December 4, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 48
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers, please.
I have
some special guests today that I'd like to recognize for the Members. First of
all, over in the Speaker's gallery I'm very pleased to welcome Ms. Lynelle
Cantwell. Ms. Cantwell has received a special award and will be recognized in a
Member's statement this afternoon. She is joined by her sister-in-law, Courtney
Cantwell.
A great
welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I've just been out in the
lobby and am very pleased to welcome a group of rugby players. They are members
of the Roncalli Central High School ruby team from Avondale and their coach,
Noel Strapp. They will be mentioned in a Member's statement this afternoon.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also in the public gallery
today we have Mayor Tony Ryan and Councillor Mack Lavers of the Town of Port
Saunders.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I see Mr. Jerry Earle up in
the audience. Thank you for coming, Sir.
I also
see Mr. Waylon Williams, the communications officer with Happy Valley-Goose Bay,
and finally I'd also like to identify Mr. John Duggan who is a member of the
legal community and he will be recognized in a Ministerial Statement today.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear for the Members from the Districts of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, Harbour Main and Cape
St. Francis.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
more than pleased to recognize a major achievement of author, former journalist
and Labradorian Anne Budgell – the publication of
We All Expected to Die, her documentary of the Spanish influenza in
Labrador in 1918-1919.
On the
100th anniversary of this disaster, Anne Budgell puts the spotlight on the
almost total wipeout of the Inuit villages of Okak and Hebron, where the
mortality rate was 71 per cent.
Publisher ISER Books describes Budgell's book as “powerful and uncompromising”
in its depiction of the deadly havoc of the pandemic in these isolated
settlements.
She uses
diaries, journals, newspaper reports, official documents and the recollections
of survivors to tell the story of the flu's horrific impact in Labrador and how
authorities at the time did not provide assistance.
The
importance of Anne Budgell's work is being recognized by her presence at the
Canadian Immunization Conference where she is today signing books.
I ask
the hon. Members of this House to join with me in thanking Anne Budgell for her
amazing piece of work.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
rise to pay tribute to a very special, former school teacher, principal and
former mayor of Bay Roberts, Mr. Wilbur Sparkes, who passed away on November 25
at age 90.
Mr.
Sparkes was the longest serving mayor in the town's history, elected in 1981 and
remaining in the position for 24 years. He was born in Massachusetts in 1928 and
moved to Bay Roberts with his family when he was four.
He
studied education at Memorial University and taught for almost 40 years; 33 of
which he spent teaching at Amalgamated Academy in the community where he was
also principal.
Mr.
Sparkes was also known and admired for his ability to play sports such as hockey
and baseball. He was especially known for his times as a pitcher with the Guards
in St. John's Senior Baseball in the '50s. He kept in shape, Mr. Speaker, by
playing rec hockey well into his seventies.
Wilbur
Sparkes was inducted into the St. John's Baseball Hall of Fame and was also
inducted to the Bay Roberts Sports Hall of Fame. His legacy lives on through the
Wilbur Sparkes Recreation Complex in the town, which was named in his honour
when he retired from municipal politics.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all hon. Members send sincere condolences to the Sparkes
family.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to extend congratulations to Ms. Lauren Carter of Harbour
Breton for her recent accomplishment as winner of the Anaconda Mining Volunteer
Activity Award, and the Wing'n It George Street Community Pride Award presented
at the Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Scholarship Awards Gala in
November.
This
industrious young lady, through her elementary and high school years, was a peer
tutor, canteen worker, Sunday school teacher, fun skate coach, play-for-fun
coach, Community Youth Network board member, and the list goes on. She also had
time to play volleyball, softball, ball hockey, minor hockey and more. She
served as vice-president of the student council at both St. Joseph's Elementary
and King Academy high school. She has always shone in local speak-out events and
was the first-place senior division winner at the Lions Annual Speak Out in
2018, as well as a guest speaker at the Aquaculture Summit in 2017.
From
winner of the Mayor's Award for highest academic achievement to Memorial
University's HORIZONS Scholarship and MedQUEST participant, Lauren demonstrates
an incredible work ethic and we are confident that this very well-rounded, young
woman will continue to be a strong leader of today's youth. Lauren, now in her
first year at MUN, is also currently on the Premier's Youth Council, which
provides advice to government from a youth perspective.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking Lauren for her tremendous
community spirit and being an outstanding role model to young women all across
our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize the girls' rugby team from Roncalli Central High
in Avondale. The team was formed in 2011 by Harbour Main resident and teacher
Noel Strapp. From the beginning, this team had to overcome being inexperienced
and playing against larger schools with established programs.
However,
the team had a lot of energy and their enthusiasm made learning how to play and
compete so much easier. Within two years, Roncalli has made it to their first
provincial championship, but fell just short of a first title. Since then,
Roncalli has won four of the last five provincial championships, and made female
rugby a mainstay in the school's program. Roncalli recently played in its sixth
straight provincial championship game, with a team largely composed of
inexperienced players, and defeated Prince of Wales Collegiate by a score of 34
to 5.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
PARSLEY:
Nationally and globally, women's rugby is one of the fastest growing sports in
the world. With the skills, talent and enthusiasm created from these girls, the
sport will continue to grow and there will be success for years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR.
K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Lynelle Cantwell from
Torbay for receiving the Canadian Red Cross 2018 Young Humanitarian Award.
Mr. Speaker, Lynelle is 20 years old and she is already
a powerful, anti-bullying advocate and motivational speaker. Lynelle made
international headlines several years ago after she was a target of
cyber-bullying and chose to respond to her bullies with compassion.
Since then, Lynelle has spoken to tens of thousands of
youth across the country about bullying and body-shaming, and was recently
featured in the documentary “Rising Above:
Stories of Courage and Hope.” Lynelle has also been a youth advocate for the
Canadian Red Cross's annual Pink Day, and she is a youth ambassador for TELUS in
partnership with WE Day.
Mr. Speaker, Lynelle has taken a stand against bullying
that has inspired people across the country and around the world. She has set an
example to us all.
I congratulate Lynelle on being chosen as the 2018 Red
Cross Young Humanitarian, and I ask all hon. Members to join with me in wishing
Lynelle success as she continues to combat bullying with a positive voice for
others who encounter the same challenges.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
And
speaking of strong women, I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that
Mary Shortall is joining us in the audience. Nice to have you here today, Mary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR.
DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, I recently had the honour of welcoming a visiting delegation from the
Vietnam Skills for Employment Project to our province.
Newfoundland and Labrador was the final stop on their
latest cross-country tour of Canada's public college systems. For the past four years, the Vietnam Skills for
Employment Project has been working in partnership with the College of the North
Atlantic to develop a world-class public college system in Vietnam.
During
the visit, they were able to tour the College of the North Atlantic's facilities
and to get a first-hand look at how it supports economic growth and prosperity.
I am proud to inform my hon. colleagues that at the conclusion of this
cross-country tour, a member of the delegation told my officials that their
collaborative relationship with the College of the North Atlantic is the best of
all their relationships with the Canadian public colleges.
Vietnam
shares our belief that a world-class education is the key to economic growth and
prosperity. The College of the North Atlantic's partnership with the Vietnam
Skills for Employment Project helps ensure the success of our students, schools
and the economy on a global stage.
I ask
all hon. colleagues to join me in extending our gratitude to the delegation for
the honour of their visit and in commending the College of the North Atlantic
for raising the province's profile internationally.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I wish to thank the Vietnam
Skills for Employment Project for taking time out of their schedule to visit
Newfoundland and Labrador and tour the facilities in our province. I'm delighted
to hear that the delegates consider their collaborative relationship with the
college as the best of all the relationships in Canada. This is further evidence
of a successful partnership that the College of the North Atlantic is forging
internationally. The College of the North Atlantic is a world-class institution
and its continued success internationally is a testament to the hard work,
dedication and ingenuity of our people.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy. I applaud the College of the North
Atlantic as it continues to play a role internationally in post-secondary
education. But while this government worries about the global success of our
schools, I hope there will be equal concern with the affordability and quality
of post-secondary education in this province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to highlight the launch of Text 911 or T911. The system
assists 911 call takers to communicate quickly and clearly with persons who are
deaf, late deafened, hard of hearing and others who may benefit by using
wireless text messaging.
I was
pleased to be joined for the announcement by my colleague the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills, as well as Kerry Power, Executive Director of
NL911; and members of the community who will benefit from this new service.
As the
minister responsible for emergency services, I am pleased to say that this
increased access to services will ensure the safety and security of residents
during an emergency situation. T911 will enable users to access 911 services
more quickly and more easily, and provide peace of mind that emergency services
are now accessible by text.
I would
like to extend special thanks to the staff of NL911 Inc. for leading this
initiative. I would also like to recognize those organizations that contributed
their support and involvement, including: the Department of Children, Seniors
and Social Development and the Disability Policy Office; the Provincial Advisory
Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities; the Canadian Hard of
Hearing Association-Newfoundland and Labrador; the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of the Deaf; and the Coalition of the Persons with Disabilities
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Through
improved, quality emergency services that meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, our government continues to act on our commitment to ensure the
safety and well-being of residents, families and communities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker,
obviously, this is great news. We welcome any measures that result in improved
access to services in an emergency situation. It's very important to have steps
that individuals can feel safe and make sure that potential life-saving help and
assistance is available.
We would
also like to thank all the individuals and organizations involved in making this
important initiative possible. I'm certain there was a lot of hard work required
to do it. I would like to thank all the residents and anybody who participated
in this. This is a vital service to the residents of our province.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted that we
finally have the Text 911 system in this province and I'm sure that many
residents will be breathing a sigh of relief. We have to do everything we can to
ensure that all Members of our society are safe in an emergency.
I look
forward to the minister reporting on ongoing work with the organizations he's
already working with in getting the information out so that everyone who needs
it can access the service.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, following a
tremendous amount of work by our government, working group and advisory
committee, the new Drug Treatment Court pilot project in St. John's has been
established.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
This court is intended for
offenders with serious drug addictions, who commit on non-violent,
drug-motivated offences. It brings together judicial supervision and treatment
services for substance abuse and establishes long-term supports outside the
criminal justice system. This problem-solving approach offers an alternative to
traditional criminal justice responses by addressing the underlying issues that
contribute to crime by offering court-monitored treatment, random and frequent
drug testing, incentives and sanctions, intensive case management and social
services support.
Mr.
Speaker, I have thanked them before but it bears repeating. I would like to take
this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the working group, particularly
Mr. John Duggan, as well as the provincial court judiciary, whose commitment and
dedication to this project was essential in establishing this court. I would
also like to recognize the advisory committee, which consisted of various
government agencies and the private bar. A critical component to the court's
success will be the continued collaboration among community partners.
Mr.
Speaker, our government recognizes the important role of restorative justice and
continues to explore innovative approaches to the administration of justice.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I would thank
the minister for his advance copy of this statement. We also welcome the start
of the Drug Treatment Court which was announced a year-and-a-half ago in May.
The Drug
Treatment Court model has proven to be effective in other jurisdictions in
diverting certain offenders with serious drug addictions, if their offences are
non-violent, into supervision and treatment that targets the addiction, the root
cause of many of the problems.
It is in
their best interest, and society's collectively, to treat the addiction. We also
commend Mr. Duggan, the working group, the advisory team of public agencies and
the private bar, and the many others whose work over the years has brought us to
this point.
Collaboration and team work will be required as this rolls out in order to
ensure its success. We trust that the court will prove to be successful and
lives will be saved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. The province is seeing an escalation in drug related crimes with
numerous repeat offenders. A drug court is long overdue.
I
applaud this government for finally taking the steps to establish this
specialized court, and congratulations to John Duggan, the working group and
advisory committee and judiciary and private bar. But the success of a drug
court rests with comprehensive, intensive and specialized treatment programs for
court-mandated treatment.
I am
concerned that the robust programs that make this court work are not in place,
and to plead guilty with the expectation of real help and to not get that help
is a violation of human rights.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands made allegations during debate last night of a most
serious nature, reflecting on the integrity of the Office of the Premier and the
integrity of this House of Assembly.
Did the
Premier have numerous telephone conversations during a four- to five-month
period during which the investigation of Code of Conduct violations was being
conducted by an independent officer of the Legislature? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Leader of the Opposition asked a question about a process that we started in
this House in April of this year that ended in October, just a few weeks ago.
I said
publicly, Mr. Speaker, outside of this House in recent interviews that I've
done, that I have had conversations with all our MHAs, including the MHA for the
District of Humber - Bay of Islands. I've never ever denied having those
conversations, Mr. Speaker. It was the proper thing for me to do to make sure
that everyone that was engaged would do so in a very fulsome way, that
information that would have been required to make sure that the appropriate
process – the best use of the process that was established.
So, yes,
we had those conversations, Mr. Speaker; but, I've also said in this House of
Assembly that the reports were one thing, what came out of those reports, but
also about how responses were done in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I
spoke at length here, as the Leader of the Opposition did as well. We must do
better, and I've made a commitment that we would never go through this same
process again.
The
Committee on Privileges and Elections are doing their work and will come back
with a number of suggestions on how we can improve it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank you, Premier, for
that confirmation.
Did the
Premier tell the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at the beginning of the
complaints process, or at any stage of the process, that the allegations made by
the Minister of Service NL were ill founded? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
would assume that the Leader of the Opposition would have spoken to his own
Members as well.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I spoke to all Members of this House of Assembly when they
would have reached out to me or in some cases I reached out to them proactively
as well, as they were dealing with the process that they were involved in. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I encouraged people – if you remember – publicly to
come forward if there were any allegations that would have been made by MHAs
that exist in this House. I also said that people that were involved in
responding should come forward with the information that was required so that we
can get the result of the outcome that was required.
Mr.
Speaker, the allegations – when you look at Rubin Thomlinson, we spent days on
the floor of this House of Assembly. The MHA that the Leader of the Opposition
has talked about that Rubin Thomlinson themselves said the allegations were not
unfounded; but, indeed, the Commissioner came back and said there was a breach
of the Code of conduct.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Did the Premier tell the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands at the beginning of the complaints process,
or at any other stage, that the allegations made by the Minister of Service NL
were ill founded? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we went through
a lengthy debate. There has been respondents and there has been people that have
responded to the allegations, those that put allegations forward. Coming out of
the process, the Leader of the Opposition himself said that this should not be
carried out in the public sphere. And here we go again, no lessons have been
learned by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, about what should happen
with Members that exist in this here.
Rubin
Thomlinson made a decision that the allegations did not see any violations, did
not see that the member had done anything in terms of harassment and bullying.
There was no consequence of that. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner themselves said
there was a breech in the Code of Conduct. Those were the types of conversations
we had.
I
encourage people to bring forward with their respondents with the information
they would have had, as I did with people that have had allegations, to bring
them forward on behalf of any Member of this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I can
only repeat the question, which in my submission was not answered.
Did the
Premier tell that Member for Humber - Bay of Islands that the allegations were
ill founded, or words to a similar effect? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the
conversations I would have had with any MHAs were based on the information that
they would've had, the allegations that were put forward in this particular case
about MHAs. Mr. Speaker, the conversations I had about allegations and what the
respondent would look like, I had never seen what the responses would have been
like.
Mr.
Speaker, the allegations even changed when they first came to me, because if you
remember, they were going to come to the Premier in the beginning. The reports
never did come to me.
I
received the reports – well, I can't say for you, the Leader of the Opposition,
I don't know when you had them, but I had the reports when they became public.
The allegations that were put forward by the Members in this House of Assembly
and all the reports that came out were shared and debated in this House of
Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
Any
information around the allegations, if they were unfounded or not, I've always
said that what people should come forward with is the information to support
their responses based on the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
– allegations, and they
should do so in a very comprehensive way.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I would submit
to any member of public watching that the question was not answered.
Did the
Premier discuss with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands removing the
Minister of Service NL from Cabinet? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, who sits in
Cabinet would be a decision that was made by the Premier. And I made those
decisive decisions just a few days ago. The information that would have come
forward to me based on phone calls or chats that would have been had never came
out in the responses. That never came out. That was discussed on the floor of
this House of Assembly. You participated in those debates. The information that
I had when I made the decisions who should go in Cabinet, who should not go in
Cabinet, were made once the debates were over.
Mr.
Speaker, early on in this discussion, I said the reports would be one thing, the
reaction and the responses would be another thing. I make my decision based on
zero tolerance, respectfulness and professionalism, just like the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, respect from all Members in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the court
of public opinion will have to decide if the question was answered.
Did the
Premier agree with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands to be a witness on
behalf of that Member, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, if the
Commissioner or anyone wanted me to participate in those areas, I absolutely
would have been there – absolutely would have been there. I was not called; I
was not asked to participate in the reports. But if I had received a call from
the Commissioner, I definitely would have been there. It's my responsibility to
do just that. Just like it's my responsibility to make decisions based on
Cabinet. That is what I did.
Mr.
Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I gather, I do believe in a
restorative process. I do believe when all Members of this House of Assembly,
those that have been impacted, can demonstrate to me, as the Premier here, that
they're willing to work together to advance the agenda of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, I do believe in a restorative process. But only when all Members
are willing to participate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, we all
believe in restoration, when possible.
Did the
Premier go over the Member's written response to the allegations against him,
and coach the Member on what he should put in his response, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the written
responses were supplied; they were made public here. That's when I would have
seen the information that would have come out from the Commissioner.
Mr.
Speaker, that is the process that I participated in. And it was the one I
participated in the debate very early when I outlined what I would expect from
all Members in this House of Assembly: zero tolerance, respectful,
professionalism and a restorative process. I still believe in a restorative
process.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't give up on people. Once they demonstrate their ability to work
together on behalf of people in our province, that is how the restorative
process would work. It's been successful with other associations. It's been
successful in other jurisdictions. But what has not been successful is for us to
engage in a debate, in a public sphere, in this House of Assembly. We have
learned a lesson from that, Mr. Speaker. I challenge why the Leader of the
Opposition who, himself, and his own party said that this should change, why
that he is not (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Did the Premier coach the
Member as to what he should put in his response, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, what I said to
all Members if there's an allegation against any MHA or any of their colleagues
in this House of Assembly, I've always encourage them to come forward. I also
encourage those that are going to respond to the allegations, on the
conversations that I could've had with them, was to make sure they do a good
job.
As a
lawyer, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, I would guess that that's the
same advice that he would give to anyone: Make sure you do so in a very
detailed, comprehensive way. I would expect those that are responding to do
that. I would expect those that are coming forward with allegations to do the
same thing.
As a
matter of fact, I also encourage those to get legal advice if need be, if they
feel they should actually do that, Mr. Speaker. That is the very non-biased
advice that I would give to everyone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
So are we in this House
hearing that the Premier did assist the Member with what should go in his
written response?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker.
Let's be
very clear: The responses and the allegations and the back and forth that
would've occurred between the Commissioner, I first found about them when those
reports were tabled.
What I
always said to those that are responding, and those that have come forward, to
do so with the best information that you would have available to actually
participate in those allegations or in the responses.
Mr.
Speaker, that is a fair thing to do. I think everyone in this House, when this
process was started – I see Members opposite shaking their head. Maybe they
don't believe in that. But what I've said to anyone that was participating to
make sure you do so in a very comprehensive way. The information that was
required, we knew this was going to be made public, and I wanted to make sure
that everyone that was involved did so in a very comprehensive way that is a
fair and unbiased thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
If the allegations the Member
for Humber - Bay of Islands made in this House last night were to be true – not
saying they were – if they were to be true, would this be consistent with what
the Premier said on May 2, 2018, and I quote: “This is an independent process.
It must maintain the integrity and the confidence of those who are dealing with
it.”
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Of course it was an
independent process, Mr. Speaker. But just like any Member of this House of
Assembly, if they were asked to participate by the Commissioner, which I wasn't,
they would do that.
But just
like every MHA that I spoke to, if it was someone that was putting forward an
allegation, I encourage them to do so if they felt there was an allegation that
they wanted to actually proceed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner then, when
you think about it, took those allegations, did their own assessment, if indeed
that this is something that needed to be explored further, which they did on
several occasions, Mr. Speaker.
Then,
those that would respond, I think it's very fair for me, as Premier, the leader
of this party to, even if it was someone in the Opposition, like maybe someone
in your own office, to do so in a very comprehensive way to make sure that the
information is out there so the Commissioner, and then later on the MHAs that
sit in those chairs, could made the best decisions that were possible.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
If the allegations the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands made in this House
last night were to be true, would they constitute conduct bringing the integrity
of the Office of the Premier into disrepute, contrary to Principle 1 of the Code
of Conduct, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, in this
particular case here, where MHAs or individuals would reach out to me, I was not
involved in this. The reports were not coming back to me. I think that's a point
that we need to understand. These reports were not coming back to me. There was
a different process there coming back to the House Management Commission.
So, I'm
not denying that there conversations that would have occurred, appropriately so,
nevertheless I wasn't a coach. What I was saying, that people should put their
responses in at a very comprehensive way, with the level of details.
Mr.
Speaker, I think anyone would suggest that if you're actually responding to an
allegation, you'd want to make sure that the information that could actually
respond to those allegations was done very detailed, and I would expect those
that were putting forward those allegations would actually do the same thing.
I think
as a lawyer, the Leader of the Opposition would expect and explain that to
anyone that he would've been speaking about as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
For clarity, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier informing the House that he did offer
assistance of the nature he described to the hon. Member for Humber - Bay of
Islands in how to conduct himself in making his response?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't
say that. What I'm saying is that any conversations that I would've had would've
been for people who put in the responses with the information that I would've
had.
I don't
know if the Leader of the Opposition got involved with the Member that is in his
caucus right now, if he had helped her or not. I would not know that. Maybe
that's a question that he could ask. He's a lawyer, maybe she reached out. I
don't know what would have happened there, Mr. Speaker.
But, for
me, anytime I was asked those questions it was just simply to make sure that the
reports and the respondents and those that put forward allegations have all the
necessary information so that they would put that to the Commissioner; hence,
that would come back to the floor with this information, Mr. Speaker, so that we
can make the decisions.
Mr.
Speaker, with that said, there is a restorative process for all Members of this
House of Assembly. I believe that when everyone agrees that they can work
together, Mr. Speaker, I still believe that restorative process can work.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Did the Premier reach out to
the Member by telephone on one or more occasions to assist him in the way he
describes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I think it's
been – I've shared this publicly many times right now. The Member that the
Leader of the Opposition is talking about was someone that I considered a friend
for a long time – still do – and that friendship evolved over time.
Mr.
Speaker, when people are dealing with situations, like all other Members in this
House of Assembly, I would have actually chatted with them. That is, I think,
the responsible thing for me to do as a human being. I would do that as a human
being, Mr. Speaker.
It
wasn't about providing the advice and the direction, but it was simply about
making sure that the information that they put out there, Mr. Speaker, did so in
a very responsible and a fulsome manner to get – and no different than with
those that put forward allegations, said to them, Mr. Speaker, on many
occasions, yes, get the legal advice. Make sure that the allegations as they go
forward would have as much information that the Commissioner could actually make
a decision; therefore, come back to this House of Assembly that would
(inaudible) all of us.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I'm sure the Premier will
appreciate that the content of the allegations made by the hon. Member last
night are at variance with what he has informed the House today.
If the
allegations made by that Member were to be found untrue, would that represent a
violation of the Code of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to
deal with questions from the Leader of the Opposition that puts forward
hypothetical situations. We deal with the reports that come in.
If the
Leader of the Opposition would remember, those reports were accepted within this
House of Assembly. There was some concurrence and there was – the Leader of the
Opposition, as an example, voted against the measures that were put in place, if
you remember that correctly – around the individual harassment that would have
been, that the Members were asked to do.
These
are the Members opposite, the Leader of the Opposition being one, that voted
against this. So the reports were delivered to the House of Assembly. They were
debated here for a significant number of hours, Mr. Speaker. Then the so-called
consequences, or what was expected from the MHAs involved, then they would have
been dealt with. And I have no idea yet if those things have been followed up
on.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said, I believe in a restorative process, and at some point all
of us, as MHAs (inaudible) Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a process that
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We, on the Opposition side,
moved an amendment for more stringent penalties which was voted down by
government Members.
On
November 1, the Minister of Finance said he would endeavour to find out who owns
the numbered company which is benefiting from Canopy's $40 million subsidy from
government.
Have the
minister's endeavours yielded fruit?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
answered that question. I've answered it out in the media area. I believe one of
your staff were out there and heard the answers. It was widely reported in the
media. There was a director put in place under the laws – I believe you're a
lawyer, you should know this.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the Member to direct
your answers to the Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe the hon. Member of the Opposition is a lawyer. He knows that a numbered
company has a director, and we are not able to find out who's behind that. I did
endeavour, that's my answer. It's my final answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We have on prior occasions,
several of them, pointed to the contract and the question of arm's length, and I
leave it at that.
Media is
reporting that through an access to information request, the numbered company
has connections to suite 301 at 7 Plank Road.
I would
ask the Minister of Finance again: Do you know who the shareholders of this
numbered company are? Does that bit of information assist?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said in the House of Assembly multiple times, that when it comes to the Registry
of Companies, which companies have to register in Newfoundland and Labrador,
there's documentation that is required, but when it comes to finding out the
share structure of a company that is information that is not available. It is
not something that government has, and this particular numbered company that he
is referring to, government does not have a contract or a relationship with. The
contract that we have, performance-based contracts to grow our cannabis industry
here in Newfoundland and Labrador, would be with Biome and Canopy Growth.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
As the minister may or may
not be aware, according to media, the permitting application for the numbered
company originated in the same suite as three companies owned by an individual
by the name of Dean MacDonald, generally assumed to be an individual with
Liberal Party connections, in a building where Canopy Growth also has an office.
