the EI questions because that's a little bit of a nuance there.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I thank the minister for

that.

indicated that the individual would be protected here if it's less than 30 days

and a seasonal employee. Where in the legislation is that protection? Where

specifically would that ensure that that person would be accommodated? I just

need clarity on that if I could.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you say under reasonable verification, doctor's notes and from

professionals, and it tripped me back to the consultation process. Was there

consultation done with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association to deal

with – I guess they give doctor's notes for illness for absence from work and

whatnot, but if a doctor's note is going to be dealing with this sort of issue,

which we're not dealing with illness, what a doctor would be – that's their

speciality. Again, it's not of being opposed. I think there are valid questions

asked, because once this comes into legislation it will be the law of the land

and all employers have to abide by it, and these things just jump out.

Were

they consulted? And, if so, is there any viewpoint from their perspective to

basically verifying family violence? That's what is being asked by these medical

doctors.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes. The example I used as a

medical note would be for receiving medical services, or a service provider.

Like a transition house or anything like that, that would be slightly different,

obviously, depending on what services you require at the time. It could be

anything from having to receive medical attention or it could be receiving the

police report, or anything along those lines. Anything that gives you reasonable

intention for that, that's what we're looking for here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

got to be clear on this. There are issues that are going to happen that you're

not going to require any of those things but you're still going to be a victim

of family violence. So how do you get your evidence? How do you get reasonable

verification on a process like that when you don't deal with transition houses,

you don't deal with the RNC, you don't deal with a medical doctor, but you are,

no doubt, still a victim of family violence? Who verifies this?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

As I said previously, we

don't want to be prescriptive with the legislation here. It's got to be an

arrangement between the employee and the employer. We're just saying provide

reasonable verification.

Some

employers may not require anything. They may say the hon. Member for CBS is a

victim of violence. He may not have to bring forward anything, because his

employer has that relationship with him over a period of time that this is

uncharacteristic or whatever. So it's the relationship that's built between the

employer and the employee. This sets the minimum standards, that's all Labour

Standards do. Employers overshoot this every day. From the perspective of

providing reasonable verification, that's all we're looking for from here.

As well,

the EI question from earlier, this is under the domain of the federal

government. For the purposes of Labour Standards, leave does not count towards

the accumulation of benefits, et cetera, considered to be time out of the

office. All leave is required to be – have to be worked 30 days; require that

you have to work 30 days, yes.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you just made reference to the minimum standards, and I understand the

relationship piece. I think we all got medical practitioners or professionals

that we deal with on a regular basis and they all know us quite well. But you

refer to the minimum standards. What is the minimum standards? What do you

classify as the minimum standard? What is the minimum standard?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

If this legislation passes

here today or into the future and receives Royal Assent, it will be three days

paid and seven days unpaid. That will be the minimum standard. Employers can do

far more. That's the minimum that they can do. That's the floor; the ceiling can

go a lot higher than that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for information to questions I asked in regard to employment

insurance.

recognize the regulatory framework is under the federal government, but I go

back to seasonal employment. People in many areas of the province, especially in

rural communities, often have challenges getting 420 hours and they're very

cognizant of the number of hours required and how they try to achieve those

hours.

Will

there be any notification in your publication of this leave or would employers –

or will you reach out to those advocacy groups and have that information to let

anybody who wants to avail of this particular leave, that it would negatively

affect a claim for EI at some point in the future.

understand the leave, I understand the importance, but it's also important that

people understand the ability to claim another program based on the implications

if they were to claim this. Not that I'm suggesting in any way that they

shouldn't avail of it or anything like that, but this is obviously a significant

factor.

I deal

with it all the time in my district, small communities, people looking to get

qualified for EI and the circumstances behind that. How specifically will you

deal with that in terms of making people aware?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

We're going to communicate

that through the stakeholders as well, but ensuring that the employers are

understanding of what's coming forward.

But

that's the reason why we're implementing this starting January 1 of 2019,

because it gives us the opportunity to reach out to those employers and those

employees so they understand their rights and the minimum standards they have to

provide by.

So we're

going to reach out through the networks through our department, and it's going

to be communicated to the employees and to the employers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, and I thank the

minister for that.

referenced this 30-day provision. Previously, I asked about that for seasonal

employees, and you indicated there was a means to accommodate someone who had a

pattern of seasonal employment but returned back in a particular season, but was

a victim of family violence prior to the 30 days, and you indicated there were

ways to accommodate that individual.

thought you just said recently that, in fact, that doesn't exist. It would have

to be a definitive 30 days of return to employment before someone could avail of

the leave. Is that correct, related to seasonal employment?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

There's no reference to

seasonal in the bill kit here, but what I am going to do is I'm going to have

the answer – I'm going to take that question to our staff and bring it back to

the House, to the hon. Member.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay,

thank you.

The

minister gave an answer a few minutes ago related to 30 days provision, and I

thought you said there was no ability there to come in under that 30 days

related to seasonal employment.

So is

there a means to do it or is there not, or you're not sure and you're going to

get the information? I apologize, but I'm not clear.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

It doesn't appear in the bill

kit there, but there is a reasonable intention of the employee to be working for

that employer previously.

So I'm

going to take that, as I said before to you, and bring back the answer to you

for that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, was there any jurisdictional scan on the uptake, what the anticipated

uptake will be for this leave in the province? Was there any numbers analyzed

for that?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, a very good question.

