Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 19 November 2019 (49th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIX No. 20)
2019-11-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
November 19, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 20
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
In the
Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome former Member of the House of
Assembly, Ms. Gerry Rogers, joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public galleries I
welcome members of the Daly Family Collective: Louise Moyes, Diana Daly, Kay
Haynes and Maria Haynes. They're visiting today for a Member's statement as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, St. John's
Centre, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Placentia West - Bellevue and Torngat
Mountains.
The hon.
Member for Windsor Lake.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize John McGrath, who has a long history of volunteerism with
multiple sports and other organizations within our province, but in particular,
soccer. It's my pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations on his recent
selection as one of Newfoundland and Labrador 2019 Seniors of Distinction.
The
Seniors of Distinction Awards program is an opportunity to officially recognize
and celebrate the contributions, achievements and diversity of Newfoundland and
Labrador's older adults.
John's
long-term commitment to sport was demonstrated in his roles as president of both
soccer and Sport Newfoundland and Labrador in the province. His efforts were
instrumental in bringing World Cup soccer to our shores, along with the FIFA U18
World Championship.
John was
an advocate to increase opportunities for women in sport and that impact is
evident today. He developed a reputation as an honest, dedicated and
hard-working individual, both in his working life as a lawyer and his numerous
volunteer roles.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating John McGrath on
receiving the 2019 Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors of Distinction Award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Gerry Rogers, former MHA for St. John's Centre. Gerry best
exemplifies the words of Irish poet John O ' Donohue's
“For A Leader” which says: “May you act not from arrogance but
out of service.”
Gerry
was hard-working, dedicated and creative, which was evident in her ability to
bring diverse groups together in town hall mash-ups to encourage dialogue and
seek solutions.
In the
House of Assembly, Gerry was able to work collaboratively and find consensus on
issues important to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; consider the unanimous
support for Gerry's 2015 private Member's motion to form an All-Party Committee
on Mental Health.
A former
constituency assistant said that Gerry cared for all of us, no matter how busy
she was. In some cases, that meant visiting constituents living in deplorable
and unsafe conditions, or finding money to buy a chair, reading socks, hats,
food or chocolate for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Even when Gerry
was receiving treatment for her own cancer, she was known to bring lunch to the
doctors treating her.
I saw
first-hand the positive impact Gerry had and how much she is respected and loved
by the constituents of St. John ' s
Centre. I'm proud to call her a mentor and a friend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Daly
Family Collective – Diana Daly, Louise Moyes and Anne Troake – have worked
together in different capacities for many years. The collective was formed
officially in 2015 and have used their multidisciplinary approach to create a
project that is uplifting and inspiring folks across Newfoundland and Labrador
as well as the world.
Their
2016 production, If A Place Could Be Made ,
highlights the lives and lessons of Kitty and Daniel Daly of Riverhead, St.
Mary's. The couple had 12 children, six of whom were very tall and six of whom
had skeletal dysplasia – today known as persons of short stature.
This
project has been described as a story about family, strong personalities, great
faith, inclusion, expansion and making the best out of what we have been given.
If A Place Could Be Made
has been performed across the province, the country and has an ongoing school
tour – spreading its message of inclusion to the students of our province – with
an upcoming maritime tour in the works.
I would
like to ask hon. Members to join me in celebrating the Daly Family Collective
and all the artists, groups and collaborators that brought to life the stories
of Kitty, Daniel and their family.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
stand before this great hon. House to speak of a very distinctive lady in my
district, Mrs. Annie Brennan of the Town of Marystown.
October 1, I had the honour to be with Mrs. Brennan when she was presented with
her Seniors of Distinction Award. Mrs. Brennan has been recognized for her
decades of volunteer contributions, achievements and diversity work in Marystown
and the surrounding area. She has been involved with the Marystown Family Aid
Committee, Canadian Cancer Society and the Catholic Women's League.
Mr.
Speaker, at the age of 89, Mrs. Brennan still spends her time volunteering with
Mercy Associates, a group that assists the Sisters of Mercy in their work.
Mrs.
Brennan is an inspiration to us all. She has previously been recognized for her
volunteer work with the Marystown Lion's Club, being named Citizen of the Year
and has also received citations from the Red Cross and the Canadian Cancer
Society.
I ask
that my fellow colleagues join me in congratulating Mrs. Annie Brennan for her
commitment to her community and to say thank you for everything that you do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
I rise today to congratulate
the Nain Huskies male and female high school volleyball teams. It was the Nain
Huskies that came out on top at the 3A/4A tournament in Sheshatshiu this
weekend. This tournament brought the best of the high schools from the regions
of Lab West, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Sheshatshiu and Northern Labrador.
In order
to compete in the tournament, both the Nain teams had to win the volleyball
regionals at the North Coast sports meet, competing against all teams
representing the six Northern Labrador communities of Nain, Natuashish,
Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet.
I was so
proud not only at the Nain Huskies winning dual gold and now being able to
advance to the provincials, but I was also very proud how the North Coast
Huskies, you make us proud.
Please
join me in congratulating the Nain Huskies male and female volleyball teams on
their golden success and wish them well in their future competitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to inform this hon. House that we have launched our
Adult Protection Act engagement process and to encourage residents
to provide input on this important legislation. This process is part of the
five-year statutory review of our province's adult protection legislation and it
is the first review since the act was proclaimed on June 30, 2014.
The
purpose of the Adult Protection Act ,
Mr. Speaker, is to protect adults who are at risk of abuse and neglect and who
do not understand or appreciate that risk.
The
engagement process, which was developed in consultation with our Public
Engagement and Planning Division and the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for
Health Information, includes in-person dialogue sessions and meetings. These
sessions are providing targeted key stakeholders, such as managers and
front-line staff of the regional health authorities and the police, with an
opportunity to share their input and perspectives on the act.
Mr.
Speaker, it is critical that we also hear from the general public. They can
visit us at www.engagenl.ca to complete a feedback form on the legislation by
December 18, 2019. People can also call toll-free, 1-888-494-2266. Further,
staff of Children, Seniors and Social Development are available to anyone who
might be interested in meeting to provide input.
Mr.
Speaker, the Adult Protection Act
engagement process will gather valuable information and perspectives and raise
public awareness about adult protection and the legal obligation we all have to
report suspected adult abuse and neglect. I encourage all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to contribute to this process.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I'm glad
to see the provincial government is taking additional steps to protect adults
who are at risk of abuse and neglect and do not fully understand these risks.
Since the act was proclaimed in 2014, there have been 1,500 reports and less
than 150 requiring further investigation, as supports were put in place to
assist those individuals. It would be interesting to see a
summary of the
reports put in place. Have they been effective?
Minister, 75 per cent of the reports are from seniors, and it is critically
important seniors and family members provide their comments at www.engagenl.ca.
We trust each and every report is given immediate priority. In addition, I
encourage each and every resident of our province to report adult abuse and
neglect.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I applaud the minister for
inviting a public consultation on the
Adult Protection Act , but remind the minister that this act protects some of
the most vulnerable people in our society. I'm sure she knows that.
Many
will not be comfortable or familiar with modern technology and/or may not be
willing to come forward on their own. I ask the minister to ensure that her
department makes every effort to reach out in various ways to those who are most
at risk.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Heritage NL as the first ever recipient
of the Jeonju International Award for the promotion of intangible cultural
heritage.
Selected
out of 48 applicants from 36 different countries, Heritage NL was awarded
$10,000 for its role in safeguarding practices of intangible cultural heritage
in the global community. The award was presented by the City of Jeonju in the
Republic of Korea.
The
mission of Heritage NL's intangible cultural heritage program is to safeguard
and sustain the cultural heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador for present and
future generations. This is achieved through initiatives that celebrate, record
and promote our living heritage, and help to build bridges between diverse
cultural groups within and outside the province.
Mr.
Speaker, Heritage NL accomplishes this with the support of the provincial
government. The recent release of the Cultural Action Plan acknowledges the
importance of preserving both tangible and intangible heritage in the province,
and demonstrates government's commitment to supporting those opportunities.
We are
fortunate that Newfoundland and Labrador has an abundance of traditions, wisdom
and skills – just some of what is known as intangible cultural heritage – and
now has an award to celebrate it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for an advance copy of his statement.
behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating
Heritage NL on being named the first ever recipient of the Jeonju International
Award.
Mr.
Speaker, it is truly a remarkable achievement as Heritage NL was nominated
alongside 47 other organizations from all over the world. This award exemplifies
the diligent work undertaken by Heritage NL to celebrate, safeguard, promote and
enhance the culture of this great province. It also recognizes Heritage NL's
training programs, community-based workshops and the many festivals that the
organization supports.
There is
no doubt that all of our communities have been enriched by the work of Heritage
NL. Mr. Speaker, this is an accomplishment we can all be proud of.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join all hon.