I would
ask the Premier: How do we refute the suspicion in the public mind that this
numbered company is benefiting because of ties to the Liberal Party?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
can say is that the Department of TCII or government, we do not do permitting
for the City of St. John's when they issue building permits because they're in
the business of getting business happening in their city. That's why we would
not have any information on that.
What we
are doing, and what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is that we've entered into a
contract with Canopy Growth and with Biome to be able to grow an industry here
in our province. We have a good business deal. We do not have any relationship
with the private business matters that Canopy Growth or Biome or any other
company is doing. We have a performance-based contract. I've answered the
details.
The
Member opposite is bringing in hypotheticals and what ifs that is irrelevant and
is not part of the conversation of the contract with government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Does the Minister of Justice
know who stands behind the numbered company?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Does the Minister of Health
know who the shareholder is of the numbered company, maybe?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I'm delighted to take the opportunity to rise and answer his question, Mr.
Speaker: Ditto.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Does the Minister of
Transportation know?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, no, I do not know who owns the numbered company.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I can predict the further
answers if I were to work my way down the rest of the bench.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSBIE:
We received, Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Canopy Growth contract yesterday in
the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I will not tolerate any
further interruptions. That is a big warning.
Please
proceed, Sir.
MR. CROSBIE:
As I was saying, we received
amendments to the Canopy Growth contract in the House. The 90-day time frame to
purchase land has not changed; however, we know that Canopy is leasing land and
did not purchase land.
I ask
the minister: Is Canopy following the contract or not following the contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I would say to the Member
opposite that people need to judge us on the deal that we have. He's making this
about politics; that's simply not about what's actually happening with our
contract with Canopy Growth or with Biome.
We are
creating an industry here. What they have done is that we have clear details in
the contract that I've explained time and time again that if the company is
leasing land, then that is not an eligible expense. If they're leasing a
building, that is not an eligible expense. We have the mechanism with the
contract with Canopy Growth and that's the only company that we are dealing with
there that if they do not have eligible expenses, they will not receive any
benefit.
At the
end of the day, the provincial government and the Treasury will receive
significant benefit from the 200-plus jobs that are being created and all the
investment that's happening here in our economy. They are taking the risk, not
us.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the federal Natural Resources minister said there are serious communication
problems between Husky and the C-NLOPB and problems with protocols and
procedures during storms. Now the Premier and the federal minister are both
waiting for the C-NLOPB's review of Husky's report on their oil spill. So a
review of a review by a self-regulated company and an offshore board with weak
protocols.
I asked
the Premier: These are serious issues. How can he guarantee this province that
we are going to get the full picture on this oil spill?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do
agree on one thing; these are serious issues. As I've said time and time again,
safety and environmental protection are paramount to our offshore and we are
going to and continue to ensure that is the case. C-NLOPB is in midst of an
investigation as to what occurred when the weak link in the flow line did have a
collapse, Mr. Speaker.
We are
very concerned about this and we're going to do absolutely everything to ensure
that this type of accident does not occur again, but we have to wait for the
investigation to know exactly what occurred so that we can take the mitigation
measures to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
asking about the confidence and guarantee that the picture that we're going to
get is a full picture. The recent Husky oil spill shows the plans in place for
dealing with oil spills are clearly inadequate. Research also shows that oil
companies do not have the ability to clean up oil spills in storm conditions.
So I ask
the Premier: What is this government going to do to address the fact that we
don't have adequate information for drilling safely in deep water where spills
could be catastrophic?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For 30
years, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, we've had a fairly good record, I
would say, and I believe Members in this House would agree, a very good record
offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
There
have been issues around environmental protection and things have evolved. We
have made sure that there are regulatory processes. If there is something that
needs to be further taken to ensure that the environmental protection is the
absolute best it can be, absolute best in the world, we are prepared to take
that policy direction.
We are
awaiting now the investigation by the C-NLOPB and by Husky to understand, Mr.
Speaker, what has occurred so we can make sure it never happens again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
With
$1.3 billion in exploration bids made for deep water oil and gas exploration in
our province, we learned that some of these bids are in a marine refuge area
where another important offshore industry, the fishery, has been restricted from
operating for conservation purposes.
I ask
the Premier: What is the point of a marine refuge if you permit oil companies to
conduct seismic testing and drilling while fish harvesters respect the rules of
marine refuges?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe the Member opposite would understand that there are Marine Protected
Areas in which no activity can occur, and there are marine refuge areas which
really is under the Fisheries Act to
ensure a rebuilding of the fisheries.
So yes,
some of the bids that took place earlier this year or this month for the $1.3
billion in exploration were in marine refuge areas. They are protected areas in
fishing, not Marine Protected Areas that are devoid of any activity in the
offshore.
So I say
to the Member opposite that the difference is, one is a refuge area that
protects the fishery; the other's a Marine Protected Area that makes sure that
no activity can occur. And we know, from the federal jurisdiction, that
activities in the oil and gas can occur in that area.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi for a quick question, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I say to
the minister that seismic testing can affect fisheries. She better check that
one out.
MR. SPEAKER:
Quick question please.
MS. MICHAEL:
So I ask her: Would she agree
that if a marine refuge is created to protect the environment, it would make
sense not to allow offshore exploration in that area until such time as
government can prove that these activities will not harm that environment for
harvesters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a quick response, please.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Marine
refuge areas are different than Marine Protected Areas. The federal government
has been doing a review of those. I can say to the Member opposite that the
federal government has made determination to allow and permit oil and gas in
these areas. They are protecting the fisheries, not the oceans, in those areas.
They understand the offshore oil and gas areas have a responsibility for
environmental protection and will continue to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a
time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels
of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased
bankruptcies and many are being forced to choose between food, heat and
medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are
continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities
Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to
further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of
our province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to
mitigate rates, they've provided no detailed plan as how they intend to do so.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential
options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal
with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to
the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential
suggestions for improvement.
Mr.
Speaker, I continue to present this petition on behalf of the people of our
province. Today, we got about 140 signatures or so and, actually, they're pretty
much all from one community, the community of Lawn on the Burin Peninsula. I'm
not sure what the population of Lawn is, but an awful lot of the people there
have signed this petition for sure. It's because they're concerned, Mr. Speaker.
It's not just the people of Lawn. The people all throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador are concerned about power rates.
As I've
continued to say, we continue to see what's unfolding in the Muskrat Falls
Inquiry. It's very disturbing indeed but, at the end of the day, regardless of
what has happened and how we got there, we are here now and people are concerned
about where power rates are going.
The
government has indicated that they are working on a plan and everyone is glad to
hear that. I'm glad to hear it; I know everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is
glad to hear that. The problem is that at this point in time it's kind of we're
working on it, trust us, we'll do something between now and 2021, and I think
people would like a little more information than that so they can have some
comfort that something actually is being done. They would like to see what are
those plans, what exactly is it that you're planning on doing, let us know, let
us have some feedback into that process so that we can go to bed at night and
keep our heads on the pillow and not be worrying about how we're going to stay
afloat in the next couple of years.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
I've spoken to this petition on many occasions. I will say two things: Number
one, you are correct I would say to the Member opposite that we are all
concerned of what's coming out of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry. The level of due
diligence that was required for such a project certainly is paramount to
ensuring that project was on track. We now know that it wasn't until this
government came into play, into being, that a plan was put in place to make sure
that that project was at least moving in the right direction.
I will
say this to the Member opposite as well, his petition does say that a plan as
soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently. The very first thing
we had to do was get that project on a better course, a better direction. We had
to, as the expression goes, put it between the ditches, we had to make sure that
everything that could be done was being done to ensure that project finishes in
a better place than when it started.
So we
have now turned our attentions to a plan to make sure that we can pay for
Muskrat Falls and lessen the impact or lower the impact to as little as possible
to the people of this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Here are
the reasons for this petition: Our licensed child care system is a patchwork of
private for-profit centres, non-profit community-based centres and family
daycare, plus a small number of education and workplace-based centres. It is
nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province.
Child
care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Studies show
that high quality child care and early childhood education programs result in
better cognitive, language and numeracy skills. They help economically
disadvantaged children transition to school on the same level as other children.
For every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50
to $2.78 – many studies, including TD Economics.
Investing in child care creates jobs; $1 million invested in child care would
create 40 jobs, more than in any other sector. A gender-based analysis of the
provincial budget would have indicated the need for a public child care program
as a key way to close the wage gap between women and men in this province.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows: We
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a gradual transition
to a universal, regulated and publicly funded and fully accessible child care
and after-school care program.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm always happy to stand and speak to petitions with regard to child
care because it's such an important issue. The lack of adequate child care is
such an important issue in this province. The government keeps taking tiny steps
with regard to subsidies for families and subsidies for child care centres, et
cetera, but it is nothing to putting in place a full child care program.
I would
love to see, in the upcoming plan from this government, a step-by-step plan for
working towards a full, publicly funded and regulated program, one that will
help all children in this province and all families in this province, not just
those who can afford it.
The
subsidies that got put in place last year with the government's graduated scale
does nothing for low income and low, middle-income families, nothing at all. We
know that children who go through child care when they go into grade one or into
kindergarten are a step ahead of children who have not been able to access child
care.
If we
really believe in justice in this province, if we really want to see all of our
children being treated fairly and justly, then this government would start
taking steps for putting in place a plan for a fully, publicly funded and
regulated child care program.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada and
minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS
proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the
wage is too low to start with; and
WHEREAS
women and youth and service sector employees are particularly hurt by the low
minimum wage; and
WHEREAS
the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many
food items rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS
other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 an hour
minimum wage as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum
wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial
inflation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've stood and spoken to this petition a number of times in the House.
Again, an MQO poll that was done in November showed that 87 per cent of the
public in Newfoundland and Labrador support government raising minimum wage to
$15 an hour.
Again,
I'd like to say it's happening in several places across Canada. I don't know how
this government can justify saying that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador, do not deserve to be paid
properly to their counterparts across Canada.
Government says well, we're going to be indexing, but our minimum wage is so low
to begin with that we will never catch up to that $15 an hour minimum wage. We
have made, Mr. Speaker, proposals to the government. In 2014, the NDP here, we
tabled a motion in the House of Assembly to raise the minimum wage to make up
for lost buying power between 2010 and 2014, during which time the minimum wage
had remained $10 an hour for over four years. It didn't move at all.
So, what
we have is working people, if not already in poverty, getting closer and closer
and closer to the poverty line. I can't imagine that this is what this
government wants for the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We
certainly don't want that. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, 87 per cent
of them, they don't want our working people to be living in poverty or living
near the poverty line.
A study
just came out, Mr. Speaker, that shows that the price of food is going through
the roof, so we're seeing our workers working full-time and slipping more and
more into poverty.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a response,
please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for presenting the petition. Our government has been working very
closely with stakeholders. The Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour, they had consultations. There were lots of engagement and there was
dialogue about indexing. But one of the very important things that we need to do
in Newfoundland and Labrador – and as the Industry Minister, I listen to small
business owners time and time again and they talk about the cost of doing
business, they talk about the importance of ensuring that if they're a small
business owner the impact of raising the minimum wage and what it actually has,
not just on the cost of their business bottom line, but on how that needs to be
passed on to all of their consumers, everybody else in the economy. So then, the
prices of products, goods and services also would increase.
When we
look at where we are in Atlantic Canada, it's very important that we be
competitive in our Atlantic provinces. When it comes to Newfoundland and
Labrador with the minimum wage of $11.15; Nova Scotia, $11; New Brunswick at
$11.25; and PEI at $11.55, we review on an annual basis this amount.
What I
will say, Mr. Speaker, is we've been creating jobs here in our economy that are
far above minimum wage, like S&P Data, 500 jobs in the City of St. John's that
are going to be paying $15 or more an hour with benefits – Canopy, Biome –
looking at competitiveness and productivity. These are very important, and we'll
continue to create high value jobs in our economy because that is important.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, a rent-to-own
agreement is a contract to buy or sell a home or property over time. As part of
the contract, there is an agreement that payments will be made over a period of
time and that the title to the property will not transfer until the end of the
payment schedule. Because of the way this contract is set up, landlord sellers
may try to evict tenants/buyers at any point during the agreement. As a result,
many tenant/buyers may not end up actually owning the home despite many years of
investment into the home or property.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We the undersigned
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to implement a legislative requirement for rent-to-own agreements to be
registered with the provincial government at the Registry of Deeds.
Mr.
Speaker, since my tenure as MHA, I started a year ago, I've had four cases of
families that have actually been evicted from their rent-to-own agreements on
the basis of the original landlord could get a higher sale price because of
market change. A couple of them had been a family break up resulted in the sale
of the property. Another one was bankruptcy. And because of the economic duress
which our province now finds itself in, these types of situations are occurring
more and more. We now have one of the highest rates of bankruptcy, family
breakup and insolvency in the country, and these rent-to-own individuals are at
peril.
So, as
the petition states, we feel that if these agreements were to be registered with
the Registry of Deeds that would provide a means of safeguarding the rent-to-own
tenants' investment in their properties.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand up and respond to petitions. And as someone who has sat on that
side, I certainly value petitions because it's a great opportunity to put
forward concerns that are being expressed to you.
As
someone that actually used to draft rent-to-own agreements in my previous life,
I certainly know their importance. What I would also suggest is that a lot of
the points that the Member puts out there are concerns to the Minister
responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and the Minister Responsible
for, I think it might be Service NL or AESL when it comes to the landlord and
tenancy board.
What I
would suggest is I think we're willing to work to see if there is something that
can be done there, to do a legislative review on that. I never heard all the
first part of the petition talking about a possible solution, but what I would
suggest is if we could get a copy of the petition after, I'm certainly happy to
have legislative counsel, lawyers look at this and say what are the issues with
that and see if there's something that can be done to help people.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I call
Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 41.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 41, An Act To Amend the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and
Labrador Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third 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.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and
Labrador Act. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic
Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46, and I further move that the said bill be now a
first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry.
It is
moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46, and that
the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Marriage Act,” carried. (Bill 46.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Marriage Act. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting The Supreme Court In the Province, Bill 47, and I further move
that the bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting The Supreme Court In The Province, Bill 47, and that
the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce a bill, “An Act
Respecting The Supreme Court In The Province,” carried. (Bill 47)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Supreme Court In The Province. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5
from the Order Paper. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 35, An Act
To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And
Compensation Act.” (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I am pleased to rise in this
hon. House to once again introduce amendments to the legislation that governs
our workers' compensation system.
A couple
of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of introducing amendments to the act regarding
retirement benefits for injured workers in our province. The changes meant that
as of January 1, 2019, injured workers will now receive a one-time, lump-sum
benefit when they reach 65 years of age.
Mr.
Speaker, since 2015, our government has had a dedicated focus on improvements in
all programs and services for the people of the province. In our government's
vision document, The Way Forward, we
committed to maintaining a sustainable workplace injury system for both workers
and employers. To that end, we have made a number of enhancements that balance
both the needs of workers and employers while also recognizing the significant
impact workplace injuries have had on residents of our province.
In
December of 2016, we announced the implementation of the presumptive cancer
coverage for career and volunteer firefighters. This coverage represented a
benefit that firefighters have been seeking for more than a decade, and was
already provided in most other provinces. Qualified firefighters can now receive
wage loss and health benefits, including medical aids, through WorkplaceNL,
while health care costs associated with firefighters' cancer treatment are paid
through the Medical Care Plan.
Last
spring, we introduced legislation to increase the income replacement rate for
injured workers in the province from 80 to 85 per cent. The income replacement
rate is the percentage of a worker's pre-injury net income, which is covered by
the workers' compensation system. As a result of the amendment, the rate is now
calculated at 85 per cent of an individual's net after tax earnings. These
initiatives help reduce the financial, emotional and physical impacts workplace
incidents may have on injured workers, their families and their communities.
In
November of last year, we also lowered the average assessment rate for workers'
compensation coverage from $2.06 to $1.90 per $100 of payroll for employers in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This represented a 7.8 per cent decrease. From a
prevention perspective earlier this year, we launched our five-year workplace
injury prevention strategy: Advancing a Strong Safety Culture.
For the
first time, mental health in the workplace has been included in a provincial
workplace injury prevention plan. It is a joint initiative of WorkplaceNL and
the Occupational Health and Safety Division of Service NL. The strategy focuses
on helping employers and workers create supportive environments to mitigate the
risk of mental health injuries in the workplace. We know that work-related
mental stress conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, are
impacting workplaces across Canada.
Late
last fall, I met with stakeholders to seek input on the prevention of and
compensation for work-related mental stress. At the time, we initiated a review
of WorkplaceNL's mental stress policy to explore options to modernize the
approach to work-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress
disorder.
Changes
were made recently to the policy to recognize that work-related mental health
issues may be caused by cumulative reaction to multiple traumatic events. The
policy now also includes events that are an inherent part of an occupation, such
as first responders witnessing fatalities. The revisions allow the policy to be
applied more fairly across all occupations, including first responders.
With
this policy change, WorkplaceNL evolved its approach to meet the realities of
today's workplaces and awareness of mental health issues. The policy is now
aligned with that of 10 other Canadian jurisdictions, recognizing a cumulative
reaction to traumatic events.
These
revisions were informed by consultation with WorkplaceNL's primary stakeholders,
the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Employers' Council and submissions from interested parties. At the
time, we also committed to a review of PTSD coverage in legislation.
To help
inform this review, WorkplaceNL looked at coverage in other Canadian
jurisdictions and partnered with Memorial University on a literature and
jurisdictional research initiative. The review of PTSD coverage was also
informed by input from interested parties, and WorkplaceNL accepted these
submissions.
I want
to thank all stakeholders and interested parties who participated in the review
on this very important topic. So today, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to
introduce amendments to the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Act to provide presumptive coverage for
work-related PTSD for all workers in Newfoundland and Labrador covered by the
workplace injury system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
This progressive legislation
simplifies the claim process and allows the workers' compensation system to help
injured workers receive the assistance they need dearly and earlier, Mr.
Speaker.
This
will lead to better outcomes in improving the workers' overall health and
well-being, as well as options for returning to work when appropriate. The
amendment brings Newfoundland and Labrador in line with the important movement
taking place across the country to update workers' compensation legislation to
recognize work-related mental health injuries.
The
presumption applies to all workers covered under the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. This presumptive
clause in the legislation will come into effect on July 1, 2019. Presumptive
legislation has a defined scope in an effort to help ensure that benefits are
distributed appropriately. As an example, the legislation we introduced for
firefighters in 2016 covers 11 defined types of cancer.
Mr.
Speaker, a worker who experiences a traumatic event or multiple events at work
will be presumed to have developed their diagnosed PTSD as a result of their
work. Regardless of a worker's occupation, the presumption will apply when a
worker experiences a traumatic event or multiple events at work over a period of
time, and being diagnosed with PTSD. The diagnosis must be made by a
psychiatrist or registered psychologist using the most recent addition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders.
This
presumptive legislation is inclusive and recognizes that the risk of traumatic
events can exist in all workplaces. WorkplaceNL took the cost of this change
into consideration when determining the assessment rates to be paid by employers
in 2019. Given the injury fund is currently fully funded, average assessment
rates will actually be lowered in 2019. WorkplaceNL will be applying a 21-cent
discount to the average assessment rate in 2019 to reduce the rate from $1.90 to
$1.69 per $100 dollars of payroll for employers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, claims for
work-related psychological injury not included in this presumptive legislation
today will continue to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis under
WorkplaceNL's recently revised mental stress policy. The policy includes acute
stress disorder, adjustment disorder or an anxiety of depressive disorder caused
by exposure to one or more related dramatic events.
It is
imperative that we, as a government, ensure our decisions are fiscally
responsible and meet the needs of injured workers. I am committing here today
that our government will revisit this presumptive coverage after July 2020 to
consider expanding coverage to include claims for work-related psychological
injury.
Under
our new workplace prevention strategy, WorkplaceNL and Service NL will continue
to work with employers to help develop supportive OHS programs to help prevent
mental health injuries, especially for higher risk workplaces. Awareness and
prevention continue to be crucial in our efforts to help prevent traumatic
workplace events.
All of
us in this hon. House know of the devastating impacts that workplace injuries
have on workers, families and employers in our province. Some of these injuries
such as PTSD are not often visible, but their impacts are no less. I feel a
great sense of pride in the legislation we are debating on the floor of the
House today. It truly signals another tremendous step in helping improve the
lives of injured workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Our
government made a commitment to better outcomes for the people of the province.
The bill we have introduced today is in response to a very important matter that
was brought to our attention and will help improve the lives of injured workers.
I want
to thank everyone, once again, for their efforts in helping us reach this goal.
It is important that we, as a government, remain progressive and responsive to
today's workplaces. Addressing the realities and effects of PTSD in the work
environment help us achieve these aims.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a privilege to speak on Bill 35. This is a fairly comprehensive
package, Mr. Speaker, of amendments that will extend presumptive workers'
compensation coverage to workers diagnosed with PTSD. In a nutshell, I guess,
this bill would amend the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Act to include, as the minister just stated,
presumptive post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, coverage for workers.
We would
become the ninth province to include presumptive PTSD coverage for workers,
after Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta
and BC. In our research, Mr. Speaker, it was evident that each province's
approach is unique, but these eight provinces do offer presumptive PTSD coverage
to at least some of their workers in specific circumstances. At present,
currently before this bill is passed, Newfoundland and Labrador currently does
not offer presumptive PTSD coverage at all; though, non-presumptive coverage is
an option in our current legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, last year – or earlier, I should say, this year, the PC caucus called
for presumptive PTSD coverage in a brief to WorkplaceNL on February 1, 2018. We
argued at the time for presumptive coverage for first responders, saying their
jobs were inherently stressful. So when a first responder is diagnosed with
PTSD, WorkplaceNL should presume the PTSD is work related so they can more
easily and quickly receive treatment without being re-traumatized by the
process.
Bill 35,
Mr. Speaker, extends this presumption beyond first responders to include
potentially all workers, as some of the other provinces have done, and
particularly our bill seems to mirror that of Manitoba.
On
principle, a move towards presumptive PTSD coverage is in line with the 2018 PC
caucus policy initiatives. So we're certainly pleased to be in support, Mr.
Speaker, but it's still very important to dig into the specifics of this bill.
Of course, as we go through the various phases of debate, there are a few
questions we will be posing, Mr. Speaker, and I will share some of them in this
first reading.
People
who suffer PTSD, as well as other illnesses such as anxiety and depression, can
already apply for workers' compensation if they believe their illnesses are work
related. But the challenge with the laws as currently written is there is no
presumption that the diagnosed illness is work related.
Mr.
Speaker, the burden of proof can be onerous, lengthy and stressful, particularly
for people who have to describe and relive their trauma in order to make their
case. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure we can all appreciate just how challenging and
difficult this can be for injured workers.
This
change that we see here before us today is a very important change. And the
question, how did this come about? Well, we can go back as far as November of
last year in 2017 when WorkplaceNL issued a release calling for public input on
their mental health policy.
Just for
purposes of information to the public who may be listening, here's what they
wrote, WorkplaceNL, at the time. “WorkplaceNL has initiated a review of its
mental stress policy (Policy EN-18). The goal of the review is to modernize the
approach to work-related mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress
disorder. WorkplaceNL is also partnering with workplace parties to develop
occupational health and safety programs that support mental health in the
workplace, including workshops and webinars.
“WorkplaceNL and the … Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL met with interested
parties on November 15, 2017 to seek input on the prevention of, and
compensation for, work-related mental stress.
“Potential changes will come from a two-stage process.
“The
first is the immediate policy review, where changes will be informed by a review
of mental-health related policies of other Canadian workers' compensation boards
and consultation with WorkplaceNL's primary stakeholders, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Federation of Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers'
Council.”
This is
all, again, Mr. Speaker, from the release of WorkplaceNL on November 23.
“In the
longer-term, a review of mental stress coverage in the workers' compensation
legislation will be informed by formal research and input from interested
parties. WorkplaceNL will accept written submissions pertaining to this review
until February 1, 2018.
“WorkplaceNL will engage a research partner to conduct research and review
literature relating to work-related mental health issues, particularly as it
relates to workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador.”
So, Mr.
Speaker, as you can see from what I've just read out, this was a very
comprehensive initiative of WorkplaceNL. They were genuinely recognizing the
concerns expressed by workers and set out to see what could be done to improve
the situation. And what we have before us today is a result of some of that
work.
When our
caucus learned of this review we did two things. First, we announced our
intention to make a written submission by February 1, and at the same time we
called for a policy change in how PTSD is treated by WorkplaceNL. We pointed out
that other provinces recognize that PTSD is often the result of an accumulation
of repeated exposures and experiences that workers have in the course of their
careers.
The
WorkplaceNL policy at the time required the PTSD to be the result of a single,
triggering, traumatic event that the worker would need to pinpoint. We called
for that definition to be changed to include accumulated experiences as well, in
recognition of the fact that over time the frequency and number of incidences
that workers are exposed to, that has an impact as well on the workers, Mr.
Speaker. So we felt it was important that accumulated experiences be a part of
the policy.
We were
also clearly not in favour of denying workers' compensation for PTSD to workers
and professions that are deemed to be inherently stressful. If their job caused
them to develop PTSD, then there was a sentiment that they ought to be covered
because the PTSD occurred as a result of the workplace.
Following that, Mr. Speaker, we developed a written brief, which was submitted
on February 1 of this year. In that submission, we called for presumptive
coverage of PTSD for first responders. Our leader at the time, Mr. Paul Davis,
made the presentation, and he also raised it on several other occasions here in
the House as well. Our rationale in calling for presumptive coverage was that
these front-line professions often expose workers to traumatizing events that
cumulatively can lead to PTSD in some people.