We did

do a jurisdictional scan to see what other provinces were doing to deal with

this, the issues that have been faced in other provinces. It's very new, so we

haven't seen a lot of the uptake side of it yet.

What

we're going to do, as I said previously in my closing remarks, we're going to

look at – like any good legislation, you're going to look at the legislation

when it's implemented and see if there's need to make revisions or improve, and

see if those days move up or stay the same, depending on the uptake for that.

But a

very good question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the Member for Ferryland has raised some very important points –

something I never thought of. I guess it's because I don't have a lot of people

working seasonally, so to speak, in my district. I'm sure there are a few, but

certainly not like in a lot of districts.

So given

the fact that there is nothing in the legislation specifically dealing with

seasonal employment and there seems to be a gap there, is it possible that

before this bill goes beyond the third reading if there is nothing there and

it's not covered, that you would be willing to bring forth some sort of an

amendment to deal with that issue? Because if we don't deal with that issue,

then it could be this time next year or two years from now before this bill

comes back here again and we do deal with it. So I'm just wondering is an

amendment possible, from your perspective.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

As I've mentioned to the hon.

Member before, there's no reason to believe that if you have a history with the

employer – say you're a fish plant worker and you've been working there year

over year over year – that this wouldn't affect you. That's why I've gone to get

the answer to make sure – I don't want to speak out of turn on that. I want to

make sure I know the answer for the hon. Member that asked the question earlier.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Yes, I realize that and I

thank you for that, Minister. I guess the point is that when you get the answer,

and if they were to say it has to be 30 days, because the fact that we're not

contemplating seasonal employment, we're not contemplating year over year with a

particular employer – in the bill it's not contemplated – if they come back and

say, b'y, that's really not contemplated and if we pass the bill as-is, then

this is going to be a gap.

I guess

my point is if that's the information that comes back when staff analyze this,

would there be a willingness to entertain an amendment rather than just pass

this now in Committee and then second reading and then it's done and then we

could be two years from now before we make the change? That's my question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

I understand completely where

you're coming from. This is intended to protect the victims. We are going to do

that. Everything we could possibly do to protect the victims in any of these

cases, we're going to be doing.

So we've

set the parameters on there, I've gone to our staff, just asked a question on

seasonal employment, because I think it's a very valid question that was asked

and, hopefully, I'll have the answer back shortly before we go any further.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

listened to the minister in regard to the issue I brought in the 30-day

provision and seasonable employment. The issue is – and I don't want to repeat

myself, but it's of extreme importance, I think, personally, from my years of

experience dealing with people seeking originally 920 hours for the first claim

of EI, which wouldn't be particular here because it wouldn't be a repeat case.

It's not only the fishery, it's the construction industry, it's the tourism

industry, it's a vast amount of industries that are seasonal in our province

that have grown in the past number of years, especially in the tourism and, in

some cases, the construction industry. So, there's a large portion of our

population that avails of those hours to qualify for EI.

If it's

not here – and I've brought this up before, and that's why I said about the

30-day provision that's in the proposed bill and it's very clear that you're

saying 30 days you need to have an employment to avail of the leave. If

something else is not written there, if there's not an option to accommodate or

an option for consideration, once we accept this I don't see how those

particular individuals – which will be a large number – if in that case they did

apply for the leave, say 10 days, took the three paid leave, seven unpaid, how

that might affect a claim or something they would do at a latter point.

understand the minister's good intent to say that we will look to accommodate

but, unfortunately, in bill and law once that gets executed it's not reviewed

here in the House, it's reviewed by public servants or others and there are

strict

interpretations of what is written. So if that strict

interpretation is

here, I'm not sure how we're getting to being able to have a second look by

somebody down the road, in a month or two, or twelve months when a particular

case occurs.

I think

it's a valid point and I think it's important that we know which side we're on

at the end of the day in regard to the 30-day period mentioned in the bill.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

other point I want to raise – and again, it ties into what the Member has talked

about on the 30 days. I realize that part of the issue here in terms of people

qualifying for their employment insurance, what we're hearing on that

part is

that if you took three days paid leave and seven days unpaid – so that's 10 days

– you were on an EI claim and you need so many hours of work in order to qualify

for your EI, then this could preclude you from qualifying. Because if you need

420 hours, for argument's sake, and then let's say you're off for 60 hours on

this leave, now you're 60 hours short and that's not going to be recognized by

the federal government as I understand it. So that is going to be a problem for

people if they face that circumstance.

realize the minister can't do anything about that, in this House, in terms of

this bill; but, given the fact that we've identified that as an issue, given the

fact that there is similar legislation in almost every other province, I would

ask the minister respectfully if he could perhaps, at some point in time, bring

it up in any meeting he might have with our federal minister or perhaps his

federal counterparts responsible for this legislation in an effort to bring it

forward to the federal government to make a provision under the EI legislation

to accommodate this particular leave that is occurring in pretty much every

province.

I just

throw that out there to the minister and ask him that he would bring it up to

the federal counterparts to put it on their radar so they could make some

amendments to the federal legislation to accommodate the issue that we're

talking about here and people would not be denied their EI because of family

violence.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

Clause 2.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

It's

been very interesting to hear the questions that have been posed by my

colleagues, and I would like to further look at the issue of the number of paid

and unpaid days. The Member for Ferryland brought up an issue that is very

important as well because if we're looking at how many days are paid leave and

how many are unpaid, it's very much often those who are the least economically

advantaged who will have to use their paid days. When a woman leaves a violent

situation with her children, if she has children, she often is in the most

perilous economic situation in her life.