Members in congratulating the leadership and staff of Heritage NL for this
international recognition. I thank Heritage NL for the good work they do
breathing new life into our intangible culture and heritage and finding creative
ways to honour our cultural traditions across this great province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition Leader.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister please provide an update on how much public money has now been invested
or spent on the Bay du Nord project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you that there's been no money spent on the Bay du Nord project, except for
internal resources on moving the project forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We understand that the next
step to sanctioning Bay du Nord will happen this week, and proponents will issue
the next round of procurement for the FPSO.
How much
of this round does the minister expect will be awarded to Newfoundland and
Labrador business and workers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed positive news that Equinor seems to be moving towards sanction. Of
course, we're not there at sanction at this point in time. I can inform the
people of the province that we are still working with Equinor to move that
project along. It has not been sanctioned at this point in time; however, it is
positive news they're signalling to the community that they are moving forward.
As has
been indicated last year, Mr. Speaker, we do have an agreement with Equinor on
what they are proposed to do in the province, what they're required to do in the
province. That will provide a tremendous amount of opportunity for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for work in the province, as well as for growth
of the industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, we're gratified
to hear about tremendous opportunities in the province, but the facts appear to
be that this project will only see 4,600 metric tons of fabrication completed in
the province with at least 90 per cent of the fabrication benefiting workers
elsewhere.
Why did
the minister's government trade away employment for workers in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
incredibly important – incredibly important – that I correct the record from the
Member opposite. I can say this project cost will be an estimated almost $11
billion with the majority of that being spent in the province. I can say that at
the very, very minimum about 5,000 metric tons of fabrication will take place in
the province.
There is
some 1.1 million person-hours that will be used on subsea engineering, there
will be a minimum $75 million in research and development and education and
training and $14 billion in gross domestic product for this province – a
tremendous value to this province. Mr. Speaker, it is our first deep-water
project.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance indicated that the fiscal update will be coming in the next few weeks.
Will the
minister confirm that the fiscal update will be provided before the House
adjourns in December? Will it include details on the $617 million in expenditure
reductions planned for the next three years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
fiscal update is in process. I know that the officials in the Department of
Finance, Mr. Speaker, are working diligently to have a fiscal update ready.
I have
indicated that it will be prior to the end of this calendar year. We are working
diligently to have it as quickly as possible. It is certainly my hope that it
will be prior to the conclusion of the House the first week of December.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, without any
details provided, if applied evenly across government $617 million equates to
cuts of $294 million to health, $81 million to education, $60 million to
post-secondary institutions, $21 million to income support and $30 million to
municipalities. Is this contained in your fiscal plan? Is this the reason why
you will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic
that in Question Period almost every day we get requests to spend more money; in
petitions every day we get requests to spend more money. We're asked by Members
of the Conservative Opposition to spend more money almost on a daily basis; at
the same time, they're demanding that we make cuts.
Mr.
Speaker, really I'd call it the two-story Tory.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I remind the
minister that the $617 million is his number, not mine. It was in his budget.
The
minister in comments to the media – unprompted, by the way – said: “I won't risk
getting back to surplus if it means closing hospitals where people need them ….”
I ask
the minister: Did his original plan include hospital closures? Is this the
reason why you will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm almost
gobsmacked by the question. I mean, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition
said health is a good place to start. I know why he picked the Finance critic he
did, Mr. Speaker, because we had received a number of recommendations by that
gentleman when he was in charge of Labrador-Grenfell Health, including closing
hospitals.
suggested closing hospitals in Labrador, reducing the hours for clinics and
charging additional money for medical transportation for people on the North
Coast of Labrador, and he's asking us if our plan included closing hospitals. If
it did, Mr. Speaker, we would have taken his recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I need not
remind the minister opposite that as a former minister of Health, he knows full
well the process when it comes budgetary decisions around the Department of
Health and how the process works. To say that the health authority has, somehow
or other, power over everything is completely false.
Mr.
Speaker, we know the details exist because it was confirmed in an access to
School District announced a review of schools across the province, including in
my district.
I ask
the minister: Does his plan include school closures? Is this the reason why he
will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, it is Cabinet
and Treasury Board that make the final decisions. As the individual who is
responsible for Labrador-Grenfell Health, nobody can dispute the fact that it
was the recommendations from that individual to close services in Sheshatshiu,
or to close hospitals in Labrador, or to charge 225 per cent more for medical
transportation to the people on the North Coast of Labrador. Those were the
recommendations that came forward from that individual.
We can
talk more details on those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the
Conservative Opposition believes that health care is a good place to start. I
said quite clearly I'm not prepared to close a hospital in order to return to
surplus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Trades
NL issued a media release noting that they would suspend demonstrations and
begin negotiations between Trades NL and DF Barnes.
I ask
the minister: What is the duration of the current contract which Nalcor has with
DF Barnes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
pleased to see that there was a lease between Nalcor oil company and DF Barnes
for another rig, for some maintenance work on that rig, Mr. Speaker. That
contract expires the end of April 2020.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of how many person-hours of employment will
be created by this contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
First of all, Mr. Speaker,
allow me to just say for the record, they are all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and they are all unionized. So allow me to just make sure that
Members in this hon. House understand that.
current, I understand there are about 20 people employed under this contract
going to, I think, 40 people. It depends on what the requirements are under this
maintenance agreement. I tell you one thing that is very, very important: Work
is being done here in this province by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians instead
of this rig going elsewhere internationally.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest to the minister that this is not enough. Bull Arm has
sat idle for far too long. The recent protests are protests about a lack of jobs
for people in our province. Our people want to go back to work.
I ask
the minister: What is the plan for Bull Arm once the Transocean Barents leaves?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unlike
the former administration that left Bull Arm idle for a dozen years, we've been
working very diligently to find a full-time tenant and a full-time leaser for
the site. We have put out on expression of interest and moved on to a request
for proposals, Mr. Speaker. We are down to negotiations with two companies for a
long-term lease arrangement for the site of Bull Arm.
We're
very much working hard to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are employed
and growing our oil and gas industry.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I remind the minister that
the site sat idle from 1997 to 2003.
Despite
the need for jobs, in part by the government's inaction to award the Bull Arm
long-term RFP – this RFP was released over two years ago. We all know it was
narrowed down to two proponents.
I ask
the minister: When will there be a long-term tenant put in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
meantime, we've developed Advance
2030. That is really, really growing our oil and gas industry here, which will
be exactly what the people of this province will enjoy when we have more
discoveries offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
We've
been discussing with these two proponents their possibilities for growth and
development of the Bull Arm site, Mr. Speaker. We're continuing in that. You've
heard, earlier, questions about Equinor and the development of the Bay du Nord.
That's another exciting project.
Offshore
today, Mr. Speaker, for the first time since the early 1990s, ExxonMobil is
doing discovery work. They're drilling. Let's hope for a discovery so that we
can all enjoy the benefits of the opportunity we have in our oil and gas
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, economies are
run by people working, not by royalties, and if we have to wait until 2030,
there won't be anyone left here to work.
I ask
the minister: Why she has allowed Bull Arm to sit idle for over two years when
there were companies interested in putting residents to work out there?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I find it unbelievable, Mr.
Speaker, that that Member opposite would not be, along with all other
stakeholders in this province, excited about the opportunities that are under
Advance 2030 . I cannot believe that he is not supporting
Advance 2030 . I simply am astounded by
that.
I can
tell the Member opposite – and I've had multiple conversations with him about
the growth and potential of Bull Arm – sorry, I'm getting some feedback here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I will say this:
Growth and development of our offshore is predicated on the growth and
development under Advance 2030 . We're
doing everything on this side of the House to ensure exploration happens,
discovery takes place and growth and development occurs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After
months of controversy and protest, the minister's department has finally agreed
to a formal review of the delivery of education to children who have a hearing
disability.
Why has
it taken public outcry and a human rights complaint to get action on this very
significant issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, deaf and hard of hearing is absolutely a priority for our department.
I've had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak with some parents in the
department with regard to issues that they've had, and a survey is under way to
determine how we can better deliver our services.
Mr.
Speaker, we had the opportunity, we put a steering committee in place. People
who are associated with the steering committee include the Canadian Hard of
Hearing Association; APSEA, which is the Atlantic Provinces Special Education
Authority; we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf, and it
will include parents as well. We are well under way to getting this problem
solved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, this review
steering committee – again, only announced after months of public protest and
demonstrations – will not include any parent participation. Parents are
children's strongest advocates, and I'm glad the minister has spoken with those
parents.
Why
exclude these strong voices from this steering committee, those advocates who
best know the children?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
This is the first
conversation I've had with this particular Member, Mr. Speaker, with regard to
excluding parents. We said that we would initiate the process and we would
include parent participation, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody
is excluding parents here. We've set up a steering committee and we are very
serious about providing good supports for the deaf and hard-of-hearing people of
this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has
allowed APSEA, the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, a role in the
review despite the fact that they serve no Newfoundland and Labrador students
with hearing impairments.
Would
the minister see the increased probability of getting it right with parents and
maybe even senior hearing impaired students directly involved in the steering
committee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Again, Mr. Speaker, we've put
this steering committee in place, and it is a priority for us to get this
straight. I will take the Member's suggestion under advisement, but, again, Mr.