In March
of this year, WorkplaceNL amended its mental stress policy and they did add
exposure to multiple traumatic events. And we were certainly pleased, having
advocated for that to see that change take place, Mr. Speaker. They also
eliminated the exclusion for inherent risk of an occupation. Further, it
clarified the types of conditions covered, specifically acute stress disorder,
PTSD, adjustment disorder and anxiety or depressive disorder. So that all
happened, Mr. Speaker, in March of this year.
At the
same time, WorkplaceNL started considering its next steps, or the phase two,
including the request to offer presumptive PTSD coverage as recommended by our
caucus and others, such as NAPE and the province's Nurses' Union. So there was
certainly a strong advocacy by different entities and organizations in this
province to recognize that PTSD is a very serious challenge in the workplace.
The
public is becoming more and more aware that such professions leave some workers
unable to continue doing their jobs because of the impact of what they've
experienced on their mental health. Imagine dealing with horrific roadside
accidents, or a long career of such accidents if you're an ambulance operator, a
police officer, a firefighter or a nurse, for example. Imagine the other
traumatic events such workers experience on the job day in and day out. PTSD is
a term we've all become familiar with in recent years because of the wealth of
news coverage that it has received, and it is very much appreciated, the
increased awareness, because it really does make a difference in trying to make
things better.
Mental
illness has been very poorly understood, not only throughout history but even
more recently, Mr. Speaker. This is the way the American Psychiatric Association
has defined PTSD, and I quote this organization because they are the developers
of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, or DSM, that will be used under this legislation and
others across Canada to diagnose PTSD.
I feel
it's important to read this into the record as well because, again, all related
to the awareness and increasing awareness amongst everyone. So, what is Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder? They define it as “a psychiatric disorder that can
occur in people who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event such as a
natural disaster, a serious accident, a terrorist act, war/combat, rape or other
violent personal assault.
“PTSD
has been known by many names in the past, such as 'shell shock' during the years
of World War I and 'combat fatigue' after World War II. But PTSD does not just
happen to combat veterans. PTSD can occur in all people, in people of any
ethnicity, nationality or culture, and any age. PTSD affects approximately 3.5
percent of U.S. adults, and an estimated one in 11 people will be diagnosed PTSD
in their lifetime. Women are twice as likely as men to have PTSD.
“People
with PTSD have intense, disturbing thoughts and feelings related to their
experience that last long after the traumatic event has ended. They may relive
the event through flashbacks or nightmares; they may feel sadness, fear or
anger; and they may feel detached or estranged from other people. People with
PTSD may avoid situations or people that remind them of the traumatic event, and
they may have strong negative reactions to something as ordinary as a loud noise
or an accidental touch.
“A
diagnosis of PTSD requires exposure to an upsetting traumatic event. However,
exposure could be indirect rather than first hand. For example, PTSD could occur
in an individual learning about the violent death of a close family. It can also
occur as a result of repeated exposure to horrible details of trauma such as
police officers exposed to details of child abuse cases.
Symptoms
of PTSD fall into four categories and they can vary in severity: “1. Intrusive
thoughts such as repeated, involuntary memories, distressing dreams; or
flashbacks of the traumatic event. Flashbacks may be so vivid that people feel
they are re-living the traumatic experience or seeing it before their eyes. 2.
Avoiding reminders of the traumatic event may include avoiding people, places,
activities, objects and situations that bring on distressing memories. People
may try to avoid remembering or thinking about the traumatic event. They may
resist talking about what happened or how they feel about it. 3. Negative
thoughts and feelings may include ongoing and distorted beliefs about oneself or
others (e.g., 'I am bad,' 'No one can be trusted'); ongoing fear, horror, anger,
guilt or shame;, much less interest in activities previously enjoyed; or feeling
detached or estranged from others. 4. Arousal and reactive systems may include
being irritable and having angry outbursts; behaving recklessly or in a
self-destructive way; being easily startled; or having problems concentrating or
sleeping.
“Many
people who are exposed to a traumatic event experience symptoms like those
described above in the days following the event. For a person to be diagnosed
with PTSD, however, symptoms last for more than a month and often persist for
months and sometimes years. Many individuals develop symptoms within three
months of the trauma, but symptoms may appear later. For people with PTSD the
symptoms cause significant distress or problems functioning. PTSD often occurs
with other related conditions, such as depression, substance use, memory
problems and other physical and mental health problems.”
It is
important to note, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to treatment that not everyone who
experiences trauma develops PTSD and not everyone who develops either requires
psychiatric treatment. For some people, symptoms of PTSD subside or disappear
over time. Others get better with the help of family, friends or clergy. But
many people with PTSD need professional treatment to recover from psychological
distress that can be intense and disabling. It is important to remember that
trauma may lead to severe distress. That distress is not the individual's fault,
and PTSD is treatable. The earlier a person gets treatment, the better the
likely outcome.
Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals use various effective
research-proven methods to help people recover from PTSD. Both talk therapy or
psychotherapy and medication provide effective evidence-based treatments for
PTSD. One category of psychotherapy, cognitive behaviour therapies, is, in
particular, very effective. Cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure
therapy and stress inoculation therapy are among the types of CBT used to treat
PTSD, and, Mr. Speaker, these types of treatments have been proven to be
effective.
Therapists help the person confront such distressing memories and emotions. In
prolonged exposure therapy, the psychologist uses repeated, detailed imaging of
the trauma or progressive exposures to symptom triggers in a safe, controlled
way to help a person face and gain control of fear and distress and learn to
cope. For example, virtual reality programs have been used to help war veterans
with PTSD re-experience the battlefield in a controlled, therapeutic way.
Group
therapy encourages survivors of similar traumatic events to share their
experiences and reactions in a comfortable and non-judgmental setting. Group
members help one another realize that many people would have responded the same
way and felt the same emotions.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I won't elaborate on all the treatments, but it's fair to say that
these treatments are very important, and it's crucial that those suffering from
PTSD have access to such treatments so that they can re-gain control of their
lives. It's important for them, it's important for their families, it's
important for their friends and it's important for all of society that people
suffering from PTSD can access the help that they require.
Tis
information that I just talked about from the American Psychiatric Association
is really very eye-opening. PTSD is real, and it can be debilitating. People in
Newfoundland and Labrador are currently suffering from PTSD. People working
right now in our province are going to develop it because of something they have
experienced on the job. The question is whether we, as a society, are prepared
to ensure they can access the care they need without having roadblocks thrown in
their paths.
Think
about the first responder who witnesses a traumatic accident and doesn't have
the luxury of turning away. Imagine some of the accident stories you've heard
about in the news and think about what it must be like for the workers who have
to respond. Think about what they witness and how it must affect them.
Now,
imagine having to relive those memories in order to describe them to the
satisfaction of authorities assessing or adjudicating your claim. We rely on
these workers to do the things that most of us simply could not do. These first
responders are true heroes but they are not super human.
After
years of dealing with such things or perhaps even after a single, unforgettable
event, it may become impossible for a person to move forward without some type
of treatment. We need to empathize with those who find themselves in situations
like this. We need to raise the priority of their mental well-being and ensure
that they can qualify for the care they need. We certainly don't need to be
putting them through processes that leave them even more traumatized. That is
just heartless and cruel.
In
recent years, Mr. Speaker, we've all been taking mental health much more
seriously and becoming more aware of mental illness through a medical lens.
We've rejected the notion that it's all in someone's head, like it's not real –
thank goodness. We've rejected the notion that it's the person's own fault –
thank goodness. We've also rejected the notion that a person with mental illness
is beyond help and needs to be locked away – thank goodness. We're determined to
put an end to the stigma surrounding mental illness, a stigma that we would
never dream of associating with illnesses like cancer, cardiovascular disease,
osteoporosis or diabetes.
We're
becoming increasingly aware of the challenges many people face when they're
dealing with mental illness, and mental illness is real. There's something about
mental illness, in particular, that makes it extra difficult for people to talk
about. Diabetes is something you have, heart disease is something you have, but
mental illness is often seen as something you are. It can affect how you see
yourself, how you deal with other people, how you cope, how you think and how
you fit in the world.
You can
see a broken bone on an X-ray, you can see a tumour on a scan, but what device
do you use to see a mental illness? Scientists are getting better at measuring
things in our brains. They've helped us to understand more and more about the
biochemical and biological nature of mental illnesses. Their work has also
developed better treatments. Things have come a long way but there's still a
long way to go. The one thing that all of us need to do is to inform ourselves
so that we are more understanding of the nature of mental illness and the things
we can do to help those who are suffering.
The
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions educated us about the
importance of improving the supports for those who are facing such challenges.
The report of the All-Party Committee echoes the statement from the American
Psychiatric Association when it said: “The high prevalence of sexual violence
that women are exposed to renders them the largest single group of people
affected by PTSD.” It is not a minor annoyance like a headache or a bad mood.
It's a major illness that devastates people and leaves them needing medical
care.
In
recent years, eight other provinces have brought forward presumptive PTSD
coverage. Each province's approach is unique and evolving. Alberta acted first,
and others have acted just recently. Our province currently offers presumptive
cancer coverage for firefighters but there is no presumptive coverage of PTSD
until now with this bill.
Our
caucus suggested following the lead that most provinces took by extending
presumptive coverage to firefighters and other first responders. Limiting the
presumptive clause to certain first responders was the initial approach of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Ontario, Alberta and BC. Saskatchewan went even
further by extending the presumption to other occupations, and Manitoba extended
the presumptive coverage to all workers across the broad spectrum of
professions. Theirs is the broadest presumptive coverage in the country, and we
understand the Manitoba example is the one that Bill 35 is modelled on, Mr.
Speaker.
So on
principle, having called for it, we certainly do believe that the move towards
presumptive coverage of PTSD is the right one. Again, there are still many
questions we will be asking throughout the course of the debate and more
information we'll be asking for, but certainly having presumptive coverage of
PTSD, we believe is moving in the right direction.
Becoming
the ninth province to offer this coverage, we are extending a protection to
workers in this province that workers in most other Canadian provinces will also
have. Mr. Speaker, at the very least, we should be on par I think with other
Canadian provinces and I'm often a proponent as I stand in this House of us
being leaders with our legislation. Certainly, that is what we all aim to do,
I'm sure in this hon. House, to put the best legislation in place possible and
to treat legislation where necessary.
Just
because everyone else is doing it, it's not a good rationale for any decision of
course, but we have an obligation to evaluate the policy on its merits and weigh
the alternatives. As the Official Opposition, we have an obligation to ask the
questions that people outside the House are asking, or questions that need to be
asked so people can understand how this policy was adopted and what it will
mean.
I would
like to take this opportunity to thank the officials of the minister's
department, WorkplaceNL, and others for briefing the Opposition on this bill and
answering some of our questions. We have been given some of the answers in the
briefing but it's important here today as we go through the various stages of
the bill that we dig deeper into these issues for the sake of viewers and
persons affected by PTSD to try and get the information on public record
because, of course, that's what our job is here in the Official Opposition, Mr.
Speaker, and it's a very enjoyable job.
Every
worker watching this broadcast ought to be informed about what this bill will
mean to them as employees and as employers. Every employer has an interest in
knowing the implications as well. Health care providers have an interest; people
who suffer from mental illness have an interest. In fact, everyone ought to have
an interest because everyone may be impacted in one way or another by what we
are doing with Bill 35.
This
bill is about drawing a new line that will change how some people qualify for
workers' compensation in certain circumstances. WorkplaceNL has a website full
of useful information about what it offers and how it applies to people in
various circumstances. The link is WorkplaceNL.ca. It's an enormous amount of
information. It will take a bit of time to sift through it but it's certainly a
valuable website and resource.
I'm
hoping government is going to follow up on this legislation, though, given that
there is so much information out there and people do like to be able to have a
snapshot and a quick understanding of things that are happening. We're also
hoping that in addition to the debate of what's happening here and various
websites, that government will follow up with a public education campaign to
inform people about what the changes to this bill means.
It's
particularly important, given the broad implications of this legislation and the
questions that many people still have about how you diagnose and treat PTSD. I
encourage the government to provide this information without a political lens or
a Way Forward lens because that kind
of spin always leaves people suspicious that the information might have been
sanitized to remove facts. So, this is really about an awareness session for all
people on a piece of legislation that may affect many persons, many communities,
many regions, many entities.
We feel
it's important that people know what the new rules will be, what they can
expect, what will and won't be covered, what challenges they might encounter and
how they find the help they need. We'll address some of that, Mr. Speaker,
throughout the course of the debate but, of course, a lot of it will need to be
forthcoming after the debate is concluded in terms of finalizing what actually
gets passed.
I'd also
like to talk about the consultation process that was used for this bill a bit,
Mr. Speaker. We certainly applaud WorkplaceNL for undertaking a policy review
and seeking submissions. It started out with a great deal of interest and that
was indicated by the submissions from groups representing tens of thousands of
people in this province.
I don't
know how much of an advanced viewing these groups would have gotten of this bill
before it came to the House; I'm thinking not a lot. We, ourselves as MHAs,
don't get much of an advanced viewing. But in this particular case, with this
bill, we did get our briefing last week. But, the rules being, we are not
permitted to distribute the bill until it has been officially distributed in the
House and it goes up online on the House's webpage and everyone can access it.
That's normal protocol because, until a bill is distributed, there's still room
for changes to be made.
All of
these groups were probably expecting that this legislation was coming, but how
many of them have actually been consulted with what the specific changes are and
were told exactly what the changes would be is still a question that we have.
I'll speak to that a little bit more because we certainly would like to see that
consultation continue with existing groups over the next six months, given that
this legislation is not coming into effect until June, and we want to really
make sure it is the best possible piece of legislation that it can be for all
parties.
This
government came into office in 2015 on a red book that promised the resurrection
of legislation review committees. For those who don't know, such committees used
to operate in this hon. House and they would examine a bill before it came up
for debate. They would give people and groups an opportunity to see it, evaluate
it, comment on it and perhaps even change it before it came to the floor for
debate.
That's
important, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. Firstly, it treats people with respect,
by giving them an opportunity to take a hands-on role in the development of
legislation that impacts their lives; and, secondly, democratic reform is about
making our work more open, engaging and accountable.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
It's long overdue –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the Member to stay relevant to the bill that we're discussing.
MS. PERRY:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I'll
say, I'll close out by saying I trust the all-party committee on democratic
reform will make this a priority issue for consideration.
Mr.
Speaker, as well in terms of legislation like we have before us here today, the
rules of debate as currently structured make it difficult to amend the
legislation directly here on the floor of the House. So, I'll just close that
little discussion by saying, the more input we have in a bill in its formulating
stage I think can result in a better product at the end of the day.
Lots of
times, Mr. Speaker, the people we consult with see things that we may not and
they can identify problems that may have been overlooked, so certainly a lot of
merit to it. We're not saying this flippantly. I just want to repeat again that
with this bill having an implementation date of July 1, 2019, there's still
plenty of opportunity for tweaking to occur, if necessary.
We say
this very seriously, because this bill is very important to a lot of entities
and organizations out there, many of who are here or observing the debate today.
These people are the ones we really need to hear from, Mr. Speaker.
What is
presumptive coverage and what does it mean, and why does it matter I guess? The
minister outlined the definition. It's a legal concept which means that when one
fact is proven, another fact is presumed. If the fact of PTSD is proven, then
the fact that it is work related can be presumed. Why does that matter? It has
to do with the way workers' compensation works. Let's say you're on a worksite
and you're injured, you go to a doctor; you're not going to be able to go back
to work and you're going to be laid up. The system of workers' compensation is
in place to give that worker an income while the worker is unable to work due to
the injury.
Some
injuries or disabilities don't go away. The worker will not be able to return to
that job. It's that severe. There are all sorts of rules at WorkplaceNL to
determine what happens, step by step, what forms are needed, who has to sign
them, what has to be proven, can anyone challenge the request, can you appeal
your claim if it's rejected, is WorkplaceNL serving as an advocate for the
injured worker or as an adversary. As you can imagine, it's a long, complicated
and stressful process for many injured workers.
The
system is set up to prevent abuse. It's also set up to control costs. The fund
that covers injured workers is limited in size. Rules are put in place to
restrict access. The system does have an adversarial feel. People can expect
their claim to be challenged. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Even if an
injury is established, there is no presumption, in most instances, that the
injury is work related. Could it be related to something else? Should workers'
compensation cover the worker or not?
When
medical researchers determined that many firefighters go on to suffer certain
kinds of cancers, and many fires tend to expose firefighters to certain
carcinogens, the call went out to change the policy. When a firefighter develops
these certain types of cancers, don't suspect it might have come from some other
cause, like a family history, or exposure to woodstoves at home, or campfires
growing up, or air pollution, or the person's diet or any other factor. See the
pattern; understand the balance of probabilities; show compassion for the
firefighter who invested in saving lives in our community; get them compensation
more easily and quickly, without forcing them to jump through hoops while their
cancer is treated.
Let
WorkplaceNL presume that one of these cancers, once diagnosed in a firefighter,
was caused by the work the firefighter did as a firefighter. Don't force the
firefighter to prove the connection; presume it. The same argument would surely
work with industrial diseases. If an asbestos miner gets asbestosis, why would
it be unreasonable to presume a work-related connection?
So what
about PTSD? We know from psychiatrists that PTSD is a severe reaction to trauma.
We know that first responders can be severely traumatized by what they
experience on the job. Workers in other professions can also be traumatized on
the job. I think of retail workers whose shops are burglarized, or bank tellers
whose banks are robbed. I think of taxi drivers who are robbed or threatened.
Under
Bill 35, if the worker obtains a medical diagnosis of PTSD by one of the
diagnosticians defined in the bill, and if the worker can establish they were
exposed to a traumatic event or the cumulative impact of multiple traumatic
events of work, then it will be presumed that their PTSD was a result of those
traumatic events at work. That, Mr. Speaker, is what presumption means.
All of
these workers can already apply for coverage right now without a presumption and
try to make the case that they have work related PTSD. They can get the
diagnosis and identify the traumatic event or events and then try to make the
case that it was those work related events and not something else that caused
their PTSD.
The
difference that this bill will make is to eliminate the need for the worker to
prove that the PTSD, once it is diagnosed, is work related. That step is
eliminated with this bill. This speeds up the adjudication process and it
simplifies the claims process. It allows for earlier health care intervention
for the worker by allowing the worker to leave the workplace without losing
their entire income.
In terms
of proof from PTSD, why is the elimination of that step in the adjudication
process important for someone suffering from PTSD? I've talked about that a lot
already, Mr. Speaker, in my 20 minutes or so. We can all think about what PTSD
is. It's the experience of intense, disturbing thoughts and feelings related to
a traumatic experience that lasts long after the traumatic event has ended.
It may
include flashbacks or nightmares, anger, sadness, detachment and estrangement.
It may involve reliving the traumatic experience over and over again. People
with PTSD may avoid situations that remind them, but, Mr. Speaker, forcing that
person to deliberately relive these events we believe is unnecessary, and we're
pleased that this bill is going to eliminate that particular element of trauma
for those suffering from PTSD because it is continuing to traumatize the victim.
In Bill
35, in looking at the jurisdictional scan across provinces, all the provinces do
not agree on where to draw to line. Manitoba applies it to all workers.
Saskatchewan's potentially does as well, by leaving it to the act's regulations
to define any exclusions. PEI is taking the same approach. Alberta began by
restricting the presumption to first responders but it has now moved to include
others, as has Ontario. BC has a very narrow restriction that workers are
pressing to broaden. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it is limited to first
responders.
So why
did the government draw the line where it did, instead of restricting it to
specific occupations, as many other provinces have done? We know the job of
first responders, by their very nature, exposes them to traumatic events. We
know many first responders have experienced PTSD because of this, and it's this
evidence that has led some of the other provinces, in a jurisdictional scan, to
impose a restriction on the occupations that are covered.
The
workers who suffer, for example, something traumatizing – though, don't
necessarily have to be first responders. It is not unreasonable to expect
workers in other professions to have PTSD that is related to their work. The
workers who suffer criminal violence on the job would be able to make the case
in order to qualify, no doubt, because the event would provide the proof
required.
Someone
working here in the House of Assembly, for example, may suffer trauma, but this
environment does not systematically expose everyone here to the kind of trauma
that police officers, paramedics, nurses and firefighters tend to experience on
the job. But some can, Mr. Speaker, and certainly those in ministerial positions
dealing with these types of issues would certainly have first-hand experience of
these types of issues.
The
argument would go for just first responders, in that it's harder to prove, but
there's a counter argument to that, Mr. Speaker. The counter argument in this
bill is that the PTSD has already been diagnosed and something has caused it.
The worker is suffering and in need of care. The worker is probably not healthy
enough to endure the adversarial, adjudicative process needed to provide the
connection to work.
The last
thing the worker needs to have is to relive every potential traumatic experience
in the person's life to determine which trigger or triggers are primarily
responsible for the PTSD that is debilitating the worker. That seems to be a
very reasonable argument to make, Mr. Speaker, unless a case can be made that
it's not the right approach.
Mr.
Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion gone into this and we've landed
where we have on Bill 35. Again, I'll say I do think over the course of the next
six months, as the awareness with this bill increases, any tweaks that may be
required by organizations or persons out there, that they will certainly bring
them forward to WorkplaceNL and to the department, and, if necessary, to the
House for consideration, because this is a very important piece of legislation
and one that has been called for, for quite some time.
I'm
going to now start talking a bit about cost versus access to care, because this
is where some of our questions are going to come into play in terms of the next
phase of this bill, because cost is a factor that every government considers
when establishing a system of care. The workers' compensation system is financed
through contributions in a way that ultimately has an economic cost. If you let
your mind go back to an era when there was no such thing as workers'
compensation, it was not a good time to be an injured worker. An injury could
leave a worker and their family in poverty, or worse. So it is better to have a
system of compensation for workplace injuries than not to have one.
We all
recognize, though, that such systems and processes and programs have to be
viable and feasible, and the economy has to generate enough money to sustain the
system or it will collapse. It's the same with pensions, we have to have them
provide for people who have retired from the workforce but the liabilities have
to be covered.
If a
firefighter breathing carcinogens develops cancer, who would argue against
providing that worker with an income to compensate for that injury? If a
firefighter receiving the bodies of burn victims develops PTSD as a result of
that trauma and can't return to the job, who would argue against providing that
worker with an income to compensate for the injury and allow the firefighter the
opportunity to get therapy and heal?
That's
what workers' compensation is all about. It is reasonable to believe there is
going to be a financial cost associated with presumptive coverage. That's
because at the briefing officials revealed an actuarial estimate based on the
experience of other jurisdictions.
One of
the questions that we will be asking in Committee is we'd like the minister to
go into greater detail about how this analysis was done. During our briefing we
were told that the estimate is imprecise, partly because the jurisdictions,
circumstances and rules across the country are different. But the estimate of
the impact to the injury fund is expected to be $7.6 million to $15.1 million
per year. The impact on the assessment rate is estimated to be nine cents to 18
cents per $100. The costs will be reflected in the employer assessment rates
over time but with the implementation date of July 1.
No
financial impact is expected on the injury fund for the fiscal year of 2019.
What we don't know, Mr. Speaker, is what happens after 2019 and what the impact
estimate is for 2020 and onward. Will the fund be sustainable?
Officials also estimated the financial impact on the province. The government is
a self-insured employer. And so we were told this was done by estimating the
number of claims per year; the average cost of a PTSD claim is expected to be or
estimated to be around $125,000. So if you do the math on that, with nine claims
that would be a cost of $1,125,000 a year. These estimates come from simply
multiplying the estimated number of claims by the estimated cost per claim.
Some of
the questions we'll be asking when we get to Committee: Who will bear the
responsibility of costs for this? How will the injury fund be impacted? Is there
a potential for the fund to be jeopardized? What will be the costs for
municipalities? What will be the cost for health care authorities? Given the
number of first responders working with our health care authorities and
municipalities, will they disproportionately incur costs of this policy change
and was there any consideration given to that? What would be the cost for
individual employers throughout the province? What are the implications for
WorkplaceNL? Is it adequately staffed to cover the expected increase in claims?
Will WorkplaceNL be enhancing resources as a consequence of this legislation?
What are the implications for the Review Division? Do you expect an increase in
the wait-list for appeals?
These
are all unknowns, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, and that's why I'm
highlighting them in our second reading of the bill. Because while we agree,
certainly, in principle with this bill – we've advocated for this bill, as I've
said – we also have a responsibility to ensure that all the unknowns we try to
get answers for, Mr. Speaker. And those items that I've just listed are, for all
intents and purposes, unknowns at this point in time.
No one
really knows how many claims will be made and no one knows what impacts the new
policy will have. We can look to other jurisdictions, as I just said, but things
are different from one province to the next, and that leads to a great deal of
guessing, which makes things very challenging, Mr. Speaker.
The
American Psychiatric Association estimated that PTSD affects approximately 3.5
per cent of US adults, and the question then becomes: Might we expect a similar
proportion of our workforce to be impacted? Are there things we can do to bring
costs down – perhaps by doing something on the side of prevention? Will
governments be tempted to tighten the restrictions if claims and costs escalate?
So, Mr.
Speaker, these are all important issues. We've heard through discussions over
the last year and various media reports and whatnot that the Employers' Council
is sensitive to the mental needs of workers. But they've also pointed out the
importance of taking cost into consideration. And that's certainly something I'm
sure everybody understands and appreciates.
NAPE and
the Nurses' Union are sensitive to cost concerns, but have also pointed out the
need to care properly and compassionately for workers who are diagnosed with
PTSD because of traumas they suffer. And we all have to weigh, Mr. Speaker, the
costs of doing it, versus the cost of not doing it, which, for all intents and
purposes, may be far greater.
Which is
the best path for Newfoundland and Labrador to take? That's a judgment that we
are being called on to make here in this hon. House as we vote on this
legislation. Again, I'll say the input of all stakeholders is highly valued and
most welcome. It is for us, this week, as legislators to put this bill in place,
and then it's going to fall on the shoulders of government to implement the
legislation that gets passed by the hon. House.