She

often has to leave where she lives. Oftentimes, with no supplies and no

clothing. So all the extra expenses, she may have to go find another apartment.

If her partner is a wage earner, she doesn't have access to that, probably for a

while, if at all. So it's a really, really precarious economic time for someone

fleeing domestic violence. One would think that we would do the best that we can

to give – because we're all talking about how much we are committed to the issue

of domestic violence and we are committed to prevention, we are committed to

remedies and solutions, and that's what we're talking about in this bill.

So, Mr.

Chair, I'm curious as to why government – and I'm speaking to clause 43.34,

where it says: “An employee, having been employed with the same employer for a

continuous period of 30 days, shall be granted by his or her employer a period

of family violence leave of 3 days paid and 7 days unpaid leave in a year ….”

Mr.

Chair, when we look at the situation that a women might be in, if she flees

during the workday because it's dangerous – we all know, as well, research has

shown that, for instance, the most dangerous and vulnerable time for a women

leaving a domestic violence situation is at the time of leaving. Because we know

that domestic violence is not simply about disagreements and fighting. It's

about control; it's about humiliation; it's about taking away resources from the

victim. So it's really complex. Oftentimes, the most dangerous time is when she

leaves.

So, she

may go to work on Monday morning, her partner may go to work on Monday morning,

and then she comes back during the workday, when he's away, and maybe gathers

her stuff and some stuff for the children; goes to a relative's house, goes to a

transition house; or then, she may have to go to school to get the children, and

bring them to safety as well.

We know

that it's complex. It's complex in terms of the amount of time she may need. She

may need to go to the hospital or to see her doctor. She may need to see a

lawyer. She may need to go to the children's school and maybe transfer the

children to another school. She may need to arrange for the family pet to go

somewhere. And each one of these – none of this is frivolous. This is about

securing safety for herself and for her children, and it's also about not only

the immediate safety, but also trying to re-establish themselves, and

re-establishing her life and the life of her children.

I'm

going to be talking in gender terms because predominantly it is women who are

the victims of domestic violence. I think that that's undeniable. I will, just

for debate sake, use the gender of the victim as a female and as the offender

male, just for the sake of speaking to this legislation.

We know

how complex it is. We've all talked about it in this House. Again, we've all

talked about our commitment, our awareness about this issue. I've been working

on this issue, Mr. Chair, for over 38 years as part of the group that started

the first transition house here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know

of what we speak. Several Members in this House know of what they speak, either

through their professional careers or experiences within their own families or

with their colleagues or their friends. We all know of what we speak and we've

all heard about it in the media, so we know of what we speak.

I'm

surprised that our government and all of our Members in the House who pledge a

commitment to this issue, would say let's do the minimum. Why would we do this?

It's at a time in a woman's life when she needs most, when the needs are so

most, not to be the bare minimum. But we're talking about giving resources,

making sure that resources are there for a woman to escape and re-establish her

life and re-establish the lives her children so that they can get on with their

lives, so that they can go back to work, so that they can get on with it. That's

what we're talking about. Let's keep that in mind.

Oftentimes, when a woman chooses to leave, she knows that financially she may be

choosing poverty or extreme financial difficulty for both herself and her

children. It is a very vulnerable and crucial time.

What are

we saying? What are we saying in this House to the women of Newfoundland and

Labrador that we're just going to give you the bare minimum? That this is a

first step. Now, we know some provinces don't even give three days paid leave;

we know that. We know that some provinces haven't even gotten to this point, but

New Brunswick is giving five days paid leave, five days unpaid leave. Ontario is

giving five days paid leave, five days unpaid leave. Manitoba is giving five

days paid leave, five days unpaid leave.

I don't

know why, how anyone in this House can justify, knowing that this has worked for

these provinces, and that Nova Scotia is yet looking at legislation, BC is

considering legislation, as is Quebec – why would we, in this House, in 2018,

when we know so much, when we know the situation, how crucial this is, why would

we say to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador, or any victim of domestic

violence, why would we say: We know these other provinces have done better than

us, but we're just going to give you three days paid leave.

Why

would we do that, Mr. Chair? When we know the situation, we know the

vulnerability, we know the danger, we know how crucial this initial time is for

women and children to get to safety, to re-establish their lives. And employers

– I've been an employer. When you've had someone work for you for a while, the

more stable their home life is, the more resources they have, the better that is

for an employer as well.

The

minister has talked about, well, often employers go above and beyond the law,

and that's true; we've seen that. But some don't. Some really don't. Sometimes

it's larger companies – often it's smaller companies because there's a

relationship built with their employees. But sometimes it's larger companies,

international companies, who have large numbers of employees, who will not do

that.

So, Mr.

Chair, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the Member for St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi, clause 2 of the bill is amended at the proposed subsection

43.34(1), by deleting the phrase “3 days paid leave and 7 days unpaid leave” and

replacing it with “5 days paid leave and 5 days unpaid leave,” and again this is

seconded by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Committee will recess so we can take a look at the proposed amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

With

regard to the amendment, the amendment is said to be in order.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

pleased to stand and speak to the amendment. I was pleased to second the

amendment by the Member for St. John's Centre. I think she did an eloquent job

when she spoke prior to moving the amendment, talking about what does exist in

our country right now in other jurisdictions with similar legislation as we are

debating here today. But she also spoke eloquently to what it means to remove

oneself from a dangerous situation, what that can mean, both in terms of a

situation that's gone on long term and also in cases where something may have

happened immediately and requires the person to get out of a situation of

danger.