Speaker, we have people from my department, people from the district, people
from APSEA, people from Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and people from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf.
We will
get this right, Mr. Speaker. It is a priority for the department and we will
make sure that parents are included.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, from October
2018 to October 2019, I have been told by Central Health that 7,833 people have
used the emergency department at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in
Botwood. This is between the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. because it was closed by
the Liberal government in 2016 for the remainder of the day.
Will the
minister take heed of those numbers and reinstate the 24-hour emergency room
service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in Botwood as promised in this
year's election?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
volume of patients going through the Hugh Twomey centre was the reason for the
initial change in the operating hours of that emergency room.
Subsequent data through Central Health suggests that, currently, the numbers
that would attend that centre between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. would be of
the order of maybe two a week.
We did
say that when the staffing changes at Hugh Twomey come about, as a result of our
significant expansion of the protective care unit there, we would revisit those
numbers to see what the art of the possible was around 24-hour services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, Central Health also said that an additional 4,620 people from the
Exploits District used the Central Newfoundland health centre during the same
period last year. That's a total of 12,453 people in the Exploits District
requiring emergency service.
Will the
minister commit to reinstate the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr. Hugh
Twomey Health Care Centre and alleviate the added stress off the Central
Newfoundland health care centre?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much again for
the question, Mr. Speaker.
The Hugh
Twomey centre in Botwood is 20 minutes from Central Newfoundland Regional Health
Centre. A lot of people will combine their clinic visit, their emergency room
visit with other duties or with other tasks, such as shopping at the local hub
in Grand Falls-Windsor.
again, we will look at the figures on an ongoing basis and, when the staffing
changes at the Hugh Twomey centre, we can revisit the issue. If the demand is
there, we will certainly look at it sympathetically, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
The Seniors' Advocate report
released in September paints a grim picture of the issues facing seniors in our
province: homelessness, poverty and a basic access to health care are among the
many systematic issues identified by the advocate.
Mr.
Speaker, given the sad cases outlined of seniors who cannot afford dentures to
eat, eyeglasses to see with and hearing aids to communicate with, will the
minister commit to working towards providing dental, vision and hearing care for
seniors?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
We have
an Adult Dental Program which is consistent with at least half of the other
provinces in the country. We have just taken over, within the Department of
Health, the vision program which was formerly housed with Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour. We would look to seeing significant opportunities for
improving access for seniors.
We have
made seniors care a priority with our Home First initiative. Our aim is to keep
seniors safe and well-supported in their own homes. This is in line with the
recommendations of the Seniors' Advocate, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to
work to improve that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Mr. Speaker, at the
Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation annual general meeting in September
resolutions were passed specifically calling on government to provide coverage
for dental, vision and hearing aids for seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, why is the minister continuing to ignore the Seniors' Advocate and the
50+ Federation on these important matters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I would suggest that I may
have answered that question the first go around. It's ironic that the questions
come from the team opposite who thought the Seniors' Advocate position was, in
actual fact, a luxury.
We have
worked diligently with the Seniors' Advocate, we have worked with the 50-plus
clubs. We have a reboot and reassessment of the hearing aid program in process
as well – not just for seniors, but it will have benefits for them, too. We have
a dental program which is compatible and comparable with 50 per cent of Canadian
jurisdictions, and we have just taken over responsibility for vision care, too.
Things
are moving in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. Always keen to make things
better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Mr. Speaker, another issue
identified by both the Seniors' Advocate and the 50+ Federation is the failure
of government to cover the cost of driver's licence medicals for drivers over
the age of 75.
Mr.
Speaker, this is yet another example of government nickelling and diming seniors
in this province.
Why
won't the minister stand up for seniors and eliminate this unnecessary fee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to hear the Member mention the role of the Seniors' Advocate because we
were really pleased as a province, Mr. Speaker, to establish that office – only
the third of its kind in the country.
We're
also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have been able to put in a number of measures
around this province to support seniors. We have the Seniors' Benefit that's
reaching 47,000 seniors in this province. We have the Low Income Supplement
that's reaching 155,000 seniors in this province.
Even
when things were very difficult fiscally in this province, this government saw
fit, since Budget 2016 , to put $123
million in place to support seniors; $286 million, the most ever in our history,
in poverty reduction initiatives.
We know,
Mr. Speaker, there's more to be done, and we will continue to work with seniors
to make life better for them here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, this past
spring, this government, in part with their federal counterparts, burdened the
people of this province with an additional tax called the carbon tax
I ask
the minister: How much of this tax has been collected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
funny, Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition also wanted us to take the federal
government to court, as some of their other Conservative friends across the
country did. We saw where that got the other provinces.
Our
province, Mr. Speaker, and the plan that we put in place, our
Made-in-Newfoundland and Labrador plan, has been recognized by other provinces
as more lucrative, better for the people of our province than the plans they've
achieved for their provinces.
What
we've done in this province, Mr. Speaker, is protect people. We've protected
industry. We've protected jobs in this province with the Made-in-Newfoundland
and Labrador plan. Mr. Speaker, the plan that we put in place has cost very
little for the people of this province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, 'tis the season for budget preparation. The Premier has often spoke of
the need for collaboration in this minority government.
I ask
the Premier: How does he intend to incorporate the important ideas and issues of
the Third Party, Official Opposition and independent Members so that they can
meaningfully influence the budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I've been quite open about collaboration within this House. The Minister of
Finance and I, as well as leaders opposite, have had this discussion. We
encourage, not through just public consultations, but put together what you
would consider to be meaningful things to consider in this year's budget.
We've
seen our seven-year forecast that we put in place, but I would encourage those
that actually participate – encourage you to participate but, number one, come
with the ideas but make sure they are costed and you would see the impact on the
suggestions that would keep this province in a fiscal, sustainable seven-year
project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, given the antics
in the House last week, I ask the Premier: Is it common practice for his
ministers to secretly record stakeholder meetings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
earlier, publicly, that at the beginning of the meeting – there was a
stakeholder meeting of 16 people. There were technical questions asked about
angling. I indicated to all at the meeting that there would be a note taker and
the meeting would be recorded. That was made public, and there was no
contradiction of that at any point in time given by anyone who attended the
meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Section
9 of the Labour Standards Act allows
employers to pay overtime at 1.5 times the minimum wage, even if the employee
earns more than minimum wage.
I ask
the minister responsible: Will he commit to a review of the
Labour Standards Act to remove this and other archaic and unfair
provisions?
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the Member opposite for his question.
As he
would note, earlier in this session of the House we actually opened the
Labour Standards Act to implement
measures in place to allow for a federal benefit and a compliance of maternity
leave that could be shared over 12 months and 18 months. Between our department,
we do look – with the Labour Standards Division – where there are opportunities
of which we can bring our Labour Standards
Act and where there are opportunities to improve upon the act. When we do
so, we certainly would go out and have consultations with employees and
employers and strike that balance for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
More
excavation is occurring this week on Ragged Beach, a beach which is crucial to
the East Coast Trail and to seabirds from the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve.
Will the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment tell us why, in the face of
serious environmental concerns, he is allowing further development on Ragged
Beach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the question.
I would
like to remind the Member opposite, there are two different topics that are
ongoing on Ragged Beach. One is the erosion protection, which is covered by an
environmental assessment process. The other one is some upgrades that are
covered under the Urban and Rural Planning Act.
Depending on which one the hon. Member might be talking to or talking about, I
guess it depends on the answer that I would give to this question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the
minister: Will the minister use his legislative powers to place a 12-month
moratorium on all further development of Ragged Beach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if
I was being clear enough or not, but there are two things at play there. The
development is covered under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the municipality. The erosion of Ragged Beach is being
covered, and the reinstatement of that and the prevention for the erosion is
done under the Environmental Assessment Act. That's been released with
conditions.
So, both
are not tied together. It may be in close proximity to each other, Mr. Speaker.
They are certainly not tied-together projects. Both are separate. I would tell
the Member if he wants further clarity, drop by the office and I'll explain to
him what our role is in each different parcel of that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, time for Question
Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I move the following motion:
That the
Committees of the House of Assembly for the 49th General Assembly be
reconstituted as follows:
The
Social Services Committee: the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the Member
for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for
St. John's Centre and the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
The
Government Services Committee: the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Lake
Melville, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Lewisporte -
Twillingate, the Member for Mount Scio and the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi.
The
Resource Committee: the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Cape St.
Francis, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Harbour Grace
- Port de Grave, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi, the Member for Terra Nova.
The
Standing Orders Committee: the Member for St. John's West, the Member for
Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the
Member for Labrador West, the Member for Windsor Lake and the Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee: the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for Burin - Grand Bank,
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island and the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
Miscellaneous and Private Bills Committee: the Member for Lake Melville, the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave,
the Member for Mount Scio and the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
The
Public Accounts Committee: the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the
Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for Stephenville
- Port au Port and the Member for St. John's Centre.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I move the following motion:
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly concur in the final report of the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections on the Development of a
Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy dated April 8, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I wish to provide information to the Member for Harbour Main who,
yesterday in Question Period, asked about emergency airlift services for a man
who passed away during a hunting trip.