As we
were told in our briefing with officials, other jurisdictions have seen an
increase in claims as a result of the introduction of a presumptive clause – and
that's understandable, Mr. Speaker. It might even, in fact, be the whole point
and the rationale behind the calls for presumptive coverage, because encouraging
people to seek the medical help they require is what this is all about. And it's
crucial that we shorten their path to care so that their lives are improved,
their workplaces are improved, their family's lives are improved and
communities, everyone benefits.
Increasing access to mental health care is an issue that all parties in this
hon. House agree is a priority and this bill, Bill 35, is certainly one of the
ways that we can give effect to that priority. I know I've talked a fairly
lengthy time about this bill, but it is a very important bill. One that, as I
said in my introduction, we have advocated, as Progressive Conservatives, for
quite some time in terms of coverage for first responders.
This
bill goes even further than that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that for those
suffering with PTSD it's a very welcome piece of legislation, and I do think it
will make a difference in improving the lives of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians who suffer from this very debilitating illness. We're all about
making people's lives better here, Mr. Speaker. We're also all about
accountability; hence, our responsibility to ask important questions.
So, as
the debate continues, we hope to glean more information and we do look forward
to the positive impacts that this bill will have on the lives of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Thank
you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I recognize the hon. the
Member for Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
Good day, Mr. Speaker.
Just
listening to the words of the Member across the way from Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune about some of the concerns, I can tell you I have attended the briefings
and I'm sure what's in this piece of legislation today has gone through the
hoops and loops to make sure that everything is going to be put in the right
place. The bill needed to be done. It's going to be done. And I'm fully assured
with our minister here that it's going to be done right.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 35,
An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. I doubt any
one of us in this hon. House isn't personally familiar with someone whose life
has been impacted by a workplace injury. Too often relatives, friends or
neighbours have been affected by events in the workplace that have far-reaching
impacts on their physical, emotional and social health. In many incidents we may
not be able to look at the individual and be automatically aware of the mental
health injuries they have experienced in the workplace.
Mr.
Speaker, awareness and continued dialogue around mental health challenges are
extremely important. Our government committed to enhancing this awareness and
also put in place a plan to increase spending on mental health and addictions
care.
One year
into the implementation of Towards
Recovery, the Mental Health and Addictions Action Plan for Newfoundland and
Labrador, there has been a 35 per cent reduction in the number of people waiting
for mental health and addictions counselling services across this province.
This is
significant, Mr. Speaker. Workplaces need to be ready to provide environments
supportive of mental health wellness among their workers. In fact, with our
2018-22 Workplace Injury Prevention Strategy, we are helping employers build
supportive environments in order to reduce the risk of mental health issues in
the workplace.
We know
that more people than ever are now willing to come forward to discuss and
address mental health issues, including those in work environments. As the
Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL indicated, the mental health stress policy
was recently updated to modernize the approach to work-related mental health
issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder. A review of the mental
health-related policies of our Canadian workers, compensation boards as well as
consultation with WorkplaceNL's primary stakeholders – the Newfoundland and
Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council
also took part to help enforce policy.
Mr.
Speaker, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association, 8 per cent of
Canadians will experience post-traumatic stress disorder, and it can affect
people from all walks of life. However, we know that some groups of people are
at higher risk for developing PTSD. Emergency personnel such as paramedics,
firefighters, police, doctors, nurses have double the risk of the average
population. Also, women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with PTSD than men.
People
suffering from PTSD may believe they have adequately dealt with the event they
are coping with. A sense of helplessness, flashbacks, panic attacks, depression
are just some of the symptoms of this devastating illness. It is hard enough to
deal with at home, but at the workplace it can be even more difficult. Often the
employee isn't aware that they're exhibiting symptoms and do not connect the
dots between the changes in their behaviour and the trauma because time has
passed.
I read
an article recently about John, a 44-year-old father of two, and a lending
officer at a branch of a national bank. Early in his career, John's bank was
held up in a robbery attempt. While no one was hurt, the event certainly shook
up the staff, many of whom took advantage of the on-site counselling provided by
the bank. Over the years, John started to get angry at little things, appeared
distracted and had difficulty making decisions at work. His colleagues became
concerned. Eventually, John received a PTSD diagnosis.
Crisis
and trauma experts also emphasize that employees need to be aware that by the
time an employee shows symptoms of PTSD, the impact of the trauma has been
brewing for a long time. It is important that employees ensure their management
teams are trained in identifying potential mental health issues and know how to
respond in a supportive and non-judgmental way.
Mr.
Speaker, while the update on WorkplaceNL's mental health policy was a great
accomplishment for an injured worker in this province, our government also
committed to bringing forward legislation in this House regarding PTSD. I know I
am joined by my hon. colleagues when I say how proud I am of this progressive
legislation for presumptive coverage for work-related PTSD for all workers
covered under the act.
This
matter is very important to workers in every region of our province, and many
advocates have been asking for such legislation for quite some time. I've been
the parliamentary assistant for Service NL for a couple of weeks and already
this is my second time standing on the floor to speak to improvements for our
injured workers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PARSLEY:
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to
say how delighted I am to rise to speak to these amendments which will make it
easier for workers diagnosed with PTSD to avail of workers' compensation.
Mr.
Speaker, we will continue to work toward improving the workers' compensation
system in our province for both injured workers and employees. The amendments we
have brought forward today are a shining light on the very important topic of
PTSD, but also the need to address any mental health challenge in our workplace.
No one should have to suffer in silence when it comes to mental health.
I'd like
to thank the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL on all that has gone into this
piece of legislation, and there's no doubt in my mind today that this bill will
go through with everything that it needs and it will be an asset to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador who suffer from mental illness.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand in this House, as it always is, to speak to
legislation, particularly around those that are going to be a benefit to not
only the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador, but to all citizens of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Bill 35 is another step toward ensuring we have good
health, good social inclusion but, in particular here, good mental health
services and interventions.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to start, as I normally do on a piece of legislation that I
support, and noting that the same way I'm going to end, by saying I
wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation, and I'm looking forward to
having a discussion here and hearing what my colleagues feel are the best ways
of moving this forward.
As we
know, let's be realistic in what this is about. This is about three major
approaches here. One, it's about catching up with the rest of the country. It's
about showing that we have an understanding of how we address particular
ailments. Sometimes they are physical ailments; sometimes they are social
ailments. In this case, they are mental health ailments that affect our
well-being in our social life, in our family life but particularly, in this case
here, in our work life.
To do
due diligence we need to have support mechanisms, we need to have an avenue
where assessments can be done, and people need to know that the supports are
there to ensure that the quality of their life and their ability to address that
particular ailment are supported, and that there is an entry-level process here
and there's an exit-level process here, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
get into talking about the process, the intent and the structure of the bill –
and my colleague from Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune outlined a number of the key
nuances that are here – I do want to acknowledge the government for bringing
this forward. I want to acknowledge them for their openness with our union
brothers and sisters, with the business community, with the other health
professionals, with the particular special interest groups here to ensure that
we have the right piece of legislation.
Is it a
living entity? Of course, it is. Are there going to be modifications? I suspect
there will be modifications after we pass this is the next day or so, over the
next weeks, and then over the next months and over the next year, there'll be
modifications as we move forward and get a better understanding of how we
address this.
As we
move forward on this, I want to acknowledge the point that we have an ability
now to not only catch up with the rest of the country, but excel and move beyond
that in supporting workers, in supporting their access to proper counselling and
diagnosis; but, more importantly, after all of that, getting the proper support
so they can get back into the workforce and be productive citizens then and
still be able to do the things that the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador
always do.
Some,
unfortunately, due to circumstance or due to severity of the illness and the
ailment here may not be able to return, but they have a right and we have a
responsibility to be able to provide the best services, the best peace of mind,
and to ensure at least a comparable quality of life that they can continue with
what they had as productive workers in our society.
I know
there's been a lot of discussion about how we get to here, who would fit under
the diagnosis and the supports that are part and parcel of it. I know there are
a multitude of steps that will move forward, but the steps that have taken place
over the last number of years were first around first responders.
Mr.
Speaker, as somebody who was a first responder, I can appreciate what people
went through. Fortunate in my situation, some of the severe things I saw, my
coping mechanisms or the impact they've had, or maybe there hasn't been
something that triggered how I may need to avail of certain services or how PTSD
may affect me, but I do know colleagues that I worked with and individuals and
how that's impacted them.
It
didn't immediately, and in some cases it did immediately. Right after the
traumatic event you could see a change in that person. Their personality
changed. Their ability to be active changed. Their ability to be sociable had
changed and their ability to even understand what their role was and the meaning
of what they felt, what their role was at that point.
Then I
saw long-term effects, where it was 10, 15, 20 years later after a traumatic
event, or a number of situations in the workplace that had a traumatic effect.
As their personalities changed and their inability to deal with simple stressors
in life that they had been able to cope with a multitude of times before without
any issues, now became harder and harder to deal with. They couldn't explain to
their general practitioner or their doctors what it was. They couldn't explain
to their family what it was. They couldn't explain to their friends. People just
assumed it was a change in their attitude, it was a change in their
understanding.
Some,
unfortunately, then had to use another coping mechanism. Sometimes it was
alcohol, sometimes it was drugs. Whatever it was, it had a negative effect. That
in itself has a negative effect on our society. It has a financial burden, it
has a major social burden, but it also has a community burden. We all have to
take responsibility for addressing how we do that.
What
this does, this piece of legislation, it gives another mechanism. It's not the
be-all and end-all, but it is another mechanism to ensure three key components
are taken care of: understanding, intervention and supports. These are the key
things here.
When we
talk about the financial part – and I know I've had some people come to me and
I've gotten some emails from particular groups saying this is going to be a
financial cost, and we understand that. We understand that this whole House here
will debate the process and using our best due diligence process here to ensure
that we get the best return on the monies we're going to invest, but everything
we do in society has a cost to it if you're going to want positive outcomes.
The
financial cost in the front end never, never, never is as costly as what we lose
if we don't invest. The back-end savings are, a multitude of times, better
return on those investments. If we ensure that our workers who are facing
challenges, particularly now when we look at a new diagnosis of a new ailment,
PTSD, we know it exists. It's a reality. Anybody who dismisses it as not
something that exists are living in a fantasy world. It exists.
As my
colleague had mentioned, it doesn't just exist in our preconceived notion that
it was somebody who went through a traumatic event who normally would be in the
military, as we had heard. That was the traditional concept, but we now know
people who were facing what was diagnosed in other areas as a mental ailment,
can be specifically broken down to PTSD, which in most cases gives you a better
ability to address, diagnose, support and ensure that that person still stays
productive and still contributes to society.
So what
we're doing here is amending the Workplace
Health, Safety and Compensation Act to ensure that there's a process there
for those who feel or have been diagnosed, or at least at the end of the day
now, know there's a process to go through, assessing whether or not they have
PTSD, by getting the supports that are necessary. Then, once diagnosed, getting
the intervention supports and the continuum supports to be able to enable them
to get back into the workforce.
We as a
society now have an opportunity to do something that's groundbreaking. It's
about another move forward in dealing with mental health, and the best way we
can do that is engage those, every part of our society who has a stake in this.
In a generic sense, every Newfoundlanders and Labradorian has a stake in that,
but particularly our union brothers and sisters and our employers out there, and
us as the administrators of policy and legislation in our province have to set
out in legislation the proper mechanism.
It can't
be too intrusive, but at the same time it's got to be legally sound. It's got to
fit in the realm of how people can understand the processes that are going to be
followed, and that it fits the neat approach that, at the end of the day, those
who are entitled to it, those who can benefit from what the process is offering,
have access to that without delay, without too much interference and intrusion;
yet, on a clean, continuous system that assesses from stage one and gets them to
the end stage of being productive again, or the end stage of having some
comfortability within their life for the remainder.
We have
to ensure, and we have to find the mechanism to do this. I'm pleased after
reading through and going through some of the research that we've done, that
we're moving forward on this. I had many conversations with the former premier
and the former leader of our party who was a big advocate for this for the last
eight, 10 years. As a first responder, he understood that. He had seen the
impacts it had. He had seen the immediate ones, he's seen the intermediate ones,
he's seen the long-term impacts and he had continued to lobby for that.
I had
the privilege of being minister of Service NL for, unfortunately, only nine
weeks. I remember having a conversation with a group of first responders about
how important it was to start looking at this piece of legislation and
understanding it, being fortunate enough to understand and have seen people who
have gone through it and to try to move it. Obviously, it was a bit complicated
at the beginning because you had to have everybody in tune with what was
happening. There had to be a societal understanding of where we were going with
it, and that process began and we've continued it. Six years later, I'm happy to
say we're at a point where something positive is moving forward.
Is there
much more to do? Of course there is. Is there much more dialogue that needs to
take place? Of course there is. Is there much more of a strategy around mental
health that this has to be included towards? Sure it is. Is it about education
in our society? Is it about education within our employers' process? Is there
education now, particularly, in with our health care providers? Because if we're
going to be offering this, we have to be cognizant of the two major intervention
professionals that are going to be necessary here in the immediate, and they are
psychologists and psychiatrists. You need to be able to do this where – this is
relatively new, particularly in our society, assessment of an ailment and the
diagnosis and the treatments that are very important as part of the whole
process.
As we
move forward, obviously, the medical professionals have to be engaged here. The
protector associations have to be engaged. We will have to, and no doubt, be
proactive in recruiting those who have the skill set to be able to do the
assessments. Ideally, we'd be able to find Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
would have a better understanding, from my perspective, of the traumas that
people face here, of the day-to-day scenarios in a workplace or the particular
one-time events or the continuous events that may have an impact on somebody's
mental health and would contribute to the diagnosis of PTSD.
So we
can't work in isolation of all the key players here. I see the leads while –
obviously, Service NL are a key component because this piece of legislation
falls underneath that, but this will be destined to fail if the other key
components here are not in play also.
The
Minister of Health and the department, and all the other health agencies that
filter into that, have to take a stake in how they design their new approaches,
be it around education in the medical school, be it around recruitment, be it
around working with the nurses' unions in training for those to be able to
diagnose at the immediate stages, working with the general practitioners and the
medical association at that level, but then also particularly noting that you've
got to have the skillset available, and in some cases almost an immediate bases
when the first acknowledgement that this individual may be facing, or may be
dealing with PTSD.
So,
there's an opportunity to do this. There's an opportunity here not to alienate
any one group, and it's not a comparison and it's not a competition between the
employers; the employees; those who represent the employees; governments, any
levels of governments; and society in general. It's about all of us coming
together to achieve a common goal, and a common goal, particularly here, is
ensuring access to a diagnosis and then interventions for those services, and
supports while people find themselves not able to be able to provide for
themselves financially.
That's
what the workers' compensation act is particularly about also, that it has that
mechanism there where it's a safety net for a period of time when assessments
are being done, interventions, to be able to reintroduce people into the
workforce. It may be around the training components that are part of it because
of a particular field that people work in, that they can no longer stay in that
field and still be able to deal with the PTSD situation.
There's
the whole continuum here. We have a workplace health and safety act and the
board itself has a very inclusive process. Sometimes it may take a bit of time
to get a worker from an injury point to an intervention, to an exit point, to
being back in the workforce, but we need to find a way to move that forward. As
we move that forward in the normal sense, there are some challenges. In this
particular sense, where we've got a short period of time, a short window, to
ensure as we start looking at this particular alignment and the interventions
that we're going to put in play to address the needs of our workers, we can now
have an opportunity to put the supports that we need, there are particular
individuals or particular speciality areas that we need to now farm out. We
can't wait three months down the road, we can't wait six months down the road;
this has to be done immediately.
I would
suggest to the ministers involved and the key stakeholders that an immediate
opportunity to get together and say: Now that this legislation is going be
passed, now that it's enacted, now that we know the start date, we need to be
able to ensure that we have the supports, we have a continuous flow of dialogue,
a continuous flow of outline process that guarantees when we're ready to
implement this, all the supports that will be there then will be there six
months later, six years later, at the end of the day.
Sometimes we're too easy to accept we're going to start here, here's where we
want to get. And during that four- or five-year period, unfortunately, people
fall between the cracks, people don't get the services they need. There's no
reason in our society now with our skill set in this province, with our
communications networks here, that we can't start off where we wanted to get. We
have a bit of time to do that now.
So we
need to be able to find the process to make that work, and we have that
expertise here. We have it from a civil service point of view, we have it from
the private sector point of view. If we're going to make this work – and I'm
confident we can make it work and not be a financial burden in any way, shape or
form, and to ensure that, at the end of the day, our society is better off.
Financially, we're better off because now our workers are more productive
because they've had an opportunity to deal with their ailments and they've found
a way to cope with certain situations, or it's been now identified that those
workers should not be in those situations. We find another avenue where they can
be productive citizens in another field or in another part of the particular
field that they've chosen to be productive citizens in. We need to continue that
open dialogue.
There's
an awful lot of definitions, there's an awful lot of regulatory things that are
going to play out over the next number of months. And I understand that as the
former minister and the debate we've had here in this House for the last nine
years that the old cliché, the devil is in the detail, and we understand that.
The difference here, from my perspective, is we're all bought into improving
people's lives. No different than when we invest money in an education program
or in another health program. We're investing money here. It may be just
different because there are other partners involved that normally may not be
directly involved in how we offer a particular program.
I see
that as a positive, I see that as an opportunity, not as a hindrance. An
opportunity for us to say, from every perspective: How do we improve the whole
continuum? How do we ensure that everybody benefits from what we're offering
here? Our first perspective would be people's health, and in this case, people's
mental health. How does better mental health help our society? How does our
society in turn with better mental health help our productivity in our economy?
They're all continuums and they all play in one to the other. You can't work in
isolation with one without being cognizant of the other.
So as we
talk about this legislation, and it was being proposed, and no doubt there'll be
other speakers here, and in Committee we'll have a number of questions on the
logistics of how we move it to the next level and the time frames around that. I
know there's a July 1 time frame, but the time frames between now and July 1 to
ensuring that the 20 or 30 or 40, or whatever the number of steps and things
that are needed to be done are done so we're ready to go and a worker who now
may feel, or a medical professional who said to their client or their patient, I
think this is the situation that you're facing, the problem is I don't have a
mechanism to be able to get you the support you need. Some of those supports
will be financial, some will be immediate interventions for an assessment, some
of them will be, then, looking at other alternatives to move you away from
whatever the stressors are that have contributed to the PTSD or the traumatic
events.
So we
have, again, an opportunity; a short window to do something that's significant
and has a major impact in our society and would benefit those who may avail of
this service.
I have
no elusion; there's not going to be people beating on the door everyday looking
for this. This is a safeguard to ensure those who have a particular ailment, a
particular medical condition, will get it diagnosed in a timely fashion, get the
supports that are necessary and be able to, again, be part and parcel of our
society and be productive there.
I will
end on a note of saying, as I said at the beginning, I wholeheartedly support
where this piece of legislation is going. I do encourage that we don't stop
after we pass this today or tomorrow, that what the next steps are, bringing all
the key players together to ensure everybody who has a stake in this does their
part to –
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– move this forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to this bill, Bill 35, a bill which
will amend the Workplace Health, Safety
and Compensation Act.
I'm
especially pleased because it's not often I get to stand here and say I'm
speaking to a bill that I'm totally in agreement with, number one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm also extremely pleased with what seems to have been a really good process by
the minister. Very often, I'll stand here and I have either a minister or others
saying that: Oh, there's been consultation. We've spoken to this one or that one
or whatever. But my sense really is, in the case of Bill 35, that this really
does reflect what is wanted by the people that the minister consulted with, by
the unions, those who represent workers, those who represent employers. I really
think a good job has been done in putting this bill together.
The bill
itself, just for those who may be watching us, is very, very short because,
basically, the bottom line of the bill is at the very end, and everything
leading up to it are the definitions that make that end of the bill so
important.
So what
the bill says, and this is nuts and bolts of the bill: “Where a worker (a) is
exposed to a traumatic event or events in the course of the worker's employment;
and (b) is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by a psychiatrist or a
registered psychologist, the post-traumatic stress disorder shall be presumed,
unless the contrary is shown, to be an injury that arose out of and in the
course of the worker's employment.”
That's
fantastic, and it's wonderful because it is not trying to determine ahead of
time, number one, whether or not a post-traumatic stress disorder has happened
or trying to determine what workers may suffer PTSD, what workers may not is the
recognition that PTSD can be caused by such a variety of trauma, that it's not
for legislation or WorkplaceNL to determine that. It's for professional people,
psychologist or psychiatrists to determine it. Then, once that's determined, any
worker who has PTSD will be covered by WorkplaceNL. That's wonderful.
As has
been said by a couple of my colleagues, in the beginning when we first started
talking about presumptive PTSD, we were talking about first responders. We were
talking about people who are in situations where we could easily see the trauma
they've gone through, both here and elsewhere.
My
colleagues had made reference to some of the other provinces. Alberta has been
left out, I think, in some of what they said. Alberta actually has done a great
job. In 2012, they first had presumptive PTSD for listed occupations. That's
where they sort of said, okay, some workers should have this and others don't,
but recently, this year, they amended their legislation to include all workers.
So we're getting onboard with that recognition, that there are just so many
things that can cause PTSD.
So it's
great that we're standing here today with this piece of legislation in our hands
recognizing the need to do this. As I said, I'm so pleased that the minister did
sit with those who were most impacted, who had most to say with regard to this
bill, and I think did what she realized was the best possible thing to do.
As far
as I can see, there is no dancing around. There is no trying to say, oh, I agree
with this little bit you said or that little bit, it's straightforward. The
section I read out from the bill, which is the heart of the bill, is absolutely
straightforward.
Now one
of the concerns, it's not a concern about the bill, but it's one of the concerns
that I'm sure everybody who's involved in the consultation must have, is
actually about our health care system. Because in order to get compensation
because of PTSD, the workers will have and should have – I'm saying they should
have, this is correct. They should be diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a
registered psychologist, and unfortunately a lot of us know that in this
province, trying to get to see a psychologist or a psychiatrist is very, very
difficult. It's easier here on the Avalon Peninsula than it is in some rural
communities, but even here there's a long wait-list for psychiatrists and
psychologists.
So I do
hope, I don't know how to speak to this in terms of – it's not the
responsibility of Service NL or the Minister of Service NL to ensure that
workers can get quick diagnoses. Having the legislation is excellent, but we
also need to look at where does our health care system come in and what is
happening in our health care system to make sure that there aren't massive wait
times. Because in and of itself, having this coverage will mean that workers are
going to be dealt with more quickly. There's no doubt that the fact that the
PTSD is going to be presumed that it is work related, will allow for earlier
treatment and better return-to-work outcomes, but they've got to get the
diagnosis first.
That's
not a concern about the legislation. We have to have it. I'm so happy we have
this legislation. That we will be voting for it, as I know we will, for the sake
of the workers in the province, but it will benefit employers as well. That's
why I know employers have agreed with this also, but at the same time we have to
make sure they get that diagnosis early on, because without the diagnosis early
on, then they won't get the treatment early on.
So I put
that out to government, that in putting legislation together, legislation can't
be done in silos. Decisions in one department connect with another department.
In this case, this decision connects very much with our health care system. I
would hope that the Minister of Service NL will have conversations with the
Minister of Health and Community Services to look at the fact of the long wait
times we have in this province for psychiatric and psychological treatment.
I'm not
going to go into the details of the bill because there's no need to, Mr.
Speaker. What I read out from the bill, the nuts and bolts of the bill, every
word in that almost has a definition in the bill, and that's what the bill is
about. So a definition of what a psychiatrist is, a definition of what a
registered psychologist is, a definition of trauma, all of that is in the bill
and is absolutely necessary.
Yes,
there are going to have to be processes worked out, but I'm glad to see that
government is allowing the time until July 1, 2019, to get in place the various
processes that need to be put in place. So while we'd all like to see it happen
sooner, we don't want it to come into effect until everything's in place to make
it work. And, of course, the action that was taken by WorkplaceNL in March of
this year, where they modernized the policy regarding mental distress, is going
to be there now, which wasn't there before March, and will fill the void in
terms of recognition of mental stress, will fill that void while we wait for
this legislation to be put in place, and I think it's important that we
recognize that that is there.
The
modernized policy, mental distress injuries adds exposure to multiple traumatic
events, eliminates the exclusion for the inherent risk of an occupation. The
thing – oh, it is part of your job, suffer because it's part of your job.
Getting rid of that is recognized by WorkplaceNL as very important, and the new
policy clarifies the conditions that are covered by WorkplaceNL: acute stress
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, anxiety and
depressive disorder. So that policy is in place and will fill the void until
this legislation comes into place on July 1, 2019.
So at
least there's an interim situation going on so that we know the issue is being
dealt with. We've been too long getting to where we are, but let's take the time
necessary to make sure that by the time we get to July we have everything we
need. But I do have that concern, and I name it very seriously. I'm sure we all
know of people, either family or friends or co-workers, who have had to wait
long periods of time to be diagnosed. And when we're talking about any disease,
whether we're talking about mental or physical, it doesn't matter, any disease,
time is of the essence. It's not just with PTSD that that's true, time is of the
essence and so we have to ensure that people are going to get diagnosed in a
timely fashion so that then they can go to WorkplaceNL to get the support that
they need.
That's
all I need to say, Mr. Speaker. I'm really pleased with the legislation. I'm
glad we're bringing it in. Of course, we'll be voting for it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 35 on the workers' compensation act. Mr.
Speaker, I don't want to belabour the points, there have been so many points
made. I would say my colleague from Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune certainly gave us
quite the rundown, I would say, on everything you ever wanted to know about
PTSD.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
She did a good job.
But, Mr.