It's

very complicated, the situation of somebody who is experiencing domestic

violence and the various situations in which the person, with others whom she

loves, like her children, can find herself. It's not simple, it's very

complicated, and it's very difficult to have a piece of legislation that will

cover all of the complexities that are involved.

We did

hear the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Conception Bay South speak

earlier in the debate, in Committee of the Whole, with regard to the issue

around being eligible for EI, for example. So it's very, very complex. When it

comes to the need of somebody to get out of a dangerous situation, there are

also various complexities as well.

that's why we should be making sure that, at this moment, as we're passing this

legislation, that we don't wait; that all of these situations, these

complexities, are considered, and we make sure that the legislation that we're

going to pass will be the best that we can do at this moment – not the minimum

of what we can do at this moment, but the best of what we can do at this moment.

And even if we had to slow down the passing of the bill for a few days while

some questions get answered, I think that would be extremely important.

The

amendment that's being put forward, and has been put forward by the Member for

St. John's Centre – and, as I said, which I was very glad to support – is an

amendment that the change can be made without any more information. I think it's

a matter of political will because the minister has recognized, and it was

recognized in the briefing that we had, that this issue was considered – the

issue of a longer time was considered. We're talking about increasing the number

of paid days.

So, I

think it's just absolutely logical to move forward on this. I know that the

Member for St. John's Centre wants to speak to this again, and she will be

speaking to what does exist in the country that is showing that we're not just

being flippant here in putting this forward. There are logical precedents –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– here in our country.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Chair.

There

are precedents in our country, which say that this is a logical amendment, an

amendment that we hope the Members will support.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

We have

an incredible opportunity before us today. As legislators, we have an incredible

opportunity here to send a message to the women of Newfoundland and Labrador; to

send a message to the women's organizations all over the province who've been

working on this issue.

We have

an incredible opportunity to send a message to our community as a whole; to say

that we understand the complexity and the dynamics of domestic violence. We have

an incredible opportunity to say we will be, as a province, modernized and

informed around the issues of domestic violence, and that we will adhere to what

is becoming best practices in the country. This is the opportunity that is

before us today. Why would we not take it?

Now, in

the briefing, Mr. Chair, it was said that there was a major component – that it

was considered for the legislation. An official noted that a major proponent who

was consulted about this legislation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, I'm having

difficulty hearing myself here.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I remind

Members if they wish to partake in a conversation, they take it outside.

Thank

you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

So, it

was said that an official noted a major proponent was consulted who objected to

five paid days. I'm not sure why that would be. On what side is government

falling on this? This is not an issue today for anybody to play politics with.

I'm not playing politics with it. I'm sure, Mr. Chair, that nobody in this House

would wish to play politics with this issue.

Again,

what we're looking at is what is the best remedy, what is the best solution,

what is the best legislation we can put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, I really ask for

protection here.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, for anybody to say

that this is politics, it baffles me – absolutely baffles me. What we have –

again, Mr. Chair, if the Members would listen – is that it's clear here. New

Brunswick: five paid days, five unpaid days; Ontario: five paid days, five

unpaid days; Manitoba: five paid days, five unpaid days; Nova Scotia and PEI are

looking at their legislation; BC is looking at their legislation; Alberta has no

paid days. Mr. Chair, isn't that unfortunate? But the best practices –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, I would suggest to

the Members that rather than attacking me, let's attack the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. ROGERS:

Let's attack the problem in a

secure way, in a comprehensive way and in a fair way around domestic violence

that so many women and children all over the province experience, and we know

that. We know the stories. We know the effects. We've been talking about these

kinds of issues in this House for years. We've passed great legislation and this

government has been part of proposing and passing great legislation. They passed

changing the definition of domestic violence and modernized that.

This

government also modernized our Residential

Tenancies Act to also make it easier – not easy, because nothing is easy in

this area, but making it easier, helping women and children escape domestic

violence. They passed fabulous legislation around that.

They

also passed fabulous legislation around harassment-free public sector workplace.

They have done good work and this is the opportunity to continue that good work.

We're not asking for the moon. If people are worried about misuse, once again –

critics fear that this is going to be misused.

How, in

God's name, is a woman going to go to her employer and say my life is in

shambles, I am in danger, my children are in danger; I need help, I need some

time to be able to get our life in order so I can come back and be the best

worker I can be for you – that's what this legislation is about. Why would a

woman go through that when we know the shame and the stigma and the turmoil and

the pain that's involved in this? Why would anybody misuse it?

The

research in the United Kingdom around this is showing that only six of 12,000

prosecutions were founded to be false; that's .005 per cent. Mr. Chair, we can

do this in the best way possible. This is the opportunity. This is the

opportunity that faces us right here today. What are Members going to do when

they go back to their districts and say, you know, b'ys, no, all these other

provinces that have five days paid and five days unpaid, all the women's groups

all over the province have said this is the best scenario – they're not asking

for the moon, but this is the best scenario. The labour groups have said this is

the best scenario.

Members

who have spoken on the other side of the House talked about thanking all those

who have worked so hard to help bring this legislation forth. What are you going

to say when you go back to your communities and say no, no, we know that best

practices and the moment is towards five days paid but you know what, we don't

think that's what the women and children of Newfoundland and Labrador should

get. That's what we're saying if we don't pass this amendment. Why would we do

that? We have an incredible opportunity.