While
the Department of Justice and Public Safety did not hear from the family
directly, the department endeavoured to make some inquires on their behalf. I
can report to this House of Assembly that NL911 confirms they received a call
related to the incident near Facheux Bay. As per protocol, the call was
transferred to the RCMP and the Medical Communication Centre was notified.
Harbour
Breton RCMP received a call at about 11:25 on the morning of September 30
advising that a man had died two hours earlier in a remote wooded area across
Hermitage Bay. Multiple options were considered for response, with boat
transportation identified as the quickest and safest approach. The RCMP have
advised that after receiving the call, they travelled to the remote location,
arriving five hours later.
As soon
as the boat transportation was secured, two RCMP officers were on route by boat
to the scene. The boat trip took approximately three hours, with rough seas and
high winds. RCMP contacted a member of the St. Alban's fire department who was
in the area and had the necessary equipment to begin the process of moving the
deceased from a remote location with the assistance of the family and others.
In every
situation, the RCMP assesses all the circumstances, including weather conditions
and terrain, to determine the best and the safest option to respond. Typically,
government Air Services would be engaged for search and rescue only if the
situation involved a lost or injured person who required medical assistance. In
this case, the RCMP made a decision not to engage Air Services.
Mr.
Speaker, we appreciate this difficult time for the family of the deceased and we
express our sympathies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further answers to questions
for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Humber -
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
again today on a petition for Route 450. I'll just read the petition again:
WHEREAS
the rainstorm of January 2018 caused major flooding damage to Route 450, South
Shore Highway in the Bay of Islands, and there are areas of the highway that
still have not been repaired, including pavement repairs to sections of John's
Beach, clearing of debris from gabion baskets, the tender for Cammies Brook
Bridge replacement and other necessary work throughout the region was not done,
and where the condition of the road is causing safety concerns for motorists;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the hon. House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that all urgent repair work
and other upgrades are included in the Department of Transportation and Works
tender call for the 2020 construction season, and carried out immediately in the
spring to ensure the safety and well-being of the motorists on the highway.
Mr.
Speaker, I know I spoke to the minister yesterday, and he was looking at the
John's Beach area. I know today the weather is extremely bad out in Corner
Brook, a lot of rain and sleet. It may not be done today but I'm looking forward
to having that piece of pavement repaired.
As I
said yesterday – and I don't think the minister was aware, but he's well aware
of it now – it's the same
section that we drove on during the rainstorm that
we're going to get fixed. It's getting worse. It's worse, it's getting deeper,
more potholes. It's not a big
section of the road but it is where the heavy
tracks actually damaged the road when they were releasing the water to go
across.
I know
the minister has instructed his staff to get it done. I also mention to the
minister that there are several potholes in the area, all in the same area,
within 100, 200 feet of each other, that's causing the people who already broke
their rims on some of them. I ask the minister, while the crew is in the area if
they can look at the four, five, six potholes that's causing a bit of damage in
the area.
I'll let
the minister know – and I haven't written him yet, and he's not aware of this –
I mentioned yesterday I'll be writing you a letter about the culvert in John's
Beach on one end where it's not released. I have the pictures; I'll send him the
pictures also.
As this
goes on, Mr. Speaker – and, again, in the following week and I'll do it again
tomorrow and Thursday – I'll highlight some other work that, since the flood,
has not been done. I know the minister said whatever you think is not done and
is an emergency, we'll try our best to get it done. Because once the snow comes
in, the tractor hooks into it and the thaw comes, this road right now, which is
a small piece, would be a danger for people coming up on the Southern Shore
Highway.
I just
thank the minister again for his prompt attention. Like I said to the people –
and I know there are people listening in the John's Beach area – it is a bad day
out on the West Coast. You couldn't get the work done and it wouldn't be fair
for the workers to try to repair this work today because of the weather
conditions in the area. I look forward to having this repaired.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure.
WHEREAS
many commute to Bull Arm, Long Harbour and other areas for work, as well, the
commercial and residential growth in our region has increased the volume of
traffic on this highway;
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this
significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic
to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a significant piece of infrastructure that we certainly need to
look at. Basically, it was used many years ago when it first went there for
communities for fishing, transporting fish to and from across the Island and
places, wherever it may be. It was used fairly extensively. Now we have so many
workers that travel to Bull Arm, to Long Harbour, to Come by Chance and areas
all in between and further west to use this road, it certainly needs some
significant upgrades.
We did
have some patchwork and do appreciate that from the minister. That was certainly
put down, but if you go in and look at it, it does need a significant upgrade
for sure. Along with, I would say, the Bull Arm projects, we have a lot of
tourism in the area. You go from Bay Bulls to Witless Bay, you go to the
Ecological Reserve in Ferryland, you go to the UNESCO site in Portugal Cove
South at Mistaken Point – there are so many other people that use it.
For
tourists that are coming across the Island, instead of coming in and around to
go to St. John's, they go across that way; they go the loop or go around the
circle. We'd certainly love to see that and have some significant upgrade to
that facility.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
there are no current significant operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site;
and
WHEREAS
the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local
and provincial economy; and
WHEREAS
residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's
economy; and
WHEREAS
the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and
create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province, and a
long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province,
Mr. Speaker;
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication site,
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 expedite the process to get the Bull Arm
Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a
vision for a long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Furthermore, we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,
maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms,
as well as new construction of any future platforms, whether they be GBS or FPSO
in nature.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday speaking to this, one of the points that we brought up was
that we'd like to see, obviously, a more long-term tenant, which would be more
beneficial to not only the people of the province, but to the asset that we've
already sunk our money into. There's a sunken cost there that is continuously
costing the province money as long it's idling.
There
are a lot of different workovers. There are the tie-ins. There's all kinds of
different work that can be spinoffs or we can set up a fabrication site that
doesn't need the spinoffs; it's actually supplying to the offshore oil industry.
It's incumbent on us, as 40 Members of this House, to look out for those 520,000
people. I think that utilizing our resources in a positive way and not letting
these assets just sit idle is probably in the best interests of the province.
I would
love to hear a response on it, as we haven't heard much of a response on this
petition so far, if we can get an idea of who would be a longer term tenant. As
opposed having 20 to 40 people working, we'd like to see probably 400 working
out there.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources with a response.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a very important topic, very important discussion that we're having in the House
around benefits to the people of the province, around Bull Arm and around the
opportunities around Bull Arm. I'm glad to see the Member opposite finally
raising some of the issues around how do we grow our oil and gas industry and
how do we ensure more projects here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
government, Mr. Speaker, has done a tremendous amount to encourage growth and
development in the industry. This government has put out an expression of
interest and a request for proposals for new opportunities for long-term
utilization of the Bull Arm site. This government has made a real effort to
attract people to that site. This government has made sure that we have been
working with industry to attract new work.
As the
Member opposite knows, we have attracted work on rigs and really doing
maintenance on rigs, Mr. Speaker. That's new and additional work to the
province, especially around some of the work that is being done. We're hoping to
continue and grow that type of work. We are finalizing and working towards even
more work for the Bull Arm site because we need more work in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish
to rise and respond to a petition yesterday from the Member for Torngat
Mountains. Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were some questions raised here in a
petition from the Member regarding the commitment – or last loads of freight and
shipments going to the North Coast.
We're
very pleased today to see the service provider come out and guarantee that all
groceries headed north will head north on the trip, which will originate this
coming week out of Goose Bay. All remaining freight will actually be taken in
the following two trips going up north.
Mr.
Speaker, it's interesting to note that the 2017 service to the North Coast
finished on December 17 and last year, 2018 service concluded on December 14. We
are currently on
schedule to have service concluded earlier this year than we
did in the previous two years.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders
of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From the
Order Paper, number 4 under Motions, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Tuesday, November 19, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:30.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled,
An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, Bill 18, and I further
move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, Bill 18, and that this bill now be
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The
Demise Of The Crown,” carried. (Bill 18)
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill,
An Act Respecting The
Demise Of The Crown. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2,
third reading of Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, that a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on
the Order Paper.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3,
third reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill now be read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and that its title be as on the
Order Paper.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 4,
third reading of Bill 16,
An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 16,
An Act To
Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, 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 this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill,
An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order
10, second reading of Bill 17.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 17,
An Act
To Provide Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related Health Care Costs, be now read
a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 17 entitled,
An Act To Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related
Health Care Costs, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of bill,
An Act To Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid
Related Health Care Costs. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 17, the
Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Our government
recognizes the growing epidemic of opioid use across Canada and my hon.
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, has spoken to this
issue many times in the House.
In 2016,
the minister outlined Newfoundland and Labrador's Opioid Action Plan. Most
recently, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister advised that government has completed
all of the initiatives outlined in the plan and that we will continue to work
with our partners to address addictions.
Bill 17
will complement the work undertaken through the Opioid Action Plan and will give
us the tools to hold opioid manufacturers and wholesalers accountable for their
role in the opioid crisis. The proposed bill will help government recover the
costs of health care benefits paid by this province due to opioid-related
disease, injury or illness.
Mr.