Speaker, really what this bill is about, for clarity, and clarity in my own mind
and well as anyone who's listening, while I do share in what my colleague from
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi is saying, and I'll speak to that in a second about
our health care system and so on, really what this bill is about – the nuts and
bolts of this bill is not necessarily about early diagnosis and treatment and so
on. We all know it's all tied in, but really what this is saying, this is about
compensation coverage.
Workers'
compensation is like insurance, basically, for workers. It was founded on three
principles. It's 100 per cent employer paid, it's no-fault insurance and if you
accept workers' compensation you give up your right to sue. Really what this is,
is compensation for that injured worker.
All
we're basically saying here that if someone is diagnosed with PTSD, related to a
traumatic event at the workplace or a series of events at the workplace, then
this person is going to receive payment. They're going to receive their
temporary earnings loss, what it's called, in the beginning at least and then,
at some point in time, you could graduate into extended earnings loss and labour
market re-entry and all those other parts of the system of course. But,
initially, what we're saying is that it's about the worker receiving pay from
WorkplaceNL in lieu of the pay they would be receiving from their employer while
they're off on their injury. In this case, the injury being a mental health
injury related to PTSD.
So, just
to put that in context and in clarity of what exactly this bill is about, that's
what it's about.
Now, the
fact that our health care system may be challenged and so on and the ability to
receive the help you need, to receive the diagnosis to get the help, all those
points that my colleague just pointed out, those are very relevant points, but
regardless if someone was covered by workers' comp, or they weren't covered by
workers' comp, or whether they were challenging a workers' comp claim, or
whether it happened off the job and they still had PTSD, because PTSD doesn't
necessarily have to occur on the job.
You
could be off on your own time, in theory, involved in some kind of a
recreational activity and something serious, something traumatic happens. You
could be in a car accident on your own time off and witness something traumatic
or be involved in something traumatic, perhaps. A loved one was seriously
injured or killed or you saw somebody get run over on the road or something,
whatever it was. Things can happen that can cause someone to have PTSD. It does
not necessarily have to happen in the workplace.
Regardless of if it happened in the workplace or didn't happen in the workplace,
you still have to rely on our health care system and we still need timely care,
we still need access to physicians and psychiatrists involved with mental health
and so on. You still need that diagnosis, you still need that treatment.
So
whether or not it's a workplace injury or a workplace event or a non-workplace
event, the same is going to apply in terms of the issue with our health care
system. And that is a very, very valid point for everybody who experiences any
kind of injury or an illness, whether it be physical or whether it be mental. So
those points are important, and they're very valid. But, again, this bill is
simply about coverage for workers to, while they're off work, getting taken care
of, hopefully, that they're going to receive income so that's one less stress
that they've got to worry about.
Now,
under the legislation – it was always covered in the legislation – there was a
provision there for a traumatic event, but the onus was always on the employee
to prove that the traumatic event is what caused the mental illness. What's
changing here is that basically we're saying if a traumatic event occurred at
the workplace that that employee was involved in, then the assumption is going
to be made, the assumption is going to be made that it was that traumatic event
that caused the PTSD, the mental illness. And I guess it would be up to the
employer to prove otherwise.
If the
employer didn't agree with it, the onus would then be on the employer to say:
Oh, no, oh, no, we've got proof to say that this person was involved in some
traumatic event outside the workplace. A couple of months ago, he was involved
in a hunting accident and somebody got seriously injured and that's what caused
it, there was nothing that happened at the workplace. It would have to be the
onus on the employer to prove it versus the other way around.
That's
very important because, at the end of the day, while we are having to deal with
diagnosis and treatment and all that's very important, people still have to eat.
People still have to eat. Injured workers still have bills to pay. They got
mortgages to pay. They got car payments to deal with. They have children to
feed, to cloth, to put in school and how often have I had the frustrating
conversation with people whether it be people with EI, whether it be people with
workers' compensation, in terms of employees I've represented. And I've
represented a good many as an MHA of my constituents, and some whom weren't even
my constituents, but anyway that's another story, but I've had many, many
dealings with workers' comp and that and it's fine to say: Oh, well, eventually
when they get through, they'll get their back pay. They'll get their back pay.
Guess
what, the bank is not interested in back pay. Right? The bank is not interested
in back pay. The children are hungry, they need to be fed. It's no good to say:
B'y, I'll feed you twice as much next week. It doesn't work that way. So having
your income taken care of, replaced, to the level it is, which is 85 per cent
now, which is again a positive and I think it went from 80 to 85, that was
passed recently, I thank the minister for that one. That was another good move,
I would say, Mr. Speaker. But it's about the compensation.
Now, the
problem is, and where it really does tie into the medical system and the health
care system, is that in order to receive compensation, even under what we're
doing today, under this new piece of legislation, a psychiatrist or a
psychologist has to say this person has PTSD. So, it is still a dilemma in the
sense that if it takes two months or three months or four months for someone to
see a psychologist or to see a psychiatrist, I'm not sure how that's going to
work.
Does
that mean that that person is off work now with no income from workers' comp, no
ability to pay their bills because they haven't gotten the diagnosis yet? It's
fine to say – I'll go back to it – it's fine to say when they finally get the
diagnosis they'll be covered but what about the time in between? What are they
supposed to do? So, that is a concern. It's a legitimate concern in terms of
getting that diagnosis because you can't go to the family doctor – at least
what's written here – and I can understand why not as well, by the way, because
we have to guard against abuse and everything else that could potentially
happen. You just can't go to your family doctor and get a note saying John is
going to be off on workers' comp; he has PTSD. You can't do that on the form
810. A family doctor can't write that, I don't think: John has PTSD. It's says a
psychiatrist or psychologist.
It is
going to be a key part to this. This is wonderful. This is great. But, as has
been said my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, if you can't get
access to a psychiatrist or a psychologist to get that person to fill out that
form 810 to say that person has PTSD, then the claim is still going to be left
wide open and that person is still going to have no money coming in the door.
So, I think that is a legitimate concern.
There
are people out there I'm sure – I've heard from a couple already – who are a
little concerned about this, perhaps employers or just some people in general
because everyone looks at these things differently, of course. The concern is
okay, everybody now is going to be off on stress. Everyone is going off on
workers' comp. There will be nobody working. Joe is going to say I'm stressed
out b'y, I can't come to work and I'm going off on workers' comp. That's not the
case. I say to anyone listening who thinks that's the case, it is not the case.
There has to be a traumatic event, or events, that occurred in the workplace.
If the
company has a safety policy, which it's supposed to have, they're all supposed
to have it by law, then all that would be documented in an accident or an
incident form or so on that there was a traumatic event. There was some event
that could now be pointed to to say I've been feeling really ill, I went and saw
a psychologist, he says I have PTSD and here was the incident form that I filled
out of this traumatic event that happened to me, and now he don't have to prove
it. It's automatically going to be assumed that's the traumatic event that
caused this, unless the employer, of course, can prove otherwise.
Employers should want to do this. Because, at the end of the day, if you don't
do this and you're forcing people to go to work when their not feeling well
mentally, then you're opening yourself up for more accidents and more incidents
that are going to relate to even greater costs. You're going to open yourself up
to issues around lack of productivity, poor customer service, sick leave.
Perhaps sick leave will go through the roof because I can't get workers' comp,
so I'm going to have to go sick because I'm just not well enough to come to work
today.
So,
there's no doubt that while some people might look at this and say it's a bad
thing – no, this is not something that can easily, a psychologist – it's not
like Joe going to the doctor tomorrow and saying: Doc, give me a note on a
little prescription pad saying I got PTSD, would you? That's not how it's going
to work.
I'm very
comfortable and very satisfied with what we're doing here. I think workers, when
they go to work in the morning – and I worked as a safety practitioner for most
of my career, prior to getting into politics; it's what I did. We always said
someone goes to work in the morning and the expectation is they come home to
their family the same way as when they went to work. That's supposed to be the
goal. That's what safety is all about. That can relate to physical injuries and
it can relate to mental health injuries, which are very real, and that's what
this addresses.
I'm also
very glad to see that we've moved away from – because I think, to my
recollection, originally, government were looking at first responders. There is
no doubt that first responders, it absolutely applies to them. As a matter of
fact, I've had constituents who would fall under that category that I know have
suffered tremendously from PTSD, and had to fight and struggle with workers'
comp. I could go off on a big tangent on workers' comp, I really could, in terms
of – this is one issue. There are lots of issues with workers' comp, especially
around the timing of claims and appeals and everything else. It's an absolute
nightmare, and I've been through it with number of people. That also needs to be
fixed.
I have
gone through it with first responders, constituents of mine, who have been
impacted by this, and this wasn't in place. This would've helped them. So, for
the next person, this is going to help them, and that is a good thing. But I
will say while first responders are the ones that come to your mind – a police
officer who goes into a scene and sees someone who has just been shot, or
somebody in a car accident that was killed; a police officer who hauls out
someone who was burned in a fire; nurses who experience a lot of people would
have died, sickness and stuff like that. But it could happen in any workplace.
I'm glad
that government followed the lead of the other provinces – most of the other
provinces – and are recognizing all workers. Because a traumatic event that
could cause PTSD, while the likelihood of that happening may be much higher for
a police officer or an ambulance attendant or a firefighter or what have you, or
a warden at HMP and so on, but it could happen anywhere, and I have been
involved in investigating situations where there were deaths and serious
injuries in the workplaces that had nothing to do with any of those professions.
Imagine
going to a workplace and seeing somebody crushed between two large containers,
and having to witness that. Imagine being the person who was driving the truck
or the top lift or whatever when that happened. Imagine being the person
operating the crane when a crane swung in over the vessel and hit one of his
best friends and nearly killed him; the impact that that could have. We had an
incident a number of years back with a runaway crane. Some people might
remember; it was in the media. It went down over the harbour arterial and sort
of ended up in front of the Delta Hotel after taking out numerous cars and
killed a lady. Imagine being the person behind the wheel of that crane, and
seeing that.
So,
traumatic incidents can happen outside of law enforcement and firefighters,
uniformed services, they absolutely can, and they have, and they will continue
to happen, unfortunately. It's just the nature of it in a lot of these
industrial workplaces. We've had incidents in Come By Chance, explosions in
confined spaces. I have a family member, or in-law, I guess, who was involved in
an incident there, who speaks at a lot of safety conferences and events about
that experience. Imagine going through that.
PTSD is
not limited to uniformed services and emergency response. They can happen in
other workplaces, too, and that's why it's so important, and I was so pleased to
see that we've moved away from simply emergency response, and recognize that it
could happen to workers in other industries and other workplaces as well;
bearing in mind, again, that there are protections here for employers in terms
of identifying those traumatic events. So again, it's not like someone can say,
b'y, I'm stressed out because the boss gave me too much work to do. Or I'm
stressed out because I can't get along with Sally. She's always talking about me
behind my back, or whatever. So I'm stressed out. I'm going off on stress leave;
I have PTSD now. That's not how it's going to work. It can't work that way. That
might seem extreme, but I've heard from a couple of people that that's what
they're thinking in their mind that everyone is going off on workers' comp.
That's not going to happen. That's not what this is about; it's important to
point that out.
So I
think it's a good thing. It's a great move, actually. I'll be supporting it 100
per cent. As I've said in the past, when legislation comes through that I have
issues with or I think is wrong, I'll be the first to criticize. But when
something good is done, I'll be the first to acknowledge it. I say to the
Minister of Service NL: Good job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise to speak to Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act. I've listened to my colleagues throughout the afternoon and I
certainly won't repeat much of the commentary that has been expressed in regard
to the actual bill and the coverage related to PTSD. For myself personally, I've
had approximately 12 or 14 years in the workers' compensation system, health and
safety in general, and worked on all sides of, I guess, prevention, certainly on
the employer side of things, rate setting and prevention services. A broad
spectrum of activities related to health and safety.
What I
want to speak to, just briefly – and the minister maybe can speak to this in
Committee – is the issue of PTSD in terms of the workplace and how it's derived
and the issue of entitlement under the act, and this piece of legislation lays
out, I guess, the parameters of that. One of the things in any workplace
industry is the proactive nature of health and safety programming, and
occupational health and safety legislation is there and the regulatory framework
is often there to support those activities in the workplace.
In
looking at this, I guess this is a piece of legislation to the insurance system
of workplace health and safety that will address the reactive nature when
something happens in the workplace, which is fine and understandable. I guess my
question as we move forward is: Recognizing what we're doing here, what are we
doing before that in terms of the proactive nature of dealing with instances and
activities in the workplace? And this could be cumulative as well, from a PTSD
point of view. It may not be just one acute injury or one acute event or one
acute traumatic event. It could be many.
So why
are we doing this? From the occupational health and safety point of view,
occupational health and safety committees, the frameworks within various
workplaces and places, what are we doing to assess the indicators or the
triggers or the various occurrences and instances that could happen and that
could relate or evolve into PTSD? And that's the preventative or the recognition
piece that I think is very important when we talk about this.
I don't
know whether there are any amendments coming to the
Occupational Health and Safety Act or issues in that regard. But I
think it's important, and I spent a number of years going through developing
occupational health and safety programs, training, workplace management,
indicators in the workplace that could lead to hazards and how those hazards
evolved into possible significant injuries, all of that framework.
So with
this here, I guess, the question would be: Are we taking on both sides of this,
certainly the reactive side but also the preventative side of it, and being
proactive in identifying patterns or indicators or triggers in the workplace
that could lead to the need to file a claim with the Workplace Health, Safety
and Compensation Commission for PTSD?
I think
it's important that we recognize that, we look at it and we certainly take note
of it as we move forward. I say maybe the minister can address that in Committee
as we move forward and what actions they're taking on that side of it as we look
at this piece of legislation and how we ensure that we do everything we can. And
the responsibilities of employers and employees in the workplace and all those
health and safety partners, collectively, how they can play a role in ensuring
that if there are indications of issues related to activities in the workplace,
that they can be identified and maybe dealt with at an earlier time. Hopefully,
before we get to a particular case, wherein some cases someone through a
cumulative nature may need to avail of this piece of legislation. So I just
wanted to speak to that and put it out there, and maybe in Committee we can have
some more discussion on that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
If the
hon. the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL speaks now, she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
close debate, I would just like to put forward a special mention of appreciation
to Madonna Pitcher. Madonna worked with me on this very important bill in the
Department of Service NL. Madonna was my secretary, but sadly she passed away
suddenly on Sunday at the young age of 56. So I want to let her family and her
friends and the staff at Service NL know that we are thinking about Donna as we
conclude second reading and how dedicated Madonna was to her job.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to stand today, once again, to speak to the amendments to
Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. As I
said in my earlier remarks, I want to highlight, again, how significant these
amendments are for all workers in Newfoundland and Labrador covered by the
workplace injury system. We all know that work-related mental stress conditions
such as post-traumatic stress disorder are, in fact, impacting workplaces across
Canada. Many individuals and groups have personally relayed numerous accounts to
me of workers who developed PTSD as a result of their work after being exposed
to one or more traumatic events in the workplace.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I have heard heart-wrenching stories of individuals with
debilitating mental health injuries whose lives have been changed forever. It
became clear to me that more and more people are willing to come forward to talk
about their experiences. People are no longer hiding in the shadows trying to
deal with mental health challenges alone. It also became clear to me that it can
affect people from all walks of life. PTSD does not discriminate, and women are
twice as likely to be diagnosed with PTSD as men.
As a
government, we are extremely proud of this legislation we have introduced in
this hon. House today. The progressive legislation simplifies the claim process;
it allows the workers' compensation system to help injured workers receive the
assistance they need earlier. It will lead to better outcomes in improving the
workers' overall health and well-being, as well as options for returning to work
when appropriate. Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act will bring Newfoundland
and Labrador in line with the important movement that is taking place across
Canada.
Bringing
this amendment forward is part of our government's ongoing efforts to help
improve the lives of injured workers in our province. Mr. Speaker, we committed
to this and we are delivering on this. It is our belief that this bill will
significantly change the lives of a number of people throughout the province. We
also feel it will help raise awareness; it will help continue the very important
dialogue around mental health injuries in the workplace.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to highlight, once again, that WorkplaceNL took the cost of this
change into consideration when determining the assessment rates to be paid by
employers in 2019. Given that the injury fund is currently fully funded, average
assessment rates will actually, again, be lowered.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to be a part of today, and to be a part of
this government that has listened to the people it serves, and today is bringing
forward a very important progressive piece of legislation.
I also
want to thank my hon. colleagues for their support of the amendments debated
here today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 35 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?
The
motion is
carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill
35)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 35.
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?
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
Just before we get into Bill 35, just a bit
of housekeeping.
I have reviewed
Hansard regarding a point of order raised by the Member for
Conception Bay South regarding remarks made by the Member for Bonavista. I find
the remarks made by the Member for Bonavista to be unparliamentary, and I ask
the Member for Bonavista to withdraw those remarks.
MR. KING:
I withdraw my remarks and apologize, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 35, An Act To
Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace
Health, Safety And Compensation Act.” (Bill 35)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I read out, in the second reading, a number
of questions, and I'm going to keep those towards the end of the debate and
start out with some general questions that we have overall related to the bill.
Nova
Scotia imposes a duty to assist a worker in obtaining treatment. Will there be
any obligation for that here and what changes will be made to enhance access to
treatment?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, that duty actually
presently exists here and WorkplaceNL endeavours to assist the clients to
receive the treatment. We, in fact, will be having a memorandum of
understanding, a memorandum of agreement with the psychologists from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Psychologists and we presently have an
MOA with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. Preliminary
discussions have been had with psychologists and of course we've alluded to the
mental health unit that we will be establishing.
So, yes,
the answer to your question is, yes, that will exist here.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
We were
also told that MOUs would be negotiated with psychiatrists and psychologists
after the legislation is passed. Can you tell us how you're going to be ensuring
that adequate resources will be available for that and what guarantees are there
that workers will receive proper treatment and supports in a reasonable time
frame?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Well, Mr. Chair, mental
health injuries are similar to physical injuries so we provide the services for
physical injuries. We'll do the exact same, there's an equity clause here for
mental health.
In
actual fact, Mr. Chair, as I just alluded to, we have already had preliminary
discussions with the psychologists. We will enter into an MOA with them the same
way we do with the chiropractors for physical injuries.
So, Mr.
Chair, that has already been done, set up. We assessed that there would probably
be a need to ensure that the access to care was there. By entering into an MOA
it has worked with other services, so we anticipate it will work well with
psychologists as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
Can you
inform us if there will be priority clinics for PTSD as what there are in other
similar type of circumstances and, as well, can you give us some information
pertaining to what he strategy is on the part of government and WorkplaceNL to
emphasize prevention?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, as we've alluded
to a couple of times, we'll be setting up a mental health unit. We will be
hiring additional staff, so there will be a priority, because there will be a
section, an area, at WorkplaceNL that will deal specifically with these type of
claims.
As it
comes to the prevention component, we presently have the Advancing a Strong
Safety Culture preventive strategy in place, Mr. Chair. We have authority to set
up the clinics and to move forward with the strategy. For the first time ever,
mental health is actually addressed in the strategy.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
follow up with my colleagues question with regard to prevention. In second
reading, I just made some comments in regard to the preventive nature and any
changes to the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, or any changes to occupational health and safety committees in
terms of putting a focus on PTSD and preventive nature of that, certainly of a
cumulative nature.
Are
there any changes you're considering on the front end in regard to the workplace
and what could be done in terms of identifying when this could become an issue
and dealing with it immediately in the workplace rather than, on a later date,
when it gets to a very critical incidence where a file is claimed to the
commission? Is there any focus on that preventive nature in the workplace?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, you alluded to assessing
the triggers to determine to prevent it from actually happening. Yes, so you're
moving over into Occupational Health and Safety there within Service NL and we
will be identifying with mental health. Again, OHS is putting a focus on mental
health, the same way WorkplaceNL is now putting a focus on mental.
So, yes,
in the preventive strategy there will be ways and mythologies in order to
address so we can prevent, and also the educational component to the employer,
providing the resources and providing access. On our website right now if you go
onto a physical injury you will find numerous different pieces of information on
the affirmed employers and we will do the same thing for mental health. Mental
health will be equitable to a physical disability.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I thank the minister for
that, Mr. Chair.
Just
specifically, I recognize we're talking about a different piece of legislation
but it is connected. With the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, is there any indication that there are changes or any
regulatory changes or legislative changes that would be required reflective of
what we're passing here today?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
No, there's nothing required
in the Occupational Health and Safety Act
to be reflective of what we're doing here today. The OHS Act already deals
with and addresses any type of workplace bullying, harassment, aggression, PTSD,
mental health, physical. It's encompassed.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just
another question in regard to the definition of injury. The definition of injury
references “an injury as a result of a chance event occasioned by physical or
natural cause” and you go through the definition. Is there any concern that the
term mental illness or mental affliction or anything to do with mental health is
not included in the definition?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
We're discussing PTSD here, presumptive coverage of PTSD, and as I've alluded to
a number of times, that diagnosis will be based on the Diagnostics and
Statistical Manual. So I'm certain that within the manual, and how the diagnosis
is explained in the manual, I don't think there's going to be anything missed;
however, there's a psychological component also, which I spoke to earlier, to
say that we would be in 2020, doing a review to perhaps include, on a go-forward
basis, presumptive coverage under psychological.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
We're
wondering now about plans subsequent to the enacting of this legislation. Can
you inform us about what your plan is to educate workers and employers once the
bill is passed? What the plan is to monitor the results of this change to the
legislation, as well as consultations ongoing with organizations in response to
that, and, as well, what the plan is to track and analyze PTSD reporting?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So we will implement exactly
as we implement with physical injuries, with mental health injuries. We'll treat
it exactly the same under our advancing and strong safety culture, our
preventative strategy. We will continue with our strategy, and we will educate
the employer. The whole objective here is to decrease the injuries and to
prevent it from happening before you actually have to provide the treatment.
So, yes,
we will continue to educate, use the strategy implemented, work with the
employers, work with the Employers' Council and work with the employees, also.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Injury
has five subgroups in this bill. They are: “(i) an injury as a result of a
chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, (ii) an injury as a
result of a wilful and intentional act, not being the act of the worker, (iii)
disablement, (iv) industrial disease, or (v) death as a result of an injury.”
So which
of these does PTSD fall into, or might that vary? Could PTSD ever be considered
disablement, such that the worker can never work again in that occupation, if at
all? As well, on definition of injury, could a worker remain on workers'
compensation indefinitely, or will there be revisiting of the case at some point
to assess the person's condition?
My last
question with respect to the definition of injury is: How will it be determined
if a worker with PTSD could work in another occupation, and could a worker be
told that's a reason to deny or terminate their benefits?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
PTSD is an injury under the
act. PTSD is a mental health injury. If you had a physical injury, it would be
comparison the same – there's no difference here in a mental health injury and a
physical injury. We will treat both exactly the same and continue.
So you
could possibly be on workers' compensation for life from a physical injury, so
you could possibly be on workers' compensation for life from PTSD. Yes, it is
possible, there's no doubt about that. It's also possible to go back to work. I
have a number of friends who have diagnoses of PTSD that are working, working
part-time, working full time, and it's an injury.
We are
finally as a government, and as a House of Assembly here, addressing
post-traumatic stress disorder, recognizing mental health injuries. We're
addressing it and we are dealing with it, and we are going to help treat and
prevent and address clients' issues and concerns when they come forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
With
respect to exclusion of other stress disorders, NAPE recommended the following,
and I quote: “Recognize and cover all mental health injuries resulting from
chronic stress, either tied to operational or organizational stressors in the
course of employment.”
As well:
“Recognize that all psychological injuries, including chronic stress resulting
from work-related activities, are occupational illnesses which can be caused by
cumulative as well as single stressful events.”
We know
that the cumulative element has been included, but what about the other mental
health injuries besides PTSD? Can you give us some explanation as to why these
were excluded from the presumptive clause?
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for WorkplaceNL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Well,
there are a number of reasons, and I can't go without saying cost was one. Given
the fact that the actuaries did an analysis, and if we included presumptive
psychological right from the beginning, it was $11.6 million to $23.1 million.
So that's the first thing.
The
second thing was the jurisdictional data and evidence. We don't have a lot.
Saskatchewan has been at it for two years. Alberta has worked its way up. It
started with first responders and now it's – just since May, I believe, of 2018
– included presumptive for psychological; and hence why, when I stood today I
committed to a review after July 2020 so that we could do an analysis. We'd have
more information, more jurisdictional data, more indication of the cost on a
go-forward basis, and more solid data from the actuaries.
So
presumptive clauses are typically intended for conditions where a single factor
is more likely than not the cause of the condition, hence why we went with
coverage for PTSD presumptive.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I just want to follow up on the questioning around the health care
provision of services.
Minister, I understand you said that it would be treated the same as a physical
injury. I understand that, but the only thing I would point out, Minister, is
that if somebody had – I don't know, let's say for argument's sake somebody had
an incident at the workplace where they were lifting a heavy box and they
injured their back. They could go to their family physician and the family
physician could fill out a form 810 to accompany their claim, and someone could
at least get their claim going and, theoretically, approved and start getting
money coming in the door to feed their family while they're going through this
situation.
At some
point in time, as you said, physio would kick in and an occupational therapist.
Maybe they would need to see a specialist. Maybe they would need to have
surgery, whatever the case might be, and that at least in my experience in a lot
of injured workers that I've dealt with over the years that could take a
significant period of time to happen.
I've had
workers who had back injuries and other soft tissue injuries who were off for
months, several months, but at least in the meantime while they were waiting to
see a specialist, if it took two months to see one, and waiting to have their
physiotherapy treatment and so on, at least the family doctor's note got the
system – it wasn't a note, sorry. The family doctor completing the form 810,
that workers' comp put out, would get that claim rolling, and get their claim
approved so they have some money coming in the door to pay the bills while all
this is happening.