The

Member for Ferryland, when he talked about seasonal workers, when he talked

about we know important paid days are for our seasonal workers in fish plants,

in construction, predominantly in some of the more rural areas, that the fewer

days of paid leave will affect whether or not they will even be eligible for

employment insurance. We know how important that is, and I'm so glad that the

Member for Ferryland brought this up.

This is

the least we can do. The least we can do is to say to the women and children of

Newfoundland and Labrador, we know what best practices are, we know where

legislation is heading to in most parts of the country – we know that. And

again, Mr. Chair, it is in most parts of the country where Ontario, Manitoba and

New Brunswick, and again, BC's looking at their legislation, Nova Scotia is. We

know that we can do this. There is no good reason not to. That's the interesting

thing. What is the good reason not to, except to say, well, somebody lobbied us

and they said we really don't want to put that in legislation? Well, who lobbied

them? Who opposed it, and why?

Again,

this is not about giving people paid holidays. This is about ensuring that your

worker will be able to get her life in order, her children's life in order so

that she can come back and do the best work that she possibly can. So, Mr.

Chair, I implore the Members of this House to listen to the experts, because

we're not the experts in this House. The experts have presented to us what they

feel is the minimum standard, what they feel is the minimum standard in order to

secure someone's life and their children. They believe that the very minimum

standard is five days paid and five days unpaid. This is not going to cost

government anything. We know legislation doesn't change hearts, and we know that

the majority of our employers take care of their employees. They care about

their employees. But what we do know is, at times, we need legislation when

hearts are not there.

Mr.

Chair, once again, I implore my colleagues in this House to consider doing the

best that they possibly can.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chair, one thing I can

promise you is I'm not going to politicize this issue for sure. I stand in this

House with the best research that we've done, with consultations met with – let

me read out the people that we've consulted: the Provincial Advisory Council on

the Status of Women, the St. John's Status of Women's Council, the NL Sexual

Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre, Violence Prevention Avalon East,

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour – who are very supportive of

this, by the way – Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business and the St. John's Board of Trade.

Mr.

Chair, what we've done is we've got a great first step for new legislation,

which has not been brought to this House before. It's balancing the needs of the

workers and the needs of the employers.

Like any

good legislation – like I've mentioned before – we're going to evaluate it. If

we find that it needs to be redone, we will do it. We have done this in the

Highway Traffic Act , in my days with

Service NL. We've done in other legislation in this House. That's what we'll do

The hon.

Member always uses Alberta as the example for every other thing, except this. So

they say that we've done the least we possibly can. The least we possibly can is

what we're currently in – nothing. Alberta has 10 unpaid days; Saskatchewan has

10 unpaid days; BC hasn't got anything; PEI and Nova Scotia are under

consideration. Yes, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick – as the hon. Member

has identified – have had five paid days and five unpaid.

What

we've done is struck a balance through consultation, which is how it should be

done, not politicizing any issue. There are issues here – the hon. Member knows

this, because I was shocked when I read it myself. The number of violence

against males is 41 per cent, 59 per cent for women. Yes, it's a problem that

we've got to rectify and that's what we're going to do. This strikes the balance

between where the employers and the employees can benefit.

As I

said before, I'm not going to belabour the point. As I've said before, we will

look at it if it needs to be changed. We're not afraid of making changes.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

The

minister, when he says they have consulted, and he named all the status of

women's groups, and the status of women's groups and the labour groups all

recommended five days paid and five days unpaid. And when he talks about

balance, we're talking about people who are in danger, who are trying to get

their lives back together. Like, what is the balance there? I don't quite

understand that.

Now,

because Alberta has zero, does that mean we should go there? What I'm talking

about, Mr. Chair, is where best practices are heading. And we do have an

opportunity here, this is new legislation. The minister could've erred on giving

too much and then looking at the legislation and rolling it back.

But why?

Why do what's really the minimum, when the best practices across the country are

moving towards five days paid and five days unpaid? Why would we not do that?

What is the problem there? Maybe he can tell me. Maybe the minister can tell me

who was opposed to five days paid and who was in support of five days paid, and

let's take a look at what he means by balance.

The

Employers' Council are not experts on domestic violence. The Board of Trade,

they're not experts, and their members are not experts on domestic violence. But

the women's groups, who have been working in this area for over 30 years, they

are the experts, and labour organizations who have done all kinds of work in the

workplace around domestic violence, they have expertise.

So if

someone were to go and speak to a doctor and an employer about someone's medical

condition, they would listen to the expert who is the doctor in that case. So

for the minister to talk about what is striking a balance and consultation, of

course there was consultation. We're not talking about doubling the amount of

paid leave, we're talking about adding two days. We're not talking about

increasing the number of total days, it's still 10 days. We're talking about

what is best practices.

Why at

this point, once again, when we have the opportunity to do the most

comprehensive and the most modern and the most responsive approach to this

issue, why would we not do that? What is it that the minister is going to say to

all these women's groups and groups of experts around this issue? What is he

going to say? How is he going to explain to them why he decided to do this first

step and not make really robust – because a lot of this legislation is robust

that we see in this legislation. Who is he listening to? He's not listening to

the women of the province. He's not listening to the women's groups who have so

clearly said we need five days paid leave.

Again,

we know that the women who would most be impacted by this are marginalized

women. So we're talking about women in minimum wage jobs. We're talking about

Indigenous women who are often lower earners. We're talking about women in

precarious work. A lot of women in rural areas, that's who we're talking about.