Speaker, we take the opioid crisis very seriously. This is evident in the great
work that has been completed to date with respect to the Opioid Action Plan.
This proposed legislation will help us address the crisis. There is no question
that the opioid crisis is, in part, rooted in the over-prescription of
pharmaceutical drugs. Recent cases in the United States have demonstrated this.
Municipalities, countries and states have all brought lawsuits against opioid
manufacturers and distributors. Their claims are valued in the billions of
dollars.
August of this year, a judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson
intentionally downplayed the danger of opioids and ordered that the company pay
the state of Oklahoma $572 million US for the damage caused by the company. The
judge stated the defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by
increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome.
We are
also feeling the impact of the opioid crisis here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker. There are far too many reports from communities across this
province that demonstrated the continued and ongoing opioid crisis that is
perpetuated by opioid manufacturers and wholesalers.
This
crisis has meant that people in our province have incurred significant costs.
These costs are related to health care, including hospitalizations, emergency
department visits, specialist visits, physician time and drug costs. The
magnitude of the crisis cannot be overstated.
passed, Bill 17 will allow government to sue opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers for their alleged wrongdoing. It will permit the recovery of past,
present and future health care benefit costs due to an opioid-related disease,
injury or illness. It will also assist in the litigation and support
Newfoundland and Labrador's participation in a national class action lawsuit
launched by British Columbia against more than 40 opioid manufacturers,
wholesalers and others on behalf of provincial, federal and territorial
governments. This class action alleges that these opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers fail to warn doctors and the public of the dangers of opioids, and
that they marketed opioids as safer and less addictive than other medications
when, Mr. Speaker, they are not.
This
bill will also give Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to bring a direct
action against opioid manufacturers or wholesalers in a class action in the
future. This bill supports the government's actions in joining the British
Columbia class action, but also provides Newfoundland and Labrador with a strong
backdrop against which we can proceed in dealing with opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers.
British
Columbia has already enacted similar legislation. Ontario has introduced
legislation into its legislature which has undergone second reading. Alberta and
New Brunswick have publicly supported the class action. We also understand, Mr.
Speaker, Alberta has publicly stated that it is considering similar legislation.
There
may be questions about how the recent filing of
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding
by Purdue Pharma will affect the proposed actions in litigation. The company and
its owners, the Sackler family, reached a tentative settlement with 23 US states
and more than 2,000 cities and countries that sued the company over its role in
the opioid crisis.
As is
plainly obvious, this crisis does not stop at the border, it is in Canada and it
is in this province. Any proposed agreement ought to account for and include
payment for the Canadian claims, which are presently advanced in a structure and
consolidated manner in a national class action commenced in British Columbia, of
which Newfoundland and Labrador is a part. We will continue to assert our claims
against the Purdue entities and the Sacklers to ensure that Canadian
jurisdictions are fairly and reasonably addressed in any proposed settlement
within the US.
We will
not be content to simply permit the US settlement to proceed with no appropriate
approach and consideration for Canada. Our government, Mr. Speaker, remains
steady and willing to participate in the global effort to achieve global
resolution of the claims against Purdue and the Sacklers.
If,
however, Newfoundland and Labrador is not included in this process, we are
determined to continue to pursue our claims to the fullest extent permitted by
the law on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I would
like to thank the staff of the Department of Justice and Public Safety for the
work on this matter. I understand that they gave a briefing to Members of this
House and I hope you found it informative. While there are several other aspects
of the bill that I could discuss, I will highlight that this bill is similar to
legislation enacted with respect to tobacco recovery.
We know
that tobacco legislation has twice been before the Supreme Court of Canada and
his withstood scrutiny. I also note that Bill 17 permits the recovery of health
care benefits on an aggregate basis and allows for the use of statistical
information for the purpose of establishing causation and quantifying damages.
This
will significantly aid in advancing a claim on behalf of Newfoundland and
Labrador and will help ensure appropriate recovery while considering the privacy
of individuals affected by the opioid crisis.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I will end my comments, look forward to the debate and the
progression of the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 17 does provide for the recovery of opioid damages and related
health care costs, and we do know that it's modelled on the
Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act
which was passed in 2001 and proclaimed in February of 2011.
We also
know that British Columbia has modelled legislation and passed this legislation
one year ago. British Columbia has not only brought forward its law, it's also
commenced legal proceedings. I think that's important for us to recognize that
British Columbia has taken the lead in this scenario. British Columbia has named
all provinces and territories and the federal government and agencies as members
of the class which are pursuing this action. This is a novel approach.
We also
know, Mr. Speaker, by way of background and giving history in terms of the legal
process we know that other provinces also have taken a similar approach. We know
that New Brunswick, Alberta and Ontario are also leading in this direction. For
example, New Brunswick has been exploring the possibility of launching or
participating in a lawsuit. From what I've examined, the view from New
Brunswickers is that pharmaceutical industry, they want to hold them accountable
for the health of their New Brunswickers and for the financial burden that's
been put on taxpayers for the health care cost. So we get a sense of New
Brunswick's sense or sentiment on this.
Alberta,
similarly, will be signing on to the class action lawsuit, which has been filed
by the British Columbia government. They also, for the same reasoning, want to
recoup the costs of fighting this opioid crisis from opioid manufacturers and
distributers.
As well,
Ontario, they're planning to join British Columbia's proposed lawsuit. Again,
their view, similarly, is that they want to create a series of special rules to
assist the litigation process and support their participation in a national
class action lawsuit by British Columbia.
Let's
talk a little bit about British Columbia's national class action lawsuit. It was
launched in August 2018 and it was launched against more than 40 opioid
manufacturers and wholesalers. It was launched on behalf of provincial,
territorial and federal governments.
Now,
what is the substance of the allegations in the lawsuit? In essence, the
allegations are that these opioid manufacturers and wholesalers, they failed to
warn doctors, they failed to warn the public of the dangers of opioids and they
also – it's being alleged – have marketed these drugs as potentially safer and
less addictive than other medications, when they were not. Thereby, I think the
essence of these allegations are that these opioid manufacturers and wholesalers
engaged in false and misleading marketing of opioids as well.
So,
British Columbia has not, as of yet, disclosed an expectation for damages. That
is something that really needs to be closely examined. What we know is that
British Columbia has said that the figure will emerge in the course of
proceedings, in the course litigation, in the course of lawsuits. But at this
point in time, we do not have knowledge, and perhaps we may not be able to have
knowledge because it's at its early stage, of the amount of the money estimated
to be involved. In other words, the damages that one could expect.
That's
where we're going to see economists, statisticians and others with that
expertise in such matters are going to be engaged in calculating such estimate.
The costs, also, we know will include hospitalization and treatment for those
who have used these drugs and, of course, they're going to include other costs
as well.
When we
look at the effects of the opioid crisis, we do know a few things. We know the
social impact that these drugs have had. We know about the terrible consequences
of addiction for individuals, for families and for communities. We know the
social costs are enormous. We know families are bearing these costs. The health
care system also is bearing these costs; therefore, all of us are. We're aware
of the families that are living this nightmare.
There's
no doubt that there is much heartbreak and desperation and fear that so many are
enduring right now, at this very moment. No family or community is immune. Some
individuals, we know, Mr. Speaker, become addicted using someone else's
medications, but so many others become addicted from medications that they
themselves were prescribed. That is the crux of this bill. We see that these
individuals probably did not imagine where this would lead. Their doctors may
not have imagined where this would lead. They may have believed the medications
were safe.
This
legislation is, however, only one piece of a very big puzzle. Many more
initiatives must be taken. This must be treated as the crisis it is.
When we
look at the tobacco legislation, Mr. Speaker, we should also be mindful of the
fact that the United States was out in the forefront with respect to legal
action against tobacco companies, while Canadian provinces were late to follow
suit. As I mentioned earlier, this particular bill is modelled on the
Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act .
It's modelled and very similar in substance.
We do
know that the US tobacco-related lawsuits were settled, for the most part, long
ago, while Canadian lawsuits are still working their way through the courts. We
also know that the Newfoundland and Labrador position is to support the national
class action against the opioid manufacturers and wholesalers. We also know that
the position of the government is to monitor, with considerable interest, the US
litigation concerning the manufacturing, sale and distribution of opioids.
Specifically, we do know that there is, as the minister had referenced, a
tentative agreement to resolving claims against Purdue and the Sackler family
members, which is a global resolution of approximately $3 billion. We do know
from what the minister has stated that the intention, the well-intentioned
position of the Newfoundland government is to hold that agreement, that
resolution. That ought to account for and include payment for Canadian claims.
From my understanding, the Newfoundland and Labrador government will be looking
to seek some recompense from that global resolution which takes place in the
United States.
British
Columbia's lawsuit, of which Newfoundland and Labrador is a party, seeks to
recover the government health care and other direct costs incurred due to
opioid-related disease, injury or illness.
Mr.
Speaker, these points that I've made, in essence, suggest that, in principle,
the bill has substance and can be supported. However, there are some concerns
with respect to the provision, for example, with respect to opting out of the
agreement, which is one of the sections – I believe it is
section 12 – which one
has to examine more carefully.