The
difference I see with this one is that – and I understand why, and I'm not
necessarily saying that I'm supporting that either, to be honest with you,
because I don't know if we want to go down the road, as I said earlier when I
spoke, that Joe goes to the family doctor and says: hey, doctor, look I'm
stressed out or whatever, sign me a note saying I got PTSD. And all of a sudden
workers' comp kicks in, I get that, but the legislation is saying PTSD has to be
diagnosed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
I
understand once they're diagnosed it could take some time to get treatment like
it does for physical ailments but at least the money is coming in the door
immediately, or almost immediately, once that incident happens. So barring some
agreement – I know you said you have a memorandum of understanding with
psychiatrists and psychologists and so on, the same as physiotherapists. But,
barring some agreement that says if I go to work today and I experience a
traumatic event, and everybody knows it, I report it and I fill out form seven,
the employer fills out the form six, unless there's some agreement that says I
can immediately, the very next day or two days, or three days, or within a week,
go to a psychologist who is going to confirm I have PTSD so my claim can be
approved, unless that happens, then theoretically while I may eventually end up
getting covered for that traumatic event, I could be waiting two months with no
money coming in the door, waiting to see the psychiatrist just to get the
diagnosis, never mind the treatment, just the diagnosis so that my claim can be
approved.
I'm
wondering: Has that sort of been thought through and is the memorandum of
understanding that you're talking about with psychologists and psychiatrists
going to deal with the fact that there's going to be someone immediately, or
pretty quickly after that traumatic event, to get me the diagnosis asap so I can
get some money coming in in the meantime?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Presumptive legislation makes the adjudication process faster and it simplifies
the claim process. The answer to your question is yes, WorkplaceNL will have a
memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of agreement, with the psychologist to
enable the capacity to get to the psychologist and get the diagnosis. But,
that's the presumptive component. So you can be diagnosed with PTSD by a family
doctor, but it's not presumptive. The presumptive component needs a psychiatrist
or the psychologist.
WorkplaceNL, we have thought that through. The main thinking things were access
to help, access to care, so you could get treatment. That's the whole idea here.
It's presumed that work caused the PTSD so you've stepped over that hurdle, it's
already presumed, and now you have access to get the diagnosis so you can get
the treatment.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for the
response. I know what your saying, but I just want to make this point for my
clarification and for the record, the concern.
Minister, I understand what you're saying about getting the treatment and we all
understand it's about getting the treatment so that the worker can get better
and they come back to work, gainful employment and so on. I understand that.
I just
have to say, once again, if it was a physical injury that required a specialist,
for example, and required a physiotherapist and so on, that may take some time
to get that treatment even now. That's the way it works. Under my experience
that I've seen, I've yet to see an injured worker who went to work, said, oh, I
hurt my back, I got soft tissue injury, and the next day they were into a
specialist's office getting seen. I have never, ever seen that. They went to
their family doctor. The family doctor said, yes, this was a workplace injury.
This person cannot go to work. They fill out their form 8/10, unable to return
to work at this time. They'll tick that box on the form 8/10.
But as
long as it was a workplace injury and the form 8/10 was filled out and so on,
the process would start and the worker would get paid from workers' comp and
they'd get their compensation. And if it took a month or two months to see a
specialist or to get physiotherapy or whatever, if that's what it took, that's
what it took. But at least the money – that's what this is about, the money. I
know it's also about getting better and all that, but still the reality of what
this bill is about is the money coming in the door. I would have that money to
pay my bills. That's what I would have.
Unless
there's going to be something here in this agreement that says I experienced a
traumatic event, if it takes a month to see a psychologist to say you have PTSD,
if that's what takes a month to be diagnosed as PTSD, then that's a month that I
don't have any money coming in to pay my bills; or if it takes two months,
that's two months I don't have money coming in to pay my bills.
Once
you're diagnosed, yes, once you're diagnosed and access to services through the
memorandum of understanding so that you can get the help you need to get better
or whatever, however long it takes. But again, while it's all related, this bill
is not about the health care system; it's not about treatment of employees with
PTSD, per se. The bill is about making sure – that's what this change is doing,
is saying that I'm going to be covered by workers' comp, presumed that it was
because of the workplace injury, so that I can get my temporary earnings loss
benefits to pay my bills while I'm getting better, and the PTSD is going to be
presumed because there was a workplace incident.
But what
you're saying here is let's say I had a serious accident tomorrow and I went to
my family doctor, the family doctor cannot diagnose me with PTSD in terms of the
presumption piece. He can see you have PTSD, but then I'm still in the same boat
of having to prove if it was work related, am I not?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So this is WorkplaceNL, so
WorkplaceNL will cover work-related injuries.
This
gives me an opportunity here to just read some stats into the record here around
access to psychologists and psychiatrists. In July 2018 we had a 35 per cent
reduction in the number of people waiting for mental health and addictions
counselling services across the province.
On the
Burin Peninsula, the local primary health care team has eliminated the wait-list
for mental health and addictions counselling services on the Burin Peninsula.
Labrador-Grenfell Health has eliminated the wait-lists for mental health and
addictions counselling services at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. Plus, we are going to enter into a memorandum of agreement
with psychiatrists and psychologists to ensure we have the accessibility for
injured workers to get the diagnosis so they can get the treatment and get
covered under workplace compensation.
So,
you're somewhat right, but you're somewhat wrong. Half right. You're right in
the presumption of what this is and how we're moving forward, but we have
already thought about the roadblocks that we could in fact face and we're
addressing them before – this six-month wait period that we have to July,
there's a reason why we put that in place, so we could ensure that we had
everything ready to go. We build the capacity at WorkplaceNL. We put the mental
health team in place, we ensured the psychiatrists and psychologists have an
understanding of what we need and we address the mental health injury, the
post-traumatic stress disorder, which is going to be presumptive.
Yes, we
have thought about all the possible roadblocks. We've gone through the physical
ailment component of it. This is equitable to that. It's just mental health
being recognized.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for the
clarification. I guess what I'm hearing then – and that will be my last point on
this – is that if I'm a worker and I experience a traumatic event tomorrow, and
I fill out a form seven, my employer fills out a form six, I should expect to be
able to get access to a psychiatrist or a psychologist within a few days to say
yes, this person has PTSD so I don't' have to worry about the additional stress
of money on top of my injury. That that's going to happen and there will be no
wait times and so on.
If
that's the case, perfect. Glad you got it all worked out, good job, but I think
that's important. That's very important for people to know and to understand
that, because it's one thing to receive timely treatment, like you would for any
physical injury, but it's another thing, as I've said before, and I can not
emphasize enough, that while you're waiting for treatment, now you got a lot of
workers who would have – if this wasn't addressed, they would have the added
stress of, how am I going to pay the bills and feed my family while I'm waiting
to get diagnosed?
As long
as that's addressed, fine with me. Time will tell. The proof will be in the
pudding when it all rolls out, and I hope it is right.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
So that's the half you're
right about.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I just
have one question for the minister. I know that most of my colleagues in the
House of Assembly – we all deal with different workers' comp situations with
injured workers, and sometimes we deal with cases where people are injured on
the job. I have lots of examples in my own area where people are asked to
retrain after a period of time on workers' comp.
Is this
going to be part of the program? Somebody – and I'll give you an example – it
could be a firefighter, it could be somebody that has a situation that they feel
they can't go back to that type of job anymore. Is there going to be a
retraining program in place for those people? Because right now, in some cases
like I've dealt with, we had injured workers that, for example, got injured on a
construction site, and I went to one case where they were told they could
retrain to be a parking lot attendant. I'm sure you've all had that situation
many times.
I'm just
wondering what the case is going to be for this here, because we're going to be
dealing with a broad spectrum of people. What kind of retraining, or is it going
to be the same thing as the injured workers have to face today and told that you
can be retrained for this type of job or else you're going to lose your
benefits?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
What I can say to that is every case is on an individual basis. Every individual
is assessed. So there is retraining available. I know, I've been through that
system myself.
So there
is, in fact, retraining available. As with a physical injury – again, this is a
mental health injury – it will be treated the same way. Individuals will be
assessed, and retraining will be available.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My next
questions pertain to burden of proof. How will the scope of the stress, scope of
trauma, scope of work-relatedness be evaluated? What supporting documentation
will be required from the position?
As well,
the legislation states that the PTSD shall be presumed to be an injury that
arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment, unless the contrary
is shown. Can you give us some insight as to how that would be determined?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD
is available. This is the criteria that will determine the diagnosis. You will
be diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a psychologist based on this criteria. It's
quite lengthy, but there are a number of criteria within the DSM. So that will
determine the diagnosis.
What was
your second question? You had –
MS. PERRY:
(Inaudible.)
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Well, I'll let you know,
whatever the forms are, the specific sixes and sevens, the different forms that
the psychiatrist or psychologist will complete.
A
diagnosis of PTSD – the Member for Mount Pearl alluded to earlier – it's not an
easy diagnosis to acquire. I can assure you that anyone who is diagnosed with
PTSD, they know they're diagnosed with it. They know they have PTSD. The
physician knows. It's not something you're just going to be able to go to your
general practitioner and get a diagnosis of PTSD. The criteria is quite
stringent over here, and so it's the DSM.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm
jumping ahead. The other question I had pertaining to burden of proof was that
clause in the legislation that says unless the contrary is shown that the PTSD
has occurred outside the workplace. Do you have anything you can elaborate on
with respect to that portion of the legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes. Per section 63 of the
Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Act, the person must prove
written notice of their objection within 10 days. So the employer can rebut the
PTSD if the employer can prove that this didn't happen.
If
you're an individual and you are diagnosed with PTSD and you've been at an event
– on the highway but you've been at an event at work, it will be presumed that
work caused the PTSD, unless the employer can prove otherwise.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
So the burden of proof will
fall on – or that will fall to the employer to have to prove if they –
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
To rebut.
MS. PERRY:
To rebut. Okay.
Actually, that leads to my next set of questions on rebuttal, appeals and
reconsideration. I'll give you my five questions again and then if we need to
repeat them I can.
How will
these claims be adjudicated and managed? Under what circumstances will a claim
be denied? Will previous claims be eligible for reconsideration? As well, Nova
Scotia allows for refiling after a claim is denied. Will that be permitted here,
and will there be an appeal process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
It's going to be exactly the same as it is for physical disabilities. The system
is the same. You go in with a mental health injury the same way you go in with a
physical injury.
There is
presently an internal appeal process now and an external appeal process that is
available also. It's presumptive. So it's presumed that you have the PTSD
diagnosis because of work, once you're diagnosed. So you're in and it's presumed
you have PTSD. It's already presumed because of work, once you get the
diagnosis.
If
you're diagnosed with PTSD, as the psychiatrist or the psychologist says you
have PTSD and it is work related, then you're accepted in and you get – this
takes away the hurdle of having to prove that work caused the PTSD. But, in the
event – presently under the workplace policy, mental health policy as it exists
today, we have diagnosed some individuals with PTSD; but, again, there is a
capacity for the employer to come in and rebut that you have the PTSD, that
you've been diagnosed.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank
you, Minister. I understood from that that the appeals process will be exactly
the same as it is now for all ongoing WorkplaceNL issues. Okay.
With
respect to the notwithstanding clause, what are the limits of this clause?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As I indicated earlier, the
employer can rebut the diagnosis of PTSD.
CHAIR:
The hon. Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you.
In terms
of financial impact, we are told that – the early indication from other
jurisdictions is that this will result in increased claims and associated costs.
Can you
outline for us in detail – I'm starting to get back in to some of the questions
I alluded to earlier in second reading. Can you outline for us in detail what
analysis was done?
CHAIR:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Madam Chair, actuaries.
I mean, you can't get any better than that.
They've
done an analysis of other provinces and the cost; hence, why we came up with the
number that we did, which will be the cost to the system, and because the cost
is very broad. Again, that is because this hasn't been happening in other
provinces for a long period of time, and, again, that'll allude to the fact why
we moved presumptive psychological injuries ahead to be analyzed, so we could
have more jurisdictional data.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Who will
bear the responsibility of costs for this legislative change? Can you inform us
how the injury fund will be impacted and if there are any concerns that the
injury fund could be jeopardized?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Actuaries estimate the cost
will range from $7.6 million to $15.1 million, annually. The cost is expected to
take a period of years to grow to the higher end of the range, as was the case
in other jurisdictions, so that's the information that we've received.
Each
claim is expected to cost approximately $125,000 per year, and the cost was
determined by the actuaries who projected a range of claims that might be
expected and estimated the average cost of each claim. The projections were
based on statistical studies of incidence of PTSD in particular occupations in
the general population, as well as the limited experience of other
jurisdictions.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In terms
of the injury fund, are you expecting any impacts to the injury fund that we
currently have in place?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The injury fund is fully
funded at 131 per cent. I announced a decrease today.
Our
objective and goal is to bring the injury fund down to 110 per cent. So there
will be an impact, but we're over-funded right now. So, we anticipate that to
level out over the number of years, but, of course, the number of claims for
physical injuries has dramatically decreased also. That's with the prevention
and the education component.
As the
physical injury claims decrease, that's a positive impact on the injury fund,
and we anticipate that the mental health injuries will also decrease with
education and support and intervention and the presumptive component.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair and
Minister.
Government is a self-insured employer, so can you elaborate for us how
government expects to be impacted by these changes, and what consideration was
given to the fact that health care authorities and municipalities, in
particular, may disproportionately incur costs as a result of this policy
change?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
As I indicated there just a
minute ago, $125,000 per individual, and this is a really good time for people
to follow the Occupation Health and Safety
Act, and put it in place to ensure we have a decreased number of injuries
and incidents.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In terms
of impacts to WorkplaceNL, are there going to be any implications there with
respect to increased need for staffing to cover any expected increase in claims?
So, will more staffing resources by hired? What are the implications for the
review division? Do you expect an increase in the wait list time for appeals as
a result?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, as I've alluded to a
number of times, we will be, in fact, I believe, it's two more individuals we'll
be hiring. We'll also be addressing some vacancies that we have within, and
using those vacancies to assist with this presumptive coverage. But you just
gave me an opportunity to talk about external appeals.
So, I'm
happy to report the fact that we have, in fact, hired two permanent individuals
in external appeals, so that will definitely assist the – adjudicate the claims
through external appeals. By January 8, we will have three full-time individuals
– not part-time – three full-time individuals working in appeals, plus a
part-time person, and we are going back to the IAC to hire one more full-time
person. We've actually changed the model in external appeals to address any
claims.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers.
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Workplace
Health, Safety And Compensation Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having
passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Madam Chair, that the Committee
rise and report Bill 35.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 35.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of the
Committee of the Whole.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred, have directed me to report Bill 35 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed her to report Bill 35 without
amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, what I'm going
to suggest now, I believe I have moved Standing Order 11, so I'm going to
suggest that we take a 30 minute recess to allow for a quick break and then
we'll return here at 6:01 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, 6:02,
I'll take the advice from the other side; 6:02 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
for 30 minutes.
Thank you.
December 4, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 48A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader, that this bill be now read a second
time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers.” (Bill
45)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today we're debating a bill regarding the Teachers' Pension Plan and
the Portability of Pensions Act. This
bill brings about changes to the Pension Benefits Act, and these changes are
important as they represent the final steps in pension reform for the Teachers'
Pension Plan.
As part
of the Joint Sponsorship Agreement and the Pension Plan Reform Agreement with
the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, which was completed during
pension reform in 2015, it was agreed that the plan would move from being a
statutory plan, which is governed by legislation, to a non-statutory plan
governed by a contract.
The new
act will only retain the terms that are required to provide for the continuation
of certain things, as set out by the Joint Sponsorship Agreement. We're adding
in references to the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation, the Teachers' Pension
Plan and the plan fund to recognize the continuation of these parts of the
Sponsorship Agreement. We are also continuing the Teachers' Supplementary
Account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the province, which provides for the
payment of benefits that exceed the maximum allowable to a registered pension
plan. The act will also contain reference to government's obligations to the
Supplementary Account and the pension plan, including the obligation to a
promissory note.
Mr.
Speaker, what will no longer be in this act will be the provisions relating to
benefits and general plan administration. These provisions will now be captured
in the non-statutory plan. Another legislative change we are making through this
is changes to the Portability of Pensions
Act, and under the current legislation, the terms and conditions governing
transfers between government-sponsored pension plans as provided under this act.
Under the Joint Sponsorship Agreement, it has been agreed that all transfers
will be at the direction of the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation. Because of
this, the PBA should no longer apply to the Teachers' Pension Plan; therefore,
we are removing reference to the Teachers' Pension Plan from the schedule of
this act.
On the
Portability of Pensions Act, I will
just briefly say that those changes are being made to allow transfers from the
regulated pensions fund, currently under the PBA, to transfer funds to the
non-regulated plans such as the Teachers' Pension Plan. These changes are what
were intended through the original Pension Plan Reform Agreement and with that
the provincial government and the NLTA have put in place a system of governance
that will sustain the Teachers' Pension Plan and will ensure that once teachers
retire they should have access to adequate pension funds.
In its
new structure, governance is 50 per cent government and 50 per cent members
through the NLTA, giving the plan members more say in decisions around the
future of their pension plan. Furthermore, we've put in place a funding policy,
which is part of the Joint Sponsorship Agreement and Pension Plan Reform
Agreement, which ensures the sustainability of the plan.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll close remarks on this and I look forward to questions
and comments from the other side.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the bill?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed a pleasure to stand again and talk to legislation in this House as we
talk about the funding of the Teachers' Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, as the
minister outlined, it's a housekeeping process here, but it's important to bring
this piece of legislation in line with the other pieces that we have in the
pension plan itself.
I do
recall, a number of years ago, when the process of the pension evaluation
between all of the representatives and all of the different sectors that we had
in the pension process were being evaluated. As a part of that process, what was
discovered and what I discovered at the time, because I wasn't totally aware of
what was going on, but being minister of Service NL, pensions are registered
there so you had a little bit more discussion with the minister of Finance at
the time and the premier at the time when we were in negotiations with the
unions. And realizing that the teachers' pension is a total separate fund,
administered in a different manner, funded to a certain degree a bit different
and has a different process of evaluating its viability and the process for
monies that are going to be invested into that process.
So as we
looked at what the bill here will do, is that it will continue the Teachers'
Pension Plan Corporation, the Teachers' Pension Plan, the Teachers' Pension Plan
Fund and the Teachers' Supplementary Account. And as we talked around those
processes in the initial conversations, and while all unions were part and
parcel of the discussions around the viability and sustainable of the pension
process, it was noted that we would still honour the fact that there were
different pension processes and different pension designs that would still be
implemented and put forward. But as things moved, as the minister has outlined,
we've gotten to a point now where certain things have to change to bring it up
to a modern-day process and to bring everything in line with where we are.
It also
talks about the prescribed government obligations to the pension plan and the
Supplementary Account. For those who may be able to remember, we spent nearly
three months with the respective unions trying to find a way, an equitable way
to a partnership development, that we would have a sustainable pension plan.
Because as we all know, for years and years we were borrowing against the
pension plan; we were spending money in general accounts relevant to our
operations at the expense of the existing pension funds. As a result, that had
an impact on our bottom line; it had an impact on our unfunded liabilities. And
we had to find a sustainable way to do it so that the pension fund – as people
live longer and more were retiring from the civil service and the different
components of the pension plan fund that we had, we had to find something that
was sustainable.
So we
collectively sat with all the unions, including the teachers' union, and found a
way that was equitable; that both groups had to give and give to the point
financially so that there would be sustainability. This also included other
services afterwards: the health care that may be there, the time frames when you
could draw down on your pension, the time frames on sustainability on the health
care services, after the fact, and the coverage.
We came
to a point, and I remember late one night a conference call between a number of
the unions where it came back, and including the teachers' union, about how we
were short X number of millions of dollars that needed to be made up to make it
sustainable and to get to our 30-year funding period. And the unions came back
with a suggestion. It was all inclusive. Guys, look, here's what we need, and
we're telling you what you need if you can come back. And the teachers' union
themselves were a part of that.
But I
remember one of the conversations was that they still wanted some independence
on acknowledging that each of the plans may be distinctly different. Now, the
NAPE and the CUPE, the general service and the health-providing civil servants
were collectively similar, so they were negotiated and put in play. Obviously,
the Nurses' Union and the teachers' union were a little bit more different
because of some of the particular nuances of their contracts and the way that
they were maintained, funded and regulated as part of the process. So, again,
we're cleaning up some of this and making it as part of the act itself.
The
other one here prescribes to the obligations of the employer to the pension
plan. Again, it talks about the employers, and the employer in this case here
being government, in a general context, but in some cases then you're talking
about school boards, you're talking about regional health authorities. In this
case, you're talking about the school board itself dealing with the Teachers'
Pension Plan and being part and parcel of the contributions there. So, we're
prescribing to have that in the same realm as what we have outlined now in the
existing pension plan.
“Allow
the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation to administer the Teachers' Pension Plan
and the Teachers' Pension Plan Fund.” What we're talking about here was, at the
end of the day, keep the system in play that was workable. What had been agreed
to and still is agreed to that there is a partnership that would administer the
funds itself, which would include the Teachers' Pension Plan and the Teachers'
Pension Plan Fund itself under the three prong process: the government, the
unions and a financial funding agency would all sit and negotiate, at the end of
it, how they invest the money.
Once it
becomes self-sufficient or self-funding, and there's a surplus, how you would
disseminate that funding, how you disburse that funding. Would you reinvest it
into something else in the pension plan? Would you then collectively give to the
masses coming into the system or those already out? Is indexing a potential
concept there as part of what was happening? It became a partnership on how this
whole process would be developed.
When we
look at this bill, it is generically housekeeping to bring it in line with all
the other acts that cover the unions and particularly our pension fund to ensure
that the same obligations, the same responsibilities and the same privileges are
covered off in Bill 45, the act representing the pension plan for teachers.
While
there are some particular unique activities or processes or sections in this
act, at the end of the day, they all still service to provide the one important
issue here, having a sustainable pension plan that can be drawn down by members
at intervals in their lives; if it's 25, 20, 30-year pension times and also
provide particular services after their retirement ages, being health services,
death benefits in some cases, life insurance as part of these processes.
We do
support the changes to Bill 45. We do see now it brings all of our existing
pension plans in line with what was negotiated a number of years ago for the
sustainability of our pension funds for all of our civil servants, acknowledging
the great work that they do. But also ensuring that our sustainability and our
debt ratio in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to drop because as the process
that is in play and the contributions by the employer, being the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers, and by the employee and their
representative organizations, as I noted, the respective unions, that, at the
end of the day, we're going to get to a point – I could be corrected, but I
think it was a 30-year viability or sustainability time frame that we had, but
noting some of the initial investments and some of the potential returns, that
it could be as low as 22 years.
I could
be wrong, but I thought last year I'd read somewhere that there was a year or so
already knocked off of that because of the returns on the investments had worked
and the contributions. So, if continue on this path, what will work well for
those retirees and for the taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador, is our debt
ratio and our debt load on our pension plans with be reduced, and it'll come to
a point where it is 100 per cent funded, and then we'll start to generate
additional revenues, which I noted earlier.
Then
there's a process in play where all three parties involved here will get to
decide: What's the best way to use that money? Is it best to put it back in our
economy in some way, shape or form? Is it best to give it back to the members?
Is it best to reinvest back into the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is
it to leave it there in another manner to take care of the existing pensioners,
or new ones coming into the system? Because, unfortunately, to make this
sustainable, there had to be change modems based on the principle of this coming
in new in the system, those who are only in for an x-number of years and those
are in the later years.
So, what
normally was a standard process, everybody is equally represented and everybody
gets an equal, fair process and access to certain things, had to be discussed,
because, at the end of the day, you had to reward and protect those who paid in
for 25 or 30 years. At the same time, you had to acknowledge, if you're going to
come into the civil service, you can come under the same obligations, from a
financial reward point of view, or the same rewards, based on the fact that the
economy has changed, and that taxpayers are having to fit a lot of the bills
when things are now – there has to be investments in other areas for the general
concept of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So, all
agreed, when you have 150,000 to 200,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
working, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who don't have access to pensions,
then you want it to be fair across the board when it's their taxpayers' money,
too, that's also paying for it.
We did
come to a consensus. There was an understanding and an acceptance that we all
have a stake in making this work. We got to a good place. I'm hoping that
through our investments here, and too as the civil service keeps contributing
into it and the employer keeps contributing in the returns on the investments,
that what was planned to be a 30-year investment, self-sufficient, self-funding
process gets down to 20 years. Which puts us in a better place to be able to
really look at how we service the civil service and how we prepare for those who
are ready to retire, which gives everybody extra money, which stimulates the
economy on another side, which in turn gives extra money back in for government
to be able to provide other services or use that to ensure other sectors are
viable in what we do in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to note and say that we will be supporting the changes to
this piece of legislation.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly pleased to stand and rise to Bill 45, An Act Respecting a Pension Plan
for Teachers.
This
piece of legislation, I guess, as my colleague has suggested, flows from
decisions we made back in June of 2015 in regards to the pension plan,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the NLTA pension plans, and what we
were seeing in regards to the funding of those pension plans and where they were
going long term.
So in
order to bring stability to that, the prior administration, which I was a part
of, looked at funding those plans on a long-term basis to ensure that the plans
would be available as were intended for those recipients who have paid into it
today, and who would certainly pay into it in the future.
There
was agreement made to a promissory note given to the teachers' plan by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador of the day, and it was approximately
$1.8 billion, a promissory note. As my colleague suggested as well, the intent
was that it would be a joint partnership between the union and the province to
look at making sure, stabilizing that fund over a 30-year period, and that would
be done obviously through investments, and based on the return on those
investments, it would be re-invested in the fund.