How can he justify this? We know that it's not going to be misused. We know that

it's for the benefit of the women and children, and the benefit of an employer,

so that people are well and able to go back to work once they get their lives

established.

There's

also something that women's groups have brought up, is that in terms of danger

for women, increased danger – again, we know that women planning to leave,

that's the most vulnerable time in their whole relationship and the danger

there. So if they have their paycheque docked, they haven't yet left but they're

seeing counsellors, they're seeing the transition house, maybe they're seeing

lawyers, they're getting ready to leave and if their husband – again, it's about

control. Domestic violence is about control. It's not about spats or

disagreements, it's about control. We know that dynamic.

So their

partner sees that their paycheque has been docked, and he's going to say why,

what's going on here? What's going on here? So that's an issue as well. It's

about making sure that the woman has the resources that she needs to stabilize

her life, to stabilize the lives of her children to be able to be safe and to be

able to get herself back to work stronger than when she was in a violent

situation.

I know

I'm somewhat belabouring this point, Mr. Chair, but, again, it is a mystery to

me. Who is government listening to around this issue? Because we know – because

I've spoken to them, I know government has spoken to them. We know the

recommendation has been strongly made by labour, by women's groups, by the

experts, asking government to do the right thing and to legislate five paid days

and five unpaid days.

So who

has government been listening to? Because they're not listening to the women of

the province. They're not listening to the experts in this area, and I'm sure

the former Status of Women minister knows that. I'm sure the current Status of

Women minister knows that as well, what has been asked for by the experts in our

communities.

This can

be a day where government can proclaim victory. Victory for doing the right

thing; victory for having the most robust legislation in the country, along with

the other provinces that have also deemed fit to do five days paid and five days

unpaid. This is an opportunity for government to be able to say we did this

because we know it's the right thing, because we are committed to the issues of

domestic violence.

So, Mr.

Chair, again, I would like – I don't know how the minister will respond to my

questions about who he might be listening to on this. Again, this is the

opportunity for an absolute sense of victory and pride in what this government

can do for the women and children of this province, and for the employers of

this province.

Again,

they can rest on their laurels around the great work that's been done in

changing the definition of domestic violence and changing the

Residential Tendencies Act , and instituting harassment-free public

sector workplace.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hadn't

intended on standing up and speaking anymore, but I feel compelled to speak.

Particularly, given the fact that we're going to be going into a vote and

perhaps Division will be called. I don't know if it will or if it won't. If

Division is called, I will not be supporting the amendment.

Before I

get framed, as everyone has been framed here, to my view – and I understand the

Member is passionate about what she's saying, but I don't like the idea of

having it framed that somehow if Members of the House are in agreement with

bringing in legislation where we have nothing now – and let's bear that in mind.

As of today, we have zero legislation. Also, bearing in mind that there are

provinces that also have zero. There are provinces like Alberta which have 10

unpaid days – where there's an NDP government, by the way. I just throw that in

there. But it's true; they haven't made a move.

There

are other jurisdictions that are seven and three and, yes, there are three that

are five and five – fair enough. To sort of cast this net, if you will, and say

that if we don't support this amendment, how are you going to go back to your

district and talk to women? I really feel, Mr. Chair, that I have to challenge

those remarks. I have a wife. I have lots of women in my life: sisters, a

mother-in-law and so on. I have two daughters.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Girlfriends.

MR. LANE:

No, not girlfriends –

somebody said girlfriends, no.

And

daughters in my life – obviously, there is nobody in here that is going to

condone family violence. Nobody condones that. I certainly don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

And I have to say, as one

Member who will not be supporting the amendment, because I feel that it is a

fair balance, based on where we are right now, which is nowhere, I believe it is

a fair balance. I would disagree, like when the Member talks about that we're

not listening to all the women of Newfoundland and Labrador. She spoke to a

couple of groups, I'm sure. Now she can stand up again and say who she spoke to,

but we know there are two or three women's organizations, and they do great

work.

We all

support the work that they do, and I'm sure they do have expertise in this area.

I know they have some expertise in this area. But to suggest two or three groups

represent the views of all women in Newfoundland and Labrador is absolutely

untrue as well. There are all kinds of people that have different views on

things.

suggest that the Federation of Labour – and granted, they do great work as well,

but they were also up here in the stands, as I recall, up here in the gallery

when the bill was presented, supporting what was being done. I'm sure they do

have some expertise, and people that are working on these things. But I would

say also employers, through the Employers' Council and so on, they also have

people who have researched things and have expertise. They have lots of women in

the Employers' Council and the Board of Trade in leadership positions as well,

and they're women. I'm sure they have expertise and they care about this issue.

Again,

as I said when I spoke earlier, there has to be some reasonable balance. There

has to be a reasonable balance. We can't just simply dismiss employers. I mean

if we didn't have employers – just think about it, we're talking about all the

time we're in this House saying, boy, I wish we had this, I wish we had that and

I wish we had something else. There's not enough money for this; there's not

enough money for that. We need to diversify the economy. Well, it's employers

that are doing that. Employers are doing that. They're the ones who are

employing people. They're paying business taxes. They're creating spinoff.

They're creating a good economic environment so that we can get money and people

can work and people can afford to do the things they need to do and the

government can afford to do what they need to do, so we need employers.

simply say that all employers, they have no expertise and their voice doesn't

count, we're not going to listen to them, we're going to listen to groups on the

other side of the argument, that's not right either. There has to be fairness

and balance in all this.