That
section of the act particularly indicates that any prior agreement that purports
to bind the Crown, that ultimately can be reneged upon or can be nullified.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
noise level in the House is a little too high. I ask Members to keep the noise
level down so we can listen to what the Member has to say.
Thank
you.
The hon.
Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
So, what
one is concerned about with respect to that is with the contract that was made,
is it now that it is inconvenient that the Newfoundland and Labrador government
entered into a bargain over health care cost recovery in the class actions on
behalf of addicted individuals? Now, the concern is that that may be opted out
or reneged on by the government. So the concern there is what message does this
particular piece,
section of the legislation send? That we can dissolve prior
agreements given to others who contract with government? So we need to be
worried or concerned about that particular provision and whether that is
something that we are content with approving.
Also,
another concern that needs to be addressed when we're looking at this
legislation, I think the legislation is in place so as to present an alternative
litigation strategy so as to recover more money on behalf of the individuals
affected. But we need to be mindful of the fact that, with respect to the US
litigation involving that global resolution, that tentative agreement between
Purdue and the Sackler firms, we need to know if there's been any effort on the
part of the Purdue entities and the Sacklers to actually involve Canadian
jurisdictions in the settlement in the US. Is there a reasonable or likelihood
of us actually recovering? What specific efforts or strategies are in place by
the government to pursue our claims with respect to that global resolution
taking place in the United States?
So, Mr.
Speaker, those are some of the points I wanted to raise with respect to this
bill, and I thank you very much.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand here today also to express my support for Bill 17,
An Act To
Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related Health Care Costs, Mr.
Speaker.
For
anybody who might be tuning in, this new legislation will allow Newfoundland and
Labrador to take direct action against opioid manufacturers and distributors,
based on the related health care harms that we have seen in our province.
Some of
the other speakers have talked about cost and talked about technicalities in the
act. Being a minister in a large social department, I will be looking at some of
the impacts and the effects of opioids and some of the other issues that we deal
with socially because of the widespread opioid problem that our province and our
country have been dealing with now for some time.
Mr.
Speaker, while problematic drug and alcohol use is not a new issue in
Newfoundland and Labrador, problematic uses of opioids, like fentanyl, morphine
and oxycodone have had particularly devastating impacts on many people in our
province and their families. I would say all of us here in the House today
probably know of someone, know of an individual who is struggling or know of a
family who is going through a difficult time because they have somebody who has
an addiction to opioids.
According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, between January '16 and March
'19 there were more than 12,800 opioid-related deaths in Canada, Mr. Speaker –
12,800 people. Those are individuals who would have left behind children,
parents, brothers, sisters and friends, just to put a face on this terrible
problem that we have in our province and right across the country. It really is
simply heartbreaking to think about.
In that
same time frame, if we take it down to our province right here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, we have had at least 70 opioid-related deaths in Newfoundland and
Labrador – 70 residents of our province whose lives are cut short, who didn't
get to go out and contribute to this society and this place that we love to call
home, Mr. Speaker, because of their problematic use of opioids. Each of these 70
individuals would have been someone's child, someone's sibling; they would have
been someone's co-worker and someone's friend. When we talk about 70 deaths,
each of them with their own story to tell, cut all too short because of their
relationship with opioids.
Because
of these tragic deaths, Mr. Speaker, there are many other harms in this province
related to opioid use. I think about the demands on health care. My colleague,
the Minister of Health, and I have many conversations around the social
determinants of health, around the strain, the pressure and the stress on our
health care system.
We all
know family members who are waiting for health care needs of some type in this
province. Then we bring in the drug problem, we bring in the opioid problem and
it really exacerbates an already strained system. The demands on health care
include increased crime and increased pressure on social services. Mr. Speaker,
we see the impacts in the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development. This is an issue that is of particular concern to me, given my
department's mandate to protect children.
In fact,
through the new provincial Children, Youth
and Families Act – which, Mr. Speaker, was proclaimed just the 28th of June
of this year – our specific purpose is to promote the safety and well-being of
children and youth who are in need of protective intervention by offering
services that are designed to maintain support and preserve the family unit.
There's a whole big focus on preserving the family unit. We know the benefits of
that versus the opposite of when children may have to come out of a home. Where
it is in the best interest of the children and the youth that is where our focus
is.
In my
department we have almost 400 social workers that work in 44 offices around the
province; social workers that work often in very challenging circumstances, Mr.
Speaker, often in remote areas. Every one of them recognizes the importance of
the family as the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the child
or youth. We do whatever we can, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that children remain at
home, but there are times – and we're talking about bringing in this bill today
– when a parent's ability to care for their child is impaired through drug use
to the point that they are no longer able to care for their child.
I've
seen many things, Mr. Speaker, over the three years I've been in the department.
One of the things I learned is often these parents that are struggling, they
don't love their children any less, but they become addicted along the way.
They're not able to help themselves and they need support. Very, very sad
situations. There are lots of sad stories out there.
The
impact of the misuse of opioids on the extended family also has a tremendous
impact, Mr. Speaker. In departments like mine where sometimes when we have to
remove a child, and it's in the best interest of their safety at the time, we
look to place them with an extended family member. We see that this opioid is no
respecter of persons. It may respect the parents – and it also has an impact,
the misuse of opioids, on the extended family. Then, that restricts or places
limits on where we are able to place these children in these circumstances.
Alternatively, there are times when CSSD has to intervene to ensure the child is
protected. Their safety must always be our main priority. Mr. Speaker, once
again, we always look to place them with someone familiar, someone they might
have had a pre-existing relationship with, but the opioid crisis we are dealing
with in this province and in Canada has an impact.
In the
interest of time and allowing some of my colleagues to speak, Mr. Speaker,
behind me, I'm going to sort of flip through some of my notes here. I just want
to say we talk a lot in my department about maintaining family connections and
how that is in the best interest of the child. I wish no parent or, indeed, no
person would be so impacted by their drug use that their lives become out of
control, but that is what we're talking about here. Then we see manufacturers
and distributors, we might say, that can take advantage of that.
I'm
reminded, Mr. Speaker, of a quote by American president, Thomas Jefferson, who
once said: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is
the first and only object of good government.” We have an ethical and a moral
obligation and a responsibility to the people of this province that we are
working for right now to bring in legislation like this to try and address some
of these serious issues in our province. I am pleased with the work our
government has done to support people and communities in this province and
address this opioid crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, some of the things my colleague for health talks about: developing a
safe prescribing course for health care professionals, implementing naloxone
community pop-up tents and these take-home kit programs, improving access to
Suboxone and implementing a prescription monitoring program are all very
positive steps in the right direction. I also want to say that people who are
struggling with opioid use and want help, they can access medication-assisted
treatment and counselling from regional opioid treatment centres in our
province. We have centres in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, Stephenville and
Goose Bay.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I want to say this bill is yet another action our
government is taking to address the harms related to opioid use in our province.
This bill will allow our government to commence action to recover cost from
opioid manufacturers and wholesalers for the harm their actions have caused
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This includes health care costs incurred in
our province in relation to the opioid crisis and the devastating impact it is
having on some of our population.
We must
all ensure we are taking all action available to us to ensure the opioid problem
that we face, that we are doing all we can, Mr. Speaker, to address it.
To that
end, I am pleased to stand here today to signal my support to Bill 17. I want to
give a little shout-out to the people in the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, the minister who is away from the House right now and also to his first
alternate, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, for bringing in this piece of
legislation. There is a lot of work that happens behind the scenes before we get
to the point of bringing the bill into the Legislature. So hats off to all these
guys.
I look
forward to listening to the rest of the debate on this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand and speak to Bill 17,
An Act to Provide for Damages
and Recovery of Opioid Related Health Care Costs. We all, in this province, have
a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we get the best return for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. Particularly, when we've been hoodwinked, when
we've been led down the garden path, when people haven't been honest with us or,
in this case, health providing corporations.
When we
in good faith – and I say we, that means everybody in the health care system who
prescribed, who encouraged the use of, who lobbied for particular drugs to be
put in a system that would benefit people and, all of a sudden, we find out that
the information we were given, that the outcomes we expected, that the process
we were engaged in was flawed. In most cases, unfortunately, it was deliberately
flawed by not sharing information we could've had.
Keeping
in mind, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we're a very small part of the global
network here that deals with health care, the types of equipment, the
interventions to training, but, particularly, the drugs and, in this case, the
opioids that are provided by various companies
Now, you
give a shout-out to a company who spends tens of millions, hundred of millions
of dollars into developing a drug that is meant to improve the quality of life
for people through health interventions. We all accept it. We applaud it. We
engage it. We even invest in it a number of times.
The
unfortunate thing, what we've been seeing has become a pattern over the last
couple of decades, it has been companies who come up with almost a miracle drug,
to a certain degree, that will alleviate a particular issue, particularly if
it's around pain management. But, all of a sudden, either are neglectful in the
amount of research they do and their findings, or deliberately decide not to
share information with us, or misinterpret their findings to make it be
something that it isn't. That's what we found.