Certainly the intent was as well – because as we know, there are fluctuations in
the market – that it would be not a single government making decisions, as it
was in the past, but it would be a joint partnership made by the unions, with
representatives, and as well the government in regards to those years when there
could be greater returns on investments or years when the returns weren't as
high as expected, and therefore decisions had to be made on how you would
increase the funding for that particular year or years out that you hadn't got
the return you thought you were going to get. But the uniqueness of this and
what was required is that it would be now joint decision-making by those two
parties, which had the greater invested concern with it.
What
we're dealing with here is the pension plan for teachers, but as I said, the
promissory note in doing that, what it did was ensured the stability of the
Teachers' Pension Plan. At that time, and the official name, I guess, was the
joint trusteeship for the pension plan, which I talked about the two partners in
the plan. So on a go-forward basis, those trusteeship: government and NLTA would
have joint equal representation and that's the key to this from what it was in
the past; joint equal representation on a new pension board that was used for
the oversight of the pension plan. In the liabilities for future pension
concerns and debt and liabilities, they would be shared responsibilities for
those two parties, certainly the liabilities of the surpluses which occurred in
the plan, that would be over the life of that plan to manage it.
As I
said, that was a stark difference from the past when it was just administered by
the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board and investments were made based
on direction just from that department. So, this would have, and has today,
shared responsibility with shared responsibilities and liabilities to make those
decisions.
The 2015
legislative changes were made to the
Teachers' Pension Act and implemented those changes I've spoke to. The
promissory note was added to the legislation. Also, at the time, legislation was
amended to reflect other changes as agreed to by the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador at the time and the NLTA. Other changes included, at the time,
contribution rates, benefits and indexing because all that's relevant to
certainly fully funding the fund in regard to pension contributions. You had to
get to a certain point and what those contributions were going to be; changes in
regard to benefits received and indexing going forward.
So all
of those were relevant to the stability of the fund and how this plan over a
30-year period would get to stability of fund. Maybe even get before 30 years,
certainly depending on investments and what the returns were and how that plan
could get fully funded.
The
principles which are relevant to the Bill 45 we're talking about this evening in
regard to the changes and reforms that were made in 2015, certainly based on the
principles of a sustainable, defined benefit pension plan for those recipients,
a reasonable retirement income for public service employees and a reduced
financial impact on the taxpayers by putting the plan on track to be funded
within that period I spoke of, of 30 years.
In March
of 2016, the Joint Sponsorship Agreement was signed by the NLTA and government.
This would set out the duties of the NLTA and the government. It also set out
the guidelines for the teachers' plan corporation, which will be the body that
would have representation on it or through it and which would exercise the group
sponsorship agreement and the framework for the Teachers' Pension Plan
administration and governance.
So, that
new corporation, we talked about the equal representation which was vastly
different from what it was prior to 2015 when this came into being or this was
first executed, would have that joint sponsorship component to it, and certainly
the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation would be the entity that would oversee
that administered.
On May
30, 2016, we had debates here in the House of Assembly to the amendments to the
Pensions Funding Act and the
Teachers' Pensions Act. These
amendments established the Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation, as I mentioned,
and separated the pension plan out of the Pooled Pension Fund.
Before
we had a massive pooled pension plan. What this allowed was to have that carved
out for specific employees, government employees, specifically here we speak to
the NLTA, it was taken out and a corporation was identified and a structure
around that administration structure for executing the intent of that and what
it was required to do, and so that would now serve on its own under the
teachers' plan corporation, which indeed sees forward in terms of that 30-year
period.
The bill
itself we speak to here, Bill 45, is a result of pension reform that's being
brought forward and it's the final step in implementing the Joint Sponsorship
Agreement. As that plan now, the Teachers' Pension Plan is administered by the
new corporation I spoke of, and is jointly governed by the NLTA and the
government of the day, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Joint
Sponsorship Agreement calls for administrative provisions of the plan to be
moved out of the legislation and into the plan text, and the plan text is a
non-statutory pension plan.
So the
changes made are certainly needed and in line with the intent and the joint
nature of the pension reform that I spoke of and how it originated. Both the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the NLTA, as plan sponsors, are
involved in the changes, our understanding, in the plan text, and the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador administers the legislation. So, therefore, it
makes sense to have the majority of the administrative provisions in the plan
text and, we're told, not in the legislation.
Some
provisions, especially as they relate to legal issues, will continue to exist in
the legislation and Bill 45 in the act itself. These include the continuation of
the fund, the promissory note I spoke of earlier, which was used and identified
back in 2015 to look at bringing the fund to be well-balanced in terms of the
funds that are available to execute the requirements of pensioners who would
draw it down. So the promissory note, the supplementary accounts, accumulative
value, locking in, when you can lock in those types of things, and marriage
breakdown. Those are some of the components that are required out of the
non-statutory text.
While
some of these provisions may also be contained in the plan text, they are also
contained in the legislation and that gets to the legal ramifications in the
legislation, in the law, and the plan text is essentially a contract. So they're
the legal entities within it that define what the law says and what the
legalities are certainly around it.
I
understand the officials in the briefing indicated you cannot contract outside
of the laws, so keeping these in legislation certainly provides certainty and
clarity and the biggest part of that it is certainly provides clarity for all
concerns in what it is.
Similar
provisions and legislative changes were brought to the House of Assembly in the
spring session. My understanding is, from the briefing, related to the Public
Service Pension Plan because, as I indicated, dating back in 2015 our
administration looked at both of these and certainly the administration of the
pension pool and how taking some out of that, the Public Service Pension Plan
and the NLTA, to deal with the specifics of working towards having them fully
funded and having stability and the administration of the funds done in a joint
partnership. And to ensure that, at the end of the day, that people who have
paid into that pension in the past and certainly today, will be insured and will
have financial stability that they so rightly deserve, but it's about managing
that and managing collectively to make sure those results are achieved.
The
particular bill here, Bill 45, will transition the Teachers' Pension Plan from a
statutory pension plan, as I said, to a non-statutory pension plan. The Joint
Sponsorship Agreement requires the plan to be exempt from the Pension Benefits
Act, that it should no longer be a regulated pension plan. Because of this,
other legislative changes are needed to ensure that the portability pension
plans remain in tact. An example of that would be a substitute teacher pays into
GMPP, the Government Member Pension Plan, portability is needed to ensure that
when hired as a full-time teacher, they can port the value of that from the GMPP
into the Teachers' Pension Plan. That's the transition and the bill allows that
and identifies how that would work.
We do
have, as we go through, some questions for the minister in regard to the
particular act, but, as I said when I began, this is a continuation of a process
started in 2015 in regard to the public pensions and this deals with the NLTA
and the pension plan for teachers and specific some of the changes that are
required to make sure that this is the final step in implementing the Joint
Sponsorship Agreement, between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
the NLTA.
This is
a necessary bill that needs to fulfil that direction that was taken in 2015, and
that's what Bill 45 is about this evening. I certainly look forward to future
debate and asking some questions in Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
am pleased to stand tonight and speak to Bill 45 which, as my colleague just
said, is the bill that will repeal and replace the
Teachers' Pensions Act.
Again,
as my colleague, the MHA for Ferryland has pointed out, this bill is part of a
process of pension reform dealing with the public service sector and with
teachers, and what we're doing here tonight is the last step in that phase of
the pension reform. I won't go through the details that the Member for Ferryland
did, because he did it, and I don't need to do that, but I want to speak to some
pieces that I think are fairly important.
Reforming the whole pension plan, the way it started in 2015 was extremely
important for reasons already said. It was important, number one, because it
moved the pension plan out from under government and legislation and put it in a
whole new realm, and I think that realm is very important.
I
remember back in 2015 when it happened, speaking to the strength of teachers'
pension plans in other parts of the country, especially in Ontario, where
teachers' pension plans have been so robust when it comes to investment and
making good investments that they're in excellent condition, or have been. Back
in –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the Members, it's
getting a little difficult to hear.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It makes
it difficult to hear when you're speaking yourself. So I appreciate that.
The
teachers' pension plans, as I said in Ontario, there's one in particular that's
quite famous for how well it has done over the years. They took the pensions out
from under government – they weren't under government – and it's a model we
moved into in 2015, and I think that model is really quite important.
The
pieces of the work that had to be done, and which are happening now, are pieces
that will now be in the plan text, as my colleague just talked about, and are
pieces that fully implement the negotiated pension reform agreement. Things like
the – well, the new act itself, which continues the pension plan and plan fund.
So the act we're dealing with in Bill 41 that continues the pension plan and
plan fund.
We also,
in the plan text, will have language which will speak to the continuation of the
supplementary account and consolidated revenue, which is extremely important.
The supplementary fund provides for the payments of benefits that exceed the
maximum allowable for a registered pension fund. The text in the plan will
reassert the obligations of both employers and employees to contribute to the
plan.
I have
to say that in the past, one of the things that can be said for teachers is they
always contributed to the plan, and in the years when there were problems, the
problems weren't because of the teachers. The problems came from the fact that
government didn't do due diligence in its contribution to the plan. So the plan
text will reassert the obligations of both employers and employees to contribute
to the plan, and the plan text will reaffirm the obligations of government
employers and employees to contribute to the pension plan and the supplementary
account.
So all
of those pieces ensure that the plan will be solid for years to come. My
colleague, again, talked about the promissory note that will be paid every year
for 30 years, I think it is, by government. So by that time we have a solid plan
that is safe and secure. I have to say, that's something I'm very pleased about
because here in government we should be putting forward things that we would
want to see for all workers in the province, not just for the public service
sector and those who work for government, such as teachers.
We all
should want to show that workers, when they come to the time of retirement, need
to have security, and we want to put in place what is needed for them to have
security. Workers contribute to it, it's not like it's just being given to them
– the pension they have paid into.
In 2016,
when we – in 2015, rather, when we were first dealing with this change, at that
time when I spoke in the House I congratulated the then premier, Mr. Marshall,
on the fact that he was totally committed to pension reform. I remember him
coming to me on a number of occasions when he was Minister of Finance and
talking about it. I remember how much he searched other pension plans, looking
at what was the best way to go. I remember the day he said to me, we cannot give
up a benefits plan, defined benefits plan. And I was so impressed with that, and
I said, no, well I believe that, too.
That's
what he was committed to, and he worked for that. He didn't run away from it.
And I've always quoted that. I've always talked about how Mr. Marshall did want
to have the public service sector and teachers to have solid security when they
retired, and he made it happen. He worked until it happened.
So what
we're doing here today is finalizing that pension reform for the teachers. We
did it already when it came to the Public Service Pension Plan, and now we're
doing it here tonight for the teachers, or with the teachers, I guess, in some
ways, but making the legislative changes that finalize the whole pension reform
for the Teachers' Pension Plan.
So we'll
be very pleased to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly glad to stand just for a couple of minutes. I'm not going to take much
time, but just to offer my support for Bill 45. I think pretty much everything
that needs to be said has been said. Certainly, the previous speaker, the Member
for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, covered a number of the points I wanted to
make.
I also
wanted to acknowledge, in the meantime, the commitment and the work of former
premier Tom Marshall as well. I was glad she mentioned it. I was going to
mention it, but I will reiterate that point. That if there's one thing – Tom
could probably be remembered for a lot of things, for people who have been in
this House, but that was probably one of his biggest achievements in my view,
probably his greatest achievement in my view, was reforming pensions.
We've
seen it happen with the public service as the final step, as has been said, in
fixing the problem we had. Now with the Teachers' Pension Plan, really what this
does, and the most important thing that this does, is it keeps the pensions out
of the hands and out of the controls of whoever sits on that side of the House.
That's what it does, and that's the important thing.
No
offence about anyone who's sitting on that side of the House now; whoever it
happens to be. Because if you talk to any public sector pensioner and so on, I
have a number of them in my district, I'm sure we all do – how many
conversations did I have on the doorstep over the years for public sector
pensioners who really felt hard done by – and for a good reason because, over
the years, the pension plans were raided. There's no other way of putting it
other than raided by government of the day, whether it be the paved roads or
whatever it was. They would say spend, spend, spend when it was election time. I
don't know if that's the case – if it was or wasn't – adding people to the
pension plan who never paid into the pension plan, and so on, creating a huge
lability.
Now, I
do know that there was money, in recent years, put in by the former
administration. I can remember at least $2 million or $3 million or $4 million –
billion, I should say – got put into the pension plans. Whether that's enough to
make up for what was taken out, I don't know but the bottom line is that the
system got reformed. There had to be give and take on both sides. Arguably,
someone would say as employees who've paid into the plan for years and years, if
you had left our pension benefits alone, we wouldn't have to be compromising
because there would've been lots of money there.
I don't
know if that's the case or not; I've never done the numbers. No one has actually
shown me the numbers and that exercise as to how that would've worked out. But,
at the end of the day, it's now going to be in the hands of the teachers and the
government, because the government is paying into it as well, so that's
important. It is still taxpayers' money going in to match the teachers'
contributions. But it's a joint management, and nobody can just start hauling
out money and spending it and doing whatever. That's the thing; it protects it
forever and a day, and it's in the hands of those who will be depending on it.
So, obviously, they're going to want to do the right thing.
So, I
think it's a good move; glad to see it happen. As I said, I acknowledge those
who started this process, and I certainly acknowledge the government of day
that's concluding this process and doing the right thing for our public
employees – in this case, our teachers.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to thank all Members who've offered opinions and comments on this piece
of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation that was started in 2015
to reform pensions, and we are carrying through with that commitment that was
made at the time today. Hopefully, in 15 or 20 years from now, whoever is
standing in this spot – if it's still me, I'll be able to say, hopefully, that
this was a good thing and it worked out well for those who are receiving
pensions and the management of the pensions will be better than it was under
government's watch.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The motion is that Bill 45 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.'
The motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting A
Pension Plan For Teachers. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House?
MR. HAGGIE: Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
Thank you.
On motion, a bill “An
Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee
of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy, Deputy Government
House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of
Finance, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bill 45.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair so that the House
can resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House 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.'
Thank you.
On motion, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (P. Parsons):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 45.
A bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan
For Teachers.” (Bill 45)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member
for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is certainly a pleasure to get up this
evening in Committee and ask some questions about Bill 45. I know this is
dealing with the Teachers' Pension Plan, but I wonder if you could just give
some comments on the pension reform. I know there are other pension plans –
uniformed pension plan. There's other consideration given to taking actions with
the NLTA and the Public Service Pension Plan. Just maybe give an update on where
we are with that, and taking any actions on the other plans.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam
Chair, the Provident10 has been established which is similar to the
Teachers' Pension Plan Corporation. That aspect of pension reform has been
started. There is still some work to be done in that regard at some point in the
future, perhaps the spring session of the House in terms of amendments. But it's
moving along. There is a promissory note to both the Teachers' Pension Plan as
well as the Public Service Pension Plan from government to make up for the
pension deficit that was in place.
CHAIR:
Seeing no further speakers,
shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 33
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 33
inclusive.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 33 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting A Pension
Plan For Teachers.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the Committee of Whole rise and report
Bill 45.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 45.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole
House.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report Bill 45 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and directed her to report Bill 45 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill 45 ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 1:
BE IT
RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in the Interim Report of the
Privileges and Elections Committee Respecting the Development of a
Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly great to have a moment to stand and speak to the motion that's before
the House of Assembly. I'll just do a quick recap. I won't take my entire 20
minutes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that all of the Members, or actually I can
confirm all of the Members have received a copy of the interim report which was
made by the Privileges and Elections Committee.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee has met extensively since a private Member's
resolution was passed in May of our spring session. I think all Members of the
House will remember at the time that the private Member's resolution brought
forth by the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune essentially asked the
Privileges and Elections Committee to look at a legislative-specific
harassment-free workplace policy.
So this
is something that was tasked with the Committee. We were tasked, and our work
was directed, primarily, by the exact wording of the motion. I think that's
important, because what the motion asked us to do was to consult with our own
Members, to consult with employees of the Legislature and to consult with
various stakeholders.
The
House of Assembly adjourned for its spring session, I believe it was May 30, and
we embarked effective June 1 and have worked right through, up to and including
present day, to complete this work. We did extensive surveys and questionnaires
with all Members of the House of Assembly, which is noted in the report. We put
out a questionnaire to some-200 employees of the Legislature. Employees of the
Legislature include everything from our constituency assistants, to executive
assistants, to members of various statutory offices. So they were consulted as
well.
Then
there was a number of groups that were consulted, Mr. Speaker. The groups, which
are listed in the interim report, range in everything from Aboriginal
representation to individuals from the LGBTQ community, and so on and so forth.
I guess,
Mr. Speaker, there are some key takeaways from the report. Primarily, and most
noteworthy, I believe, to Members of the House of Assembly, the Committee is
recommending – and in concurring in this report will move through with this. The
Committee is recommending that we remove the responsibility of investigations of
harassment from the Commission for Legislative Standards over to the Office of
the Citizens' Representative, also known as the Ombudsman.
This was
something the Committee heard loud and clear throughout consultations – again,
with our own Members – and something that we felt the Office of the Citizens'
Representative would have a greater ability to complete this work. The Office of
the Citizens' Representative has staff that is on-site that are certainly
skilled in this area in terms of their investigative piece.
To go
with the addition of the removal, and this is by no way – and I need to say for
the record. This is by no way, shape or form anything untoward the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards. This was simply a recommendation based on something
we heard from our Members. In doing so and in removing that authority from the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards to the Office of the Citizens'
Representative, we've also stated that there should be an independent support
advisor and an individual intake officer.
These
are two key pieces, and these are things we learned when we reviewed information
from other legislatures. I believe, specifically the UK has reference and the
Nova Scotia model. I'm sure we'll hear from the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi, who I'm very proud to have on the Committee, as well as the Member
for Ferryland, and they'll probably speak to that as well.
The idea
here, Mr. Speaker, is, essentially, if somebody has a complaint to bring forward
and you're not quite sure how to bring it forward, perhaps either it might be a
restorative piece that you could go through first, there may be some
conciliation, some mediation. The independent support advisor would be someone
you could contact and kind of help you feel out where you should go with this.
If it's something you want to follow through with, and perhaps there is some
guidance and perhaps there could even be some counselling pieces there.
For
example, under the current process, you're essentially filing a complaint with
someone whose job is to intake the complaint but not necessarily to provide
comfort, guidance, education, support and these types of things. So this is
something the Committee felt was extremely important. So, again, we've removed
the process from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to the Office of the
Citizens' Representative.
We're
asking for an independent support advisor, as well as an individual intake
officer. Now, the intake officer piece, we've alluded to briefly in the report.
I think with respect to our final report in the spring sitting, we'll get into a
bit more specific detail.
Those
are some of the key things. The other key thing was around education and
training, and we heard this loud and clear from all of the Members who were
surveyed and put responses back to the Committee. The education and awareness
piece was something around, I guess, when we all take the Oath of Office, and
we're recommending now that we do that biannually as well. It's something in
addition to that, where there's an opportunity here for professional
development. I would suggest it's not unlike any other occupation.
If
you're a social worker or you're a teacher, you have ongoing professional
development and training, and this is something that our Members of the
Legislature really never had. When we first take office we're presented with a
number of things in terms of some of the expenses and mechanisms which we can
bill for travel. We're told some of the functions and the rules of the
Legislature, but we don't really get into a whole lot much else with respect to
training, and I'd be shocked to see anybody argue the fact that we don't require
certain training. I think any occupation can benefit from further training.
Specifically, a new Member, like myself, who's now had the great fortune to
represent the people of Stephenville - Port au Port in this House of Assembly,
as a new Member who's been sitting here in this House for three years, it's
quite a contrast to somebody who's been sitting here for 10 years or more. So I
think when you bring folks together, like myself, someone who's new and somebody
who's had various terms under their belt, to sit down and explore, and sit down
with professionals to look at training.
The
report will reference some of the things about training. It gets into some
specific key areas that we heard. We have initially recommended that the
Gardiner Centre, which is an outreach arm of Memorial University's Faculty of
Business Administration, we're recommending them to provide some training as a
starting point. Because we've all felt the need that there's a sense of urgency
and that we need to start somewhere. Moving forward, that process can be looked
at and can perhaps evolve.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I guess it's some of the key recommendations; again, training
– we're changing the authority of the statutory office to review any type of
allegations or anything with respect to harassment. We're recommending that the
Code of Conduct be separated from that, so the Commissioner can still maintain
his responsibilities. We recommend that the timeline to be filing a complaint
should be within six months from the incident. This is something we heard and
learned from other legislatures with respect to best practices.
I guess
another key important piece, we have also recommended that there need to be
mechanisms in place. Specifically, with respect to if there's a breach in
confidentiality, we need to have some type of recourse so that we do not repeat
the series of events that have unfolded since around April 28 on through to just
a few short weeks ago. Again, the initial swearing and adherence to the Code of
Conduct and the Oath of Office will be required every two years, and then the
harassment policy will also be something that you'll have to read and sign each
and every single year.
So,
again, that's the Coles Notes version, Mr. Speaker, and about seven minutes,
that's your Coles Notes version. The report, which I suggest is here for
everyone to read. I believe all the Members have had the opportunity to read it.
With
that, I would like to say a sincere thank you to the staff who worked diligently
on this, and that would be the staff at your office, Mr. Speaker, and
specifically our Law Clerk and our Clerk who spent a considerable amount of time
with us over the last number of months. We met, essentially, once a week since
June. So you can imagine, as all other Members of the House of Assembly are in
their various districts they represent for the summer, this Committee came in
here once a week to meet to ensure that this important piece of work was done.
In addition to the staff in the Speaker's office, we had tremendous input and
help from various departments of government, including the Status of Women, the
Department of Justice, Human Resource Secretariat – am I missing any, the Member
for Ferryland? No? Okay.
A number
of departments had a tremendous amount of input, so certainly thank you to them,
and a special thank you to all the outside groups who took their time to come in
and provide us with information as we set forth with this interim report.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Members: St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member
for Ferryland; Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; and of course our Chairperson, who
I am speaking on behalf of, as I understand he was just out for a brief moment,
but certainly a special thank you to our Chairperson, the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that all Members of the House of Assembly
will concur in this interim report provided by the Privileges and Elections
Committee, and I look forward to hearing Members from the other side as to their
input as well.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader and Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise this evening to speak to this motion. I want to
thank my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port for stepping in on behalf of
our Chair, the Member for St. George's - Humber. He did a tremendous job in
introducing the motion and actually speaking to the actual report. As he said,
this comes from the work done by the Privileges and Elections Committee and the
direction given from a private Member's resolution here in the House to develop
a legislature-specific, harassment-free workplace policy.
I won't
go into the detail that my colleague did in regard to the various Committees,
the various consultations we have had with various groups, as well as the
interaction and the opportunity with MHAs, with staff from the House of Assembly
and the statutory offices, with the inside and outside agencies and bodies that
we spoke to that we felt could bring some experience and knowledge and historic
context to some of the things we're dealing with and looking forward and being
progressive and how we could be leaders in this Legislature in terms of
developing the type of policies and structures that were required.
We
certainly took that on as the Committee Members – myself, the Member for St.
George's - Humber, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Harbour Grace - Port de Grave
and, as I said, Stephenville - Port au Port. So collectively, we took this on;
it was non-partisan. It was a great example, I think, of some of the work that
can be done by a legislative committee and the functions in the parliamentary
setting and how we can bring together concerns, legislators, to go at a
particular issue that needs to be defined, that needs to be developed and share
sometimes opposing views but, at various times, disseminating large amounts of
information, looking into other jurisdictions and opinions of others and taking
all of that and trying to determine what's the best way forward.
My
colleague also mentioned the staff of the House of Assembly as well. I just
described the process we went through. It was supplemented, given direction,
opinions, insight and all of those variables that were much needed by the staff
of the House of Assembly. I certainly want to recognize them for their work and
the context they brought to the process as well and structure in terms of
supporting our efforts and getting us to where we are today with discussing this
motion and the interim report.
The
issue we were dealing with, obviously, is a serious one. It's challenging at
times, but I think, through the process, we were able to reach specific goals
and objectives that we started with that arrived here with the interim report
and looking at where we go from here, the work will continue and in the next
session, in the spring, we'll look at particular legislative changes that will
be required, and/or required, related to things like the Code of Conduct, the
accountability and integrity act which governs the House of Assembly.
We had
an issue, I guess, looking back at what was contained in the code and the
original design of the legislation that we operate under and previous review
that was done. It was back at that time very tied to, I guess, financial
happenings and occurrences and what transpired. That was developed, but it gives
an indication of how everything evolves and flows and adjusts based by various
happenings and occurrences and what transpires. From there, you have to amend
legislation or you have to look to be more progressive and to adhere to various
principles or things that arise in society and how you deal with them
collectively. This is what this process is about. It was a pleasure to be a part
of that.
We had
extensive consultations I've indicated and, from all of that, we made
recommendations in to what we think would be the key elements of a harassment
policy going forward. Some of the themes that we identified through all of that
were things like gender-based issues that often arise in this setting. When we
say this setting we're not just talking about the Chambers of the House of
Assembly, we're talking about the statutory offices within the House of Assembly
and all those that report and all of those employees, how you conduct yourself
as an elected representative, interactions you may have here or outside of here
because, as everybody knows, we interact with so many people in the role of a
parliamentarian.
There
was also discussion about the power dynamics that exist within the functioning
of the parliament, the legislative standards, how they could influence and need
to be considered when you're talking about things like harassment, respect and
integrity in the workplace.
The
other recommendation was separating harassment and bullying from the Code of
Conduct because we thought the Code of Conduct may not have been specific enough
into dealing with issues of harassment. So the recommendation was to take that
out and deal with it on its own specifically and to ensure that we're addressing
what we need to address in regard to harassment in the workplace.