I think,

as has been said, there's nothing to say we cannot revisit this at some point in

time as things change or whatever and increase the number of days. If that's

what the consultations show and the statistics are borne out and so on, I'm sure

that Members of the House of Assembly would be willing to entertain that.

I don't

want to repeat everything I've said, but I do want to say, for the record, that

me not supporting the amendment to go from three and seven to five and five, for

the record, I have to say that does not mean that I am in any way supporting

family violence. That does not mean that I am against women of this province. It

does not mean that I don't care and does not mean that I'm not listening. It

does not mean that I don't appreciate the great work of the women's groups. It

does not mean that I don't appreciate the great work of labour unions and so on.

What it

does mean is that I'm being fair and reasonable and looking at all sides,

comparing it from where we are today to where we're going to be, comparing it to

other provinces across the country, and I see it as a reasonable compromise, a

good bill, supported as I said, once again, by the Federation of Labour, the

president of NAPE up in the gallery that day that this bill came forward. They

supported it and I'm supporting it, as is, without the amendment.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Shall the amendment carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

CHAIR:

The amendment is defeated.

motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 3.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 3 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

I move, Mr. Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 32.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 32.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 32 without amendment.

MR. 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 32 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

Thank you.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the hour, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education,

Skills and Labour, that we adjourn until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

It has

been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn – we'll actually go into

recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

Thank

you.

Recess

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

by the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, Exploits, Torngat

Mountains, St. George's - Humber, and Terra Nova.

The hon.

the Member for Windsor Lake.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay

tribute to the St. John's Hindu Temple for their successful Diwali celebration

this past weekend, which I had the privilege to attend.

Diwali

is the biggest and brightest of all the Hindu festivals, a five-day celebration

of light, love and reflection. Temples, homes and streets are illuminated with

candles and fireworks as families, friends and co-workers come together to

exchange gifts.

As our

emcee for the evening, Archna Shah, put it so well, to grow up in the Hindu

community here in Newfoundland and Labrador was to have two back-to-back

Christmases.

The

event itself was a triumphant success, full of delicious food and great

entertainment. I congratulate the Board of the Temple and all the volunteers.

It's a tribute to the spirit of their community here in this province, that even

on a cold, snowy night, Hindu Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were still able

to light up the sky with a brilliant fireworks display.

I look

forward to attending next year's celebration and encourage this House to take up

the Diwali message of always putting light before darkness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to pay tribute to Doreen Tremblett of Bishop's Falls

who recently surpassed the 33 year mark, making her the longest serving

councillor with the municipality to date, and one of the longest serving in the

province. Having served as a councillor for 17 years, and deputy mayor for 16,

Doreen has extended her volunteerism to other realms as well.

Some,

but not all, of her extended community and regional involvement brings with it:

being a long time standing member of the Bishop's Falls Heritage Society; over

22 years as coordinator for the Kids Eat Smart Club and school council at Helen

Tulk Elementary; 10 years with the town's development corporation; six years

with the annual Trestle Suicide Prevention Walk, and over two decades serving

with the Salvation Army Advisory Committee for Central Newfoundland.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating and thanking Doreen Tremblett

for taking the time to make things better for the residents of Bishop's Falls,

and our region as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you,

Mr.

Speaker.

As an Indigenous member and representative in this hon.

House, it is indeed an honour to recognize the accomplishments of other

Indigenous people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, I recognize Josh Dyke, a young wrestler from

Sheshatshiu, who recently returned home with a gold medal from the 2018 British

Junior Wrestling Championships on November 10, 2018.

Last year, Josh won bronze at the North American

Indigenous Games in Toronto and showed himself to be a promising wrestler. With

the help of Coach Peter Petipas, and mixed martial artist, Collin Baikie, Josh

trained intensely for the British Juniors with an even loftier goal in mind.

When the match time came, his opponent had to drop the

fight. Not wanting to win by default, Josh challenged the top competitor in a

different weight class. Mr. Speaker, he won that challenge and considers it his

gold medal match.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in saluting the

sporting accomplishments of Josh Dyke. Mr. Speaker, it's not the size of your

community that matters. What matters is the size of your heart and the fire

within.

Well done, Josh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of St. George's - Humber.

MR.

REID:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to members of the Western Newfoundland

Team Broken Earth. The team left yesterday for their nine-day mission to Haiti.

The 21 team members come from Stephenville, Port aux Basques and Corner Brook.

response to the devastating earthquake that shook Haiti in 2010, Dr. Andrew

Furey took a team of volunteers to provide much needed medical care. Eight years

later, Team Broken Earth continues to provide relief to the island nation and

has also begun expanding aid into other countries such as Guatemala and

Bangladesh.

Team

leader, Dr. Wade Thomas, says the team will focus on education and working side

by side with Haitian doctors. They raised funds to pay for their trip and they

bring their own supplies so they are self-efficient when they arrive.

closing, I ask all Members to join me in commending the members of Western

Newfoundland Team Broken Earth for the work they do, for sharing the

Newfoundland spirit with the world, and for inspiring us all to do great things.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For 60

years, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 41 has been supporting veterans and the

communities throughout the Glovertown - Eastport area.

Saturday, November 3, two of the Legion's members received the highest honour,

the Life Achievement Award, during its annual honour and awards banquet.

Mr.