That's
why globally, and particularly in North America, there are a number of lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies who developed pills and pharmaceuticals that
were intended by their marketing strategy and by their selling to the health
professionals – particularly doctors who would be using them and the major
senior people of health facilities and to government, government officials,
about what would go on your dispensing network list as an acceptable drug that
would do two things, would ensure quality health care and would be affordable.
Sometimes you try to weigh both off. Sometimes you go with something that has
much more of a return on the investment, but may be extremely expensive. Other
times you may say I can take a less expensive one that in the long run will
still have the desired effects, and we've done that. We have a multitude of –
hundreds, thousands of different drugs that are under the system that benefit
people.
Unfortunately, what we found over the last number of years is through research
and through interventions within the health care system, the notoriety that a
number of people are coming in with addictions, and addictions relevant to the
medications they've been prescribed. Prescribed reasonably, prescribed
professionally and prescribed in the best efforts put forward by the prescribers
– the medical professions – to include outcomes that would be positive.
What we found, they all haven't worked. They haven't worked for a reason,
because the input of the information these health professionals had at the
beginning was misleading.
The understanding the patients had from marketing, from
misleading, not because the individual who was sharing that didn't feel they
wanted to share it in the right manner, but because the information they had
wasn't accurate. It was either half-truths, not fully used in the intended way,
was partially researched to a particular group, or was sold as something that
would generate a benefit to masses; yet specifically in the research, would only
be beneficial to a small group. As a matter of fact, would be detrimental, from
a health perspective, to the other masses that would use the same medication.
So we've come to a point now where we're saying enough is
enough. People have to be held accountable – corporations, the research
components. Now we're finding out through research and through some of the
development of these opioids that individuals, people in good faith,
researchers, medical professionals, have recommended and have shared their full
findings, and in some cases have said, while this drug has many positives,
before we can put it to use in patients, we need to address the other issues
that are in it right now under its composition .
In some
cases, the corporations decide: We spent $50 million in developing this
particular pill, we spent a hundred million dollars, our shareholders need to
see a return on their investment, so we're going to put it out there because it
does do 75 per cent of what we said it would, or it does a hundred per cent of
what we said it would; unfortunately, we didn't share the 35 per cent negative
impact it's going to have on individuals when it comes to an addiction issue,
for those who might be more susceptible to being addicted to opioids.
When you
look at the bigger picture, what's being looked at here is finding the most
expeditious way that benefits us financially and ensures that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians receive some compensation back that can either address their
particular issues that they've had to face and the loss of quality of life for
themselves, but particularly the cost on our health care system.
We all
know what it takes for a health care provider to deal with opioid addictions.
All the other things that are related to that, from missed appointments to
misdiagnosis because of the individuals who are not sharing exactly what they've
been engaged in, to, again, the costing on our society from – unfortunately,
sometimes, when you get fully addicted, your need to get the extra high that you
need from that particular pill, what you're willing to do for it, the impact it
has on people's economic life, their costing, their ability to keep their
employment.
Also,
the time, because we're dealing with something that was man-made, that could
have been avoided had the proper research, the proper information shared, that
the health professionals knew exactly which groups may be more vulnerable so
that when they're treating them, they could say: This might be too harsh for
you. We're going to take another route to address your health issue.
This is
having a costing on our health system. We're spending over $3 billion in
Newfoundland and Labrador, $300 billion in this country of ours, and as part of
that process, it's at the expense of other interventions that may be necessary,
because every time somebody goes in for a particular medical procedure – if it's
an ultrasound, if it's an EKG, whatever it may be – because of something related
to a opioid addiction, or an opioid overuse, then obviously that has an impact
on other issues –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting too high.
Thank
you.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That may
be relevant to addressing the particular needs of those individuals, if it's
cancer treatment, if it's other interventions that people may have around aging
ailments, or it could be around newborn ailments. It has an impact there.
Our
medical professionals can only deal with so many people at a given time. If
they're having to unfortunately be directed in one direction – and opioid
addictions, we know the interventions after are much more encompassing than just
the standard if you went in and broke your arm and had it set and put a cast on,
you go back, get the cast off, you're done. There are all kinds of counselling
processes; there are all kinds of experimental approaches to see what will work
for these individuals. There are all kinds of counselling supports that need to
be done and they're all caused because in prescribing a medication in good
faith, to help an individual who has a particular ailment, the information that
was shared with those individuals who will help give the advice to make that
decision wasn't accurate and, unfortunately, it was deliberately not accurate.
That's
where, when you get into litigation there's a cliché we have – the good
Samaritan's rule, due diligence and these types, but you're pretty good in life
and feel comfortable that things may not always work out, things may happen. If
you did it in good faith, if you did due diligence, if you ensured you shared
proper information, the decisions made by other people that may end up being
adverse from a negative point of view is, unfortunately, their responsibility.
In the
cases of multitudes of people we deal with, 95 per cent or more, the addiction
issue here comes, in a lot of cases, from unforeseen circumstances. It comes
from an accident where they've gone and because there's extreme pain in an
intervention, an operation, the repairing of a limb or something, that they're
prescribed certain things to get them through a quality of life to be able to
continue their day-to-day activities with an opioid.
We talk
about opioids. As we know there are multitudes, tens of thousands of people in
this province who use opioids on a daily basis who don't become addicted. That's
either their own personal ability to be able to handle it, their biological
makeup, the genetic makeup, the fact that they'll understand when they're
getting to a point where they're becoming so dependent that they stop, that they
do it. Or some when they use it based on the principle I can now manage my own
pain, I don't need these types of things. But they're a vulnerable group here
for whatever reasons, social, psychological, genetically, biologically that
they're more apt to become addicted to opioids. They're the unfortunate
situations that we have here.
What we
have to do and what we're trying to do in this bill here – and my colleague had
noted there are a couple of concerns here that we would have about the
logistical part, the legal ramifications that may need some clarification so we
ensure we don't set a precedent that's going to be detrimental to other segments
of our society. In this House when we set laws and legislation, they're not only
necessarily sometimes about the piece of legislation we're debating, they have
far-reaching effects and they have precedent setting, so we need to ensure that
things are safer around that.
The
effort here to ensure that we expedite a court action to make these companies
accountable, to recover funds that are necessary to be able to put back into our
health care system, to give back to people to try to get their lives back in
order is in good faith, Mr. Speaker, and a good piece of legislation that we
need to move forward.
I know
we'll have some questions in Committee a little further that I hope will clarify
some of the concerns we may have around the logistical, legal ramifications
here, but I do encourage everybody to look at the benefits of what's trying to
be achieved here. We need to make companies accountable, no matter what industry
they're in, but, particularly in this case, when it has a major negative effect
on people's lives afterwards and affects everyone around them and affects our
society.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to further debate on this and look forward to us making
the corporate world accountable for information and services they're providing
us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long, but I always like to speak, even just for the record, I
suppose, to indicate where I'm going with these pieces of legislation.
On Bill
17, I'm not going to belabour it, but, obviously, what we're doing here is we're
allowing for legislation to assist and to give the authority for the government
to enter into civil litigation against companies responsible for opioids.
Certainly, in general, that's something that I support.
I can
tell you, over the last two or three years, in particular, I've had a number of
people come to my office, constituents and so on, with various issues that had
opioid addictions. I've seen first-hand how that has impacted their lives in so
many ways because of that opioid addiction.
Sadly,
in each case that I dealt with, at least, that addiction started at the doctor's
office, which was very, very unfortunate to say the least. While it's important
that we go after the companies that manufacture these very addictive drugs, I
think we would all be remiss if we did not, at least, acknowledge the fact that
much of the addiction that we've seen throughout our province when it comes to
opioids did indeed start at the family doctor's office or at emergency or
wherever the case might be.
I'm not
suggesting that there was anything done from a negligible point of view. It
could be, it's possible, like in any profession, but perhaps from not being well
enough trained and educated specifically in some of these drugs, I think it has
caused a problem. There's no doubt about it.
I'll say
another thing that I've noted, which is another big problem around opioid
addictions and around doctors is that there have been a number of people who
can't get a doctor if they have an opioid addiction. Now, we know we have a
problem with getting family doctors in general, but again, I had an individual
not that long ago who came in and had an opioid addiction. His doctor had
dropped him, which I thought was outrageous, to be honest with you.
I did
put in a complaint to the College of Physicians on that matter and I hope that
some action does get taken. In the meantime, called up a particular office that
had opened, where I heard that they were taking patients. I made the call, said:
Are you taking any patients? Yes, we are. I said: Well, what about if you have
an opioid addiction? Sorry, no, we're not.
So, we
have this issue with certain physicians now refusing to take patients if they
have an opioid addiction. That is a problem in itself. A big shout out to Dr.
Bruce Hollett, out to the Waterford, who has a clinic there, and certainly I was
able to refer some people to him. I think he's a tremendous resource, but we do
need to do more. I know that addictions and so on are something that this
administration has been working on and has made some progress. I applaud them
for doing that and I encourage them to continue, but there still is a problem as
it relates to these opioids.
I know
that's getting off on a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's important to
at least acknowledge those issues. It's one thing to produce a product, but
somebody had to prescribe them, someone had to be monitoring and so on. There
have to be proper mechanisms in place to address them when we run into problems,
as so many people have.
In terms
of the legislation itself, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I will support the
legislation because, in principle, I do agree with the concept of going after
these manufacturers, to hold them accountable, no different than what was done
with tobacco manufacturers. It's really the same thing. I think vaping, perhaps,
will be the next thing, that if there's not already class actions, there
probably is going to be and probably should be things put in place to deal with
that as well; but, certainly, I support it in principle.
I have
to say though, just for the record, while I do support it, there's a log of
legalese in here. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins
and outs of this. I can only say that the Department of Justice and their
lawyers have obviously had input in this. They feel that this is the legislation
they need to do what they need to do, which is a good thing.
I will
say in terms of process and in terms of a Member having to stand up here and
vote for a piece of legislation, this one was particularly frustrating because
when I went to the briefing, I asked questions such as – and hopefully when we
get to Committee, the minister might have some answers. In the briefing, asking
the question aren't we already part – and I think this has already been
referenced by the Member for Harbour Main and so on, but we're already part of a
class action which was initiated by the Province of British Columbia, I believe.
We're already named in that; we're already a part of that.
question was if we're simply part of that now, why would we need to be passing
legislation? Why do we need this legislation if we're already named a part of
that? We can't really say. Okay, you can't really say. So, does it mean then, if
we pass this legislation, the intent is that we're going to detach ourselves, if
you will, from the class action in BC and do it on our own? We can't really say.
There
were a number of questions around exactly why is it that we're doing this. Why
are we doing it? What is the strategy? What is the plan? The answer kept on
being the same: We can't say, we can't say, we can't say. I'm like, well, why
can't we say? Client-solicitor privilege was basically the answer. I said: Okay,
so what do you mean client-solicitor privilege? Who is the client here? The
Department of Justice. I said, okay.
So, you
want me to stand in the House of Assembly, support a piece of legislation –
while it may very well be good legislation – but you're asking me to support a
piece of legislation to allow you to take some action or not take some action. I
don't know what you're going to do with it; I don't know why you're doing it,
but just vote for it anyway. Basically that's what we're being asked to do.
We're
being asked to vote for this legislation which would allow the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to enter into a civil litigation. I guess it means if
the one that we're part of in BC fails, we can try it again on our own. Or if we
don't like the way the one in BC is going, we can opt out and try it on our own,
or maybe we can join a different one. I don't know, again, I don't know the
strategy, but I can only assume it gives us more options and opportunities. I
guess on a little bit of leap of faith, I suppose, we're saying: Okay, we're
going to give you this tool that you're telling me that you need that will help
us in getting the best result for our province. I guess that's what it comes
down to.
I guess
I'm prepared to do that, but it's important to point out that if by passing
this, that they use this tool and someone says, well, you shouldn't have done
that; you should have stayed as part of the other one or whatever and you would
have done better, well, it's no good to say, well, you voted for it, because I
don't really know in a sense what it is I'm voting for in terms of the strategy.
All I know is I'm voting for a tool that I'm being told is something that they
need and can use and would better our cause, and I have to take faith in that I
am being told the best information to do what they feel is the best thing and
what's going to work best for our province.
I throw
that out there because I'm always a little bit hesitant, because I've sat in a
room before, sat across a table before from people who supposedly had the best
interests of our province in mind and told information and told don't worry
about this, don't worry about that, we got it handled. We know where that went.
course, I'm referring to the Muskrat Falls Project and so on and being told by
people who supposedly knew what they were doing and had all the answers and I
had to believe them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
(Inaudible) this bill.
MR. LANE:
I had no choice but believe
them.
Again,
I'm doing the same thing and I'm not trying to say what I'm being told here is
wrong or is not the right strategy, but I guess I'm just trying to make the
point, Mr. Speaker, that to draw that little comparison that that's kind of what
we're doing. We're voting to allow the Department of Justice to have another
tool for some strategy that I don't know what that strategy is because nobody
will tell me. That's the point I'm making.
With
that said, I will have faith in our officials and our Minister of Justice that
they do know what they're doing, that this is going to be useful, it's going to
get us the best result. I will support the legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
saddened, in a way, to have to stand and support this bill, rather than pleased,
but it is the way I think to go.
You only
have to sit in a room with a recovery forum and listen to the tragedies unfold
as to what opioids have done to the people of this province, mirrored across the
rest of the country, to realize that really, in a sense, the money that we're
talking about here is simply a pale reflection of any kind of compensation; but
having said that, it's the best we can do. It's the only way of holding to
account the people involved, because that, at the end of the day, is the only
thing they place any value on – and it's been blatantly obvious from their
behaviour from the outset – is money. The whole of this has been driven by
money.
This,
Mr. Speaker, is not a warning shot across the bows of Purdue or Sackler
brothers. This is actually a piece of plate armour going on the tip of the spear
that's going after them for the damage that they have deliberately inflicted on
the Canadian public and the people of this province. I don't think that is a
hyperbole or exaggeration.
They
have deliberately misled prescribers and deliberately misled the public by
concealing evidence they had in their possession that would have told them and
allowed prescribers to know of the full dangers of these drugs. They withheld it
simply to increase market share and become simply the most successful drug
pushers this province has ever seen.
Our
problem, as the Members Opposite have alluded to, has been around prescription
opioids. They have been prescribed because the medical profession, the
pharmacists, the nurse practitioners were essentially told there was no downside
to these drugs at all, and that was blatantly and knowingly false at the time
those statements were made by employees of Purdue and representatives of the
Sackler family.
When
you're talking in second reading, you have to talk about the intent of the act.
I think we've already gone very rapidly from that into details around
litigation. Some of the challenges the staff, I think, at JPS had, when in the
briefing, was around litigation strategy.
Contrary
to popular opinion, I think this piece of the House Legislature televising will
be actually quite popular in legal circles. Because you can bet your bottom
dollar, that for $52 billion, Sackler has somebody somewhere sitting there
watching this, seeing where we are going with our strategy. Whilst it would be
nice to be able to answer some of those questions, the what ifs and where you
go, the reason they're watching is in case I'm daft enough to tell them what our
plan might be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
So, for example, the Members
offered it quite legitimately, referenced
section 12, which seems to kind of
undermine other previous decisions of the court. It's there in
an act which is
not going to be proclaimed unless necessary, but is there to deal with what's
already on the books.
Which
is, for some reason, Saskatchewan has it in its head that it represents
Newfoundland and Labrador in the courts and has signed on to what can only be
described as a pathetic agreement which the best would give us $1 million or $2
million. That's not going to go anywhere near this. In the course of four
months, my department will spend more than that on prescription fees alone for
opioid treatment – prescription fees alone for opioid treatment. At some point,
we need to be able to say what is in the best interest of the people of this
province.
What
this bill does, which is unique, is it presents part of a united front. This is
a transnational lawsuit. The settlement in the States – at the moment, Purdue is
before the courts in the States trying to suck all its Canadian assets into the
States so we have nothing. So when we get to the table it's all gone to the
States. We need to find ways of protecting ourselves against that.
The
bottom line is this is part of the piece of armour, as it were, that goes across
from Vancouver and Victoria all the way to St. John's and all the way up to the
Arctic Circle. Because, together, it sends a very clear message of intent to
courts in the States and it also sends a very clear message to the Canadian
courts that are already involved.
We have
learned that tobacco has dragged it through litigation into settlement in a
sequential fashion and it tied things up for well over two decades. This allows
parallel litigation and settlement discussions to proceed unimpeded across the
board. It allows us as a government to take direct action against the drug
companies, the wholesalers and the individuals who are on the boards of those
companies as individuals.
Sackler
sucked his money out. He has it stashed away somewhere, but as an individual he
– with this legislation, if it's ever enacted – can become liable if other
things do not work.
The
bottom line is it also allows us to use population data. We have to be able now
only simply to show harm to the people of this province and provide a quantum,
not harm to a named individual in the class action, which is unique as far as I
have been told.
Again,
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not here as a lawyer. We have legal expertise on both
sides of the House who can go into the detail. We are actually here as
legislators. I am here as a former prescriber of OxyContin who has seen the
light and now wears a different hat. You can't turn the clock back, but you can
go on the next best steps.
So it is
focused on the population of this province and safeguarding our interests. The
reason it is phrased like this, it is tied up in litigation strategy which is
best left to the litigators; it's best left to the lawyers.
These
tools are all ones that have been tested under fire all the way up to the
Supreme Court of Canada in relation to tobacco, and there are a couple of twists
of things we have learned since then which are in there. They speak to some of
the questions, quite legitimately raised by Members of the Opposition, around
some of the nuances of the technicalities of this bill. We can get into that in
Committee.
Again, I
would caution people, remember, it will be a question of balancing due diligence
so that everyone is comfortable that we're making the right decision in the best
interests of the people of this province. Within actual fact, laying out your
entire game plan for someone else to look at. To be honest, I would suspect the
kind of legal minds this crowd can employ would be able to see the – join the