Some of
the things we've heard of, too, in our consultations and discussions were the
importance of – and we heard that from outside groups too, as well as
discussions we had internally with folks in the House of Assembly. We talked
about the need for the comfort level. If people get the feeling that they want
to come forward, they have to have confidence in the process and confidence in
the supports that are around to identify for them what it is they are dealing
with and how that should be handled.
In some
cases, it may be just from some of the information we have here in regard to an
intake person that provides some support initially, to identify what it is
you're experiencing, is that maybe of a sensitive nature. It could be something
between two individuals, what transpires, and it may be a need for
clarification. It could be worked out between those individuals and may never be
an issue again.
The
supports, what we were told, are very important and the confidence that the
system is clear, there's clarity and there's understanding of how things
transpired and where you can go to deal with a particular issue or item that
arises.
Within
that context, there was certainly a lot of discussion about confidentiality.
That goes to the whole comfort level and confidence people have in a process. It
some cases, things could be resolved quite quickly and it could be a learning
process for all concerned. There could be issues that require further help or
further intervention. There could also be issues related to the code as we move
up the threshold of items that occur.
But in
all of that context it would clear of what the environment is, what the rules
are, what the process is. I think in the past, maybe because it wasn't dealt
with in this context that we've seen over the past number of months, maybe that
wasn't clear, that it never evolved to that level. But if anything good has come
out of this process, it is that I think we're on a track now to have a more
defined process, a comfort level and have the expertise and supports available
to those that may require them at a particular time, along the continuum of
harassment in the workplace.
The
important part, too, is to recognize that the House of Assembly and the
statutory offices and the employees should be like any other workplace; no
different than any other workplace. The protections should exist as it would in
any other workplace.
We also
had a discussion about the responsibility of the enforcement of a policy on
harassment and what office would be best reflective in carrying that out. The
recommendation was to move it from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to
the Office of the Citizens' Representative. In the context of that, it was
looking at the investigative abilities, what some experiences were in the past
and how that would look for the future. It was thought, collectively, that – and
that has nothing to do with individuals. It has to do with the current functions
of those particular statutory offices.
When you
look at the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, there are other interactions
that are often had with elected officials related to the
Elections Act, related to disclosures
you would make as an elected representative. So we thought the independence of
just taking – as we said, we're taking the harassment component out of the Code
of Conduct.
As well,
we would take that and assign it to a different statuary office with what we
would define as a little bit more experience or expertise, maybe investigations
or dealing with other items. Because that office would deal with whistle-blower
legislation, and other legislation and components that would kind of fit with
the investigation and intake and those other things that would be required in a
harassment policy. With that, as well, that office will be able to seek out some
of the expertise that would be required and could be adopted by that office.
So that
was another recommendation we made that there was much discussion about and much
interaction back and forth. That's where we landed with that particular office,
as to who would hold and administer that policy. In regard to the functions of
the Code of Conduct, that would still – and the other components of it – rest
with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, as it would today.
I
mentioned earlier about the importance of support. One of the things we talked
about was an independent support advisor which would be outside of the House of
Assembly or the offices here, and would be that initial information or contact
that an individual would need or require, at some point, to even discuss an item
that may be perceived as harassment or is harassment and what options would be
available, to just give some basic guidance. And I think we heard loud and clear
that that was something that will be needed.
We also
talked about and reviewed issues in regard to timelines for making a complaint.
That would be very clear. I mentioned the issue of confidentiality and how
important that was in all aspects of what was reviewed, the people we spoke to,
externally and internally here, and how important that was.
Enhanced
accountability; looking at the behaviours of all concerned. We take an Oath of
Office when we're sworn in as an elected official. It's important that we
continuously recognize that, renew that commitment to the Oath of Office, in
terms of our interactions, our level of professionalism and how we interact with
all those concerned as an elected Member of the House of Assembly and the
Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
other component we had great discussion on was related to education and
training. It was interesting to sit there – I've been elected, this will be my
eleventh year, and I got to sit with others that had a few more, there weren't
many, but then some newly elected people in the last term as well. So that's
shared various different views on what it was like when I came, the supports
that were around me, or that weren't there. People got elected in the last
session, what supports were available to them and what it is like today.
Through
all of that, it was recognized that there was certainly more we could do. People
come in to politics with various backgrounds, various different trainings and
various different exposures. All of that, collectively, either helps or in some
cases provides obvious evidence that maybe there's not enough there in regard to
supports going in.
So we
had really good discussions on that, and that's where some of the issues came up
in regard to educational training and the types of things we should do and make
mandatory for Members. That is a key, too, that it would be mandatory and people
would be required to carry out that particular training.
In
regard to harassment policy, some of the things we talked about was just
awareness, the differences between conflict, harassment, bullying, those types
of things. The other thing, too, is how you work collaboratively with others in
problem solving, supportive communication from all parties concerned. Things
like conflict management and stress management. Stress management in any
workforce and stress in general can cause at times interactions, maybe one-off
interactions that can be resolved. Obviously, if there's a pattern of these,
that's where you get into concern and that's where issues often arise and they
need to be dealt with.
So those
were some of the things we identified in the training component and where we
would want to go. Again, this is an interim report. One of the things we did
recommend immediately was in regard to training, and my colleague mentioned that
in regard to the training institution that's going to do it, the Harris Centre,
I do believe, if I remember correctly.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Gardiner Centre.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Gardiner Centre, I'm sorry.
Yes, thank you to my colleague.
The
Gardiner Centre would do the particular training. We had a great discussion with
them in regard to the type of training, the type of services they could offer.
That's something that was an immediate request in regard to the recommendations
and what we would do in the new year.
So with
that, we'll look to continue the work of the Committee as we move into 2019, and
look at taking these recommendations and identifying in more detail the end
report and what the final recommendations and changes would be related to things
like the Code of Conduct, the act that administers the House of Assembly, and
any other legislative changes that we would need to make sure going forward,
after that session in the spring, that we will be on the leading edge and be
progressive across the country in regard to what we're doing here in terms of
harassment policy.
I know
others are watching in regard to what we're doing, and that's the other
important point. That was the one issue that came very clear, and I didn't
really realize it at the time but there are a lot of people very interested in
what's happening here in regard to this harassment policy, not only in
legislatures but outside of that, just in workplaces in general and how we're
going to deal with it. I think we'll be a leader when we finish our work in the
spring and make those changes. That's a lot to be said for the Legislature in
terms of taking this on and dealing with it.
I
certainly look forward to what those changes would be, and I think it's
progressive. I want to thank my Committee colleagues who served on this, and
certainly looking forward to the next number of months when we finalize this and
bring a final report to the House and can make the changes that are needed.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand here in my place, of course, to represent my District, always,
of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, and to also stand tonight as a member of the
Privileges and Elections Committee.
When
being elected and coming to the Legislature, we know this is a Committee that
has not been active for quite some time, only on certain occasions, and this is
one of them. I guess it's safe to say we're suggesting and making
recommendations on legislation that's never come to the House of Assembly in
this Legislature in our province, and perhaps across the country to a degree. So
we are the leaders on this.
As my
colleague, the Member for Ferryland, mentioned, people are watching. The people
of the province are watching. There are many groups that are watching, advocacy
groups of all kinds, whether it's to represent the LGBT community, education
community, the Native Friendship Centre also. Of course, we heard from a lot of
wonderful groups who took the time to come and give presentations to our
Committee.
We
worked all summer, as the House, of course, adjourned in the spring, in May. We
worked through the summer on that and met regularly to do this work. However,
this is an interim report, the work is not yet complete and I certainly look
forward to robust debate on this. I think it's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that
all Members in this House, on all sides of the House, are here and they're
committed to creating and supporting the best legislation possible to protect
our people.
That's
to protect all elected officials, to protect the House of Assembly staff and
assist in somewhat the run of the gamut. Because, as we know, and as the events
that have unfolded previously in our Legislature and outside of our Legislature
for that matter, we found ourselves without a go-to, without a proper channel.
As we know, of course, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards was
commissioned to do this work and we saw what unfolded. It's a no-brainer to see
what recommendations should come forward.
Again, I
want to thank all the groups as well that we met with, who took the time. They
take these matters very seriously. As my colleague mentioned as well, it's
adults that are looking to us about the legislation and the recommendations that
we're going to come forward with. It's even children in our school systems.
As an
MHA, I think it's safe to say that we all receive calls from constituents, from
parents, from teachers, from educators, from volunteers even with concerns of
bullying in particular. There are, I guess, a number of definitions of
harassment and bullying and whatnot and bullying is in a standalone category.
The Code of Conduct may be something different, whereas bullying and
intimidation kind of stands in itself. That's something that we found was
lacking within our policy and whatnot.
It's
unfortunate, of course, that there's even a need for such legislation, but you
know what they say: There's always a silver lining. With every unfortunate
situation, there's always usually a positive outcome. I want to say again, we're
in 2018, there's no place for harassment or bullying or mistreatment or
misconduct of any kind in any workplace whether it be a legislature, whether it
be a school, whether it be an office setting or anywhere at all.
I want
to say, and I speak for my colleagues as well, that we certainly are committed
to doing everything we can. It was also an all-party committee. It wasn't a
caucus-specific or a party-specific committee. I also want to say it's important
to say that harassment and misconduct is not a problem that's limited to any
particular party. Again, this is all forces together. We were a great team.
I'm
happy to say I got an opportunity to work with my colleagues such as the Member
for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, a wealth of knowledge and the experience that
she's had in this Legislature and as a woman, of course. I'm proud to call her a
colleague and a friend, to have gotten to know her and to spend that time. The
same thing with the Member for Ferryland as well. He's been around this
Legislature for some time. Also, my colleagues on here on this side of the
House, MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port, the MHA for St. George's - Humber,
who happens to the Chair, and myself. I think we can call ourselves the united
front and united team when it comes to this sort of thing. But this is something
that we can all participate in, that we can all be proud of, that we can all
take part in because this affects each and every one of us.
We are
leaders here. We are elected by the people in our districts. I represent some
15,000 constituents from the strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
They're looking to each and every one of us to make good decisions, and to base
the decisions that we make in here and to model what we're doing here to use on
other organizations. Whether it be students or volunteer organizations or other
workplaces, and we owe them that. We owe our constituents and our districts and
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We owe it to them to do the best work
we can, to make the best decisions we can with honour and integrity. You know
the golden rule, Mr. Speaker: Treat others how you would like to be treated
yourself.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. P. PARSONS:
Absolutely, it's the golden rule. If we all live by that – and you know what we
learned back in kindergarten, back when we were younger: If you don't have
anything nice to say or if you can't put forward a positive gesture or say
something nice, just don't say anything at all. It goes back to those basics
that we learned as children.
Again,
having said that, my colleagues have contributed to this and how important it
is. We saw what came out of the events this past spring, but also hearing from
members of the public, when we travelled around the province and in our
districts. They've taken the time to come and say you're doing good work. It
takes courage to bring these sorts of things forward and to discuss it, because
it's a very sensitive topic that a lot of people don't want to talk about or
deal with for fear. But what we want to do with these recommendations, we want
to create outlets and channels where people can feel free and feel safe to bring
forward their complaints; where we can have the people with the proper
backgrounds and credentials who can help guide and counsel people coming forward
with issues.
Some
people may not want to go forward with a full-fledged complaint, per se, a
formal complaint. Maybe there's a mediation process, but bottom line we need
these resources to turn to. We have unique positions here, unique jobs as MHAs,
Members of the House of Assembly. We're not a 9 to 5. We have different
experiences that many people probably will never have.
Something else that came out of that that's also very important is that we need
to relieve stress, to have those tools in place, to mitigate stress. So, there
are wonderful things that we've talked about, and it's well and long overdue.
Again, you know what they say, when one door closes, a window opens somewhere
else. So, that's how I'd like to compare the situations that we've experienced,
that we've all experienced to a degree, that we've all had to deal with and talk
about and endure, even.
Having
said that, again I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank all Members of
this hon. House. I want to thank everyone who took the time to come have their
input and to make their voices heard with regard to presentations in this
Committee, and members of the public who took the time to simply give their two
cents and give their opinion.
Again,
it's 2018 and we're committed to healthy workplaces, I know I am; I know my
Committee members, my colleagues are. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will take
my seat but I'm proud to be part of this Committee and I certainly will stand up
safe workplaces all around.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have
to say that it really is an honour to stand here today as a Member of the
Privileges and Elections Committee, and also in my capacity of Co-Chair of the
Committee and speak to the interim report that was tabled here in the House by
our Chair.
I have
to say that this has been a really wonderful experience being a part of the
Privileges and Elections Committee and it made my being part of the Committee
since 2006 worthwhile. It's the first major piece of work. We've had a couple of
little things, but it's the first major piece of work that I've been involved in
as the Member of the Privileges and Elections Committee since I was first an MHA
in this House. I've always been a Member of the Committee.
This was
a serious piece of work and we're still involved in it. What really impressed me
about our Committee was how, for all of us, this was such a serious piece of
work, such an important piece of work that we really worked hard at working
together. It has been quite an experience and I'm really looking forward to the
rest of the time we have to work together on this issue in particular, on the
whole issue of a harassment-free workplace for the legislative domain.
As been
pointed out by my colleagues, it doesn't mean that we didn't, at times, struggle
and pull back and forth with some ideas that we had on the Committee, but I
think I'm so proud to say that with interim report and the summary that's here
represents a total unanimous position of the Committee that we really worked at.
I, too,
want to recognize the tremendous work done by your staff, Mr. Speaker, working
with us; it was really something. Ms. Bobbi Russell, Ms. Kim Hawley George and
Ms. Elizabeth Murphy gave us tremendous support and did tremendous work. There
was so much work that had to be done behind the scenes, that once we set a plan
in place they went and did the work, and we wouldn't be here where we are today
without the work of your staff, so thank you very much and thanks to them.
I do
want to speak to some particular things. One is, what it was like throughout
June, July into August to meet with the various people who came forward to
present their thoughts to us, and what impressed me was the level of expertise
that we have in this province. I think we only had one group from outside of the
province present to us. I think all the other groups were from within the
province, and the level of expertise that they brought was quite amazing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I hate to do
this but I have to ask – I have a hearing problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
Could I ask the Members,
please, to just hold back on the conversation? I'm finding difficulty myself.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
The
level of expertise that was brought to us at the table by all of these groups,
that even though they all recognized – and they did, they all said it one after
the other – even though they all recognized that we work in a particular place,
and they understand that and they understand the struggle that we're going to
have in coming up with a full policy, at the same time the basic principles of
what it is to have a harassment-free workplace are the same for everybody, I
think they presented to us with respect, and we listened to all of them with
respect as well.
And I
have to say that the summary, the recommendations that we hope to make, because
the interim report indicates a direction we're moving in, so the recommendations
we hope to make, and the one recommendation we'll be asking for support from
here in the House tonight, that this summary really puts together the focus in
which we are moving. I'm quite happy with this summary because it indicates to
the public and to the House, and that was our intention, the direction that we
want to go in. It's going to take a lot of work to get there in terms of putting
a policy together, in terms of the legal clerk looking at it with her eyes,
looking at the legislative changes that have to happen and all the work that
will go into that. I'm sure the Department of Justice will have to be involved
with that eventually, with your staff.
But it's
something I feel very proud that we did this interim report and realized the
importance of accountability to the House and to the public. As my colleagues
have pointed out, the public are watching us, and the thing is that's what was
said to us as well by those who presented to us. They kept reminding us all eyes
are on you.
I knew I
had something to say about the summary. The points of the summary, I think it's
important to point out, did not come from anything that was happening around us
at the time we were doing our work. It was from the in-depth study that we did
of the presentations that were made to us, the in-depth analysis we did from the
things that were said to us and also our study of other jurisdictions. We looked
at jurisdictions right across the country and we went to the UK as well and
looked at work that they're doing at Westminster right now. So we had an
in-depth study.
What we
have here, the summary and the direction which we're moving, is informed by all
of that. It's not informed by something that happened here or something that
happened there, it's informed by really solid research that went into the issue
and the consultations were part of that research.
I'm
itching to get the rest of the work done. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm
looking forward to when we sit down to say okay, what now do we know
specifically is going to go into the policy. One thing I'm certain of is that
it's not that we're going to look at a jurisdiction here or a jurisdiction there
and pick things out; no, we're setting our own path in our own context.
With the
recommendation that we know that we will be making with regard to putting things
in the hands of the Citizens' Rep office and their expertise, that decision will
make our structure, I think, and what we will propose quite different than, say,
Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, it's quite an internal process that goes on there.
One of
the things that has been said to us and that we're aware of as a Committee is –
and the public has said it to us too, and it has said it through the
consultations we've had, and it's out there – that we have to make sure that
whatever it is we recommend has to be as much out of our hands as possible.
People have to feel that they are free and that there's nothing restraining
them.
So we
have things that are guiding our decision making that I think weren't there with
some other things that I've read. Because what we're doing, and which is so
important, I don't think we're doing a knee-jerk reaction. We are taking our
time. Some people may think: Well, why didn't they have a report ready by now?
It's because we are taking our time to make what we put in place is the best
possible that we can put in place.
I think
some of the things we've seen have been knee-jerk reactions to something
happening in the legislative context and fast action taking place and fast
pieces of legislation or regulations being put in place, and that's not what we
want. We want a well-thought process, a well-thought plan when we bring it to
the House of Assembly.
So I'm
proud of that. My colleague, the Member for St. John's Centre, said to me
tonight: You're proud of this work, aren't you? I said: Yes, I am. I'm proud of
how we've worked together and I'm proud of the way that we're moving forward.
There
are a couple of things that I want to speak specifically to. In the summary – I
hope people have read it; if they haven't had a chance yet, I hope they will
after tonight – we point out something that's really important. I'm not sure if
it's in the summary – or it's in the report, but I'll speak to it, one of the
things that became clear to us as a Committee. One or two of us may have had
this knowledge as an individual prior to our work, but as a Committee in working
together we came to recognize, number one, the need for looking at the issue
through a gender lens. That even though the issues affect both men and women,
number one, women are the ones who most experience harassment.
The
other thing is, because of that, so much work has been done on harassment by
organizations that are looking at the issue through a gender lens, and that
affected a lot of our thinking on the Committee. The other thing that came out
as well – and this again, a lot of the groups mentioned this to us
because they knew to whom they were speaking, but they also know it happens in
other places, is the power dynamics. And this is very specific. While you get
power dynamics in other workplaces, here in the
legislative context it's a very particular issue.
So the
issue of an employee, for example, naming an MHA as the person they're suffering
harassment from, there's a real power differential there, and we have to deal
with that power differential as well. So those two issues were very important
for us, and will continue to be important for us as we move forward in putting
the whole policy and plan together. Again, this is not stuff that we just came
up with. These things that we are highlighting are things that were said over
and over and over again to us by every group that sat in front of us.
When we
talk about the one recommendation we are making in this report, that we are
asking the House of Assembly to make a decision on with our interim report, the
one recommendation that is doing that is a recommendation with regard to having
training begin immediately. Again, that was a message that came through loud and
clear from people who made presentations to us, the importance of education and
training as being absolutely critical. Again, with the understanding – and I
think we always had this understanding – that you don't do education and
training once and say you've done it. It has to be a continuous process. I'm
sure when we finish our work we'll have more specific recommendations around
that.
The
recommendation, for example, what we will be recommending – again, all of these
are recommendations that we plan on making. The only one for tonight has to do
with the training. We will recommend that following the initial swearing of
adherence to the Code of Conduct as part of the Oath of Office, each MHA be
required to sign the Code of Conduct every two years. Why? To remind us of what
it is we're making a commitment to. That's really important.
We'll
also recommend that all MHAs annually sign a declaration form confirming they
have read and understand the provisions of a harassment-free workplace policy
that will be proposed by the Committee. And once again, why? Because it's a
reminder; every time we sign that every year it's a reminder to us of what it is
we're trying to create in the workplace that we're in. In doing this, we need to
remember that the workplace we're talking about involves the 40 of us MHAs and
approximately 200 employees in the legislative context, including the statutory
offices, et cetera. So we're not just talking about the MHAs, and we need a
reminder constantly.
When
we're talking about education and training as being really important to foster
and promote a respectful workplace, but it's also important in preventing
harassment. So the more education and training we do, the more reminding of
ourselves of what it is that we believe in, the more we think we will have a
prevention when it comes to harassment, and that was what was presented to us by
so many of the groups, was the whole –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Just a bit of quiet, please –
I ask the Members.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's
what was presented to us by so many of the groups, that the education and
training component is really a tool for prevention, and it's from that
perspective that we are making that.
Again,
to another point made by some of the presenters was having the appropriate
knowledge, skill and expertise to effectively develop and facilitate the
training. We have to have the right people working with us as we develop that
training.
I was –
we all were – particularly impressed by the Gardiner Centre, which is an
outreach arm of the university, the Faculty of Business Administration. I'd
heard of the Gardiner Centre before. They develop and deliver a wide range of
professional development programs, but the expertise they have around harassment
was really quite amazing. That was why we decided to ask them to put an initial
proposal together, which is a framework of what they would do if they did
training with MHAs. Again, this is part of the interim report, and I think the
Member for Ferryland made reference to the training.
I'd like
to focus, particularly, on the first step in the training they would offer, and
it is awareness. Awareness would focus on a number of things. One would be the
difference between effective conflict versus harassment and bullying. I think
that was one of the things we did a lot of thinking about, because it – and it,
too, got referred to many times by people who presented to us. That we all have
times when we're in relationships with other people, you get heated, you speak
with passion, et cetera, and you may even have conflict, but that's not the same
as harassment and bullying.
So
coming to an understanding of what's the difference, coming to an understanding
of how we impact each other, coming to an understanding of how we behave is
really, really important. So the first step they would be doing would be working
on that with us. An important part of the recommendation is that we would do it
as a group, all 40 MHAs would do it together. We would not separate into
caucuses, and it would be mandatory.
We have
already made a decision in this House that training for MHAs will be mandatory,
and that's what we're recommending for this training. As training under the
Speaker of the House, it will be training that would be mandatory. That's an
important issue. I think it's happened for us on the Committee. That the five of
us working on the Committee have a respect and an understanding of each other,
even though we come from three different parties, even though we have different
philosophies in some way, when it came to the issue we were dealing with we
weren't different. We were all the same.
If we do
this training together with a group like the Gardener Centre, with the expertise
they have, I have no doubt that it would have a major impact on us here in our
caucuses, in the House of Assembly itself; yet, at the same time, because of
what I said about that difference between sort of working in conflict and
harassment and bullying, understanding we can still have heated conversations in
this House. It doesn't mean we don't have heated conversations, but we don't do
personal harassment, personal bullying. There are two different things. So
that's the kind of work we would do together.
I think
I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, because my other colleagues have dealt
with a lot of the issues but I decided to concentrate on one particular piece.
As I said when I started, this has been a wonderful experience for me. I look
forward to the rest of the time that we have to work together, and I sincerely
hope that by the time we get to next spring we'll have something that we will be
very proud of to present to the House.
I do ask
my colleagues to seriously accept our report and approve the recommendation that
we're making in this report.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to take a few minutes to speak to this motion before the House. A number of
Members have spoken on the contents of the report. The report was presented to
the House about two weeks ago. It was distributed to all Members and made
public. So I won't focus on that too much. I just want to focus on the process
and the importance of the process that we're going through, and to thank a few
people, Mr. Speaker, in my brief comments here tonight.
What we
presented was an interim report, and the final report we're aiming at next
spring as the time to present that report. The Privileges and Elections
Committee is a Committee of this House, so we go away and we do some work, but
we have to bring it back to this House for the House to concur with the
recommendations that we make before those recommendations can come into effect,
and that's what we're doing here today in this motion; the House is concurring
with the recommendations of the Committee.
This
whole process got its start with a private Member's motion from the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. As we did our work on the Committee, we referred
back to the motion and what the motion empowered us to do, and one of the things
the motion asked – that was passed unanimously by this House – one of the things
that the motion did was it asked us to consult with Members, with experts in the
field, to look at what other jurisdictions were doing, what other legislatures
were doing.
So we
did those things with the help of the staff of the House here, and I must say
they were very good in what they do, and they provided us with a lot of
information to review and discuss, so I want to thank the staff of the House
here for the work they did for the Committee, a very important part of the
Committee. I also want to thank all Members of the House, especially the ones
who participated in the consultations we had. One of the things we did, we
gathered information from other jurisdictions and from experts, we put it up on
sort of a website where MHAs could go in and look at it, and then they could
make comments and make recommendations of their own to the Committee.
I want
to thank Members for doing that. I want to thank the employees of the House for
doing that as well; very important in informing the decisions that the Committee
made. So I want to thank the Members of the House for doing that.
One of
the things I think, as the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi said, we work
very well together. I think that was driven by the fact that we took this task
that was given to us very seriously. I think, in a political career, people get
few opportunities – some people get many opportunities, but I think this was an
opportunity for us all to have an impact on how the operations of this House and
how politics happens in this province going forward. I think that's the way we
approached it.
Some of
the presenters who presented to our Committee, I want to thank them as well.
Some of the people who presented brought that fact home to us that the
importance of the job that we were doing at the Committee and the importance of
setting a tone of leadership from the people here in this House. And that's one
of the things that I think drove the Committee and drove the way that we
operated and the way we came to a consensus on a number of items that we had
before us.
So I'm
looking forward to continuing to work on the recommendations of this Committee,
continuing to work on the directions that we've outlined in this interim report,
looking forward to continuing to do that work. I would ask all Members to
support this resolution so we can continue on with the next steps.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, Motion 1?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Assistant to the Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In
recognition of the hard work done by the House today, I would move, seconded by
the Minister of Natural Resources, that we adjourn until tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Assistant Deputy
Government House Leader has moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.
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
House does stand adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the morning.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10
o'clock.