Chesley Bull, now aged 99 years, served King and country in the Royal Navy

between 1941 and 1946. Being a founding member of Branch 41, Chesley continues

to attend all regular meetings and special events during Memorial Day and

Remembrance Day. He was a Charter Member of the Eastport Lions Club and the

Volunteer Fire Department.

addition, Royal Air Force Veteran, Mr. Don Windsor, was recognized during the

awards dinner for his lifetime commitment to his comrades, youth and the

community. For 41 years, Don has been an active Legionnaire; having held several

executive roles, as well as serving as a District Commander. Don is credited

with establishing the local Air Cadet Squadron and he is the past Honourary

Colonel of 9 Wing Gander.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in applauding Veterans Chesley Bull and Don Windsor

on the achievement of their Royal Canadian Life Member Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to update Members on the recent Atlantic Growth

Strategy trade mission to China.

The

mission brought together premiers, federal ministers, and representation from

the business community and post-secondary institutions from across the Atlantic

provinces to attract investment and trade activity.

I'm

pleased to note that there was great interest from our Chinese counterparts in

many of the opportunities for collaboration and engagement with Newfoundland and

Labrador.

At the

Canada China Business Council Forum, I was able to discuss the many trade

opportunities that exist between our province and the growing China market.

This

included everything from investment opportunities in our oil and gas and mining

industries, to highlighting the products that we have to meet the needs of a

rapidly expanding Chinese consumer market.

Having

just launched our Mining The Future 2030

and its plan to grow mining activity in our province, I was especially pleased

to meet with the chairman and management team of HBIS Group, one of the largest

steel manufacturers in China, which has interest in the mining industry in

Labrador. In our meeting we advanced discussions to help realize our goal to

establish new mining activity and new employment right here in our province.

addition, I had a meeting with the chairman and management team of China

National Offshore Oil Corporation, and the Embassy officials advised me that

they are the largest Chinese investor in Canada. Our meeting was to discuss the

current and future opportunities in offshore oil and gas related to

Advance 2030 .

I'm also

pleased to note that during the trip, Ocean Choice International announced that

they are now listing new products on Chinese e-commerce platforms.

Outside

of our efforts to grow large scale natural resource development, smaller

companies also benefited from the mission. For example, companies like Empowered

Homes, which is a tech firm started by two young entrepreneurs from our

province, also pursued opportunities for their mobile app enabled, Wi-Fi

compatible, line voltage thermostat. Our mission delegates pursued opportunities

in the areas of technology, food and beverage, and education as well.

total, Newfoundland and Labrador had more than a dozen companies, and the

College of the North Atlantic participated in various parts of the program in

China and built upon our province's great reputation as an ideal place for

businesses to grow and invest, and for students and institutions to partner in

the area of higher education.

Mr.

Speaker, both our government and the federal government agreed that building a

strong relationship with China is vital to the continued growth of the Canadian

economy. That is why we made this mission a priority under the Atlantic Growth

Strategy, in the same way that we have worked together through the strategy to

improve immigration, workforce development, e-health and many other

opportunities.

Working

together, we will continue to grow the economy in ways that benefit current and

future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I congratulate the hon.

Premier on his trade mission, and for the advance copy of the statement. Our

province is rich in natural resources, work ethic and ingenuity; all of which

make for the possibility of excellent trade relationships with global partners.

I'm

pleased to see small- and medium-sized businesses expand their reach from our

shores and hope that the businesses that participated in this trade mission

forge long-lasting relationships. I'm also pleased that the delegation had

productive talks with companies and officials in China regarding both the oil

and gas and mining sectors, both of which have seen the benefits of the work and

investments made not just by this government, but by previous and successive

Progressive Conservative governments.

The

Chinese market for our seafood products has also been an important relationship

that deserves further cultivation, which the hon. Premier has not mentioned in

his statement today, but I look forward to hearing of any progress being made by

the delegation on the exportation in particular of seal-based products to this

market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Premier for an advance copy of his statement, and congratulations to the

Premier for a successful China trade mission.

I was

pleased that delegates also included smaller companies as well as the large

resource players. This will ensure a greater possibility of economic diversity.

The potential in the Chinese market is remarkable, and here's hoping this opens

up great opportunities for our brilliant smaller local companies, as well as our

large resource sectors.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to provide an update on the cell service initiatives taking place

across our province.

Mr.

Speaker, as part of Budget 2018, the provincial government announced it would

invest $1 million in a new cost-shared cellular service pilot program to address

gaps and deficiencies in cellular service infrastructure in unserved and

underserved communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

This

call for proposals outlined the provincial government's commitment to contribute

up to a maximum of 25 per cent of project cost toward cellular coverage

infrastructure upgrades. The remaining 75 per cent is to be provided by the

service provider, municipalities, private ventures and/or regional government

partnerships.

As a

result of our government's initiative, Mr. Speaker, residents and travellers in

areas of the Great Northern Peninsula and Port au Port Peninsula will enjoy

expanded and improved cellular service coverage. These first two approved

projects include a collective investment of almost $2 million.

The call

for the cellular service pilot program closed on October 1, and I am pleased to

inform the House that in the coming weeks more projects regarding improved and

expanded cell service coverage will be announced.

Mr.

Speaker, this provincial program builds on the significant broadband investment

announced earlier this year in partnership with Connect to Innovate, a federal

program that aims to provide Internet service to unserved and underserved

communities. Many rural and remote communities will be gaining benefits from the

joint investment of $40 million in broadband infrastructure.

Mr.

Speaker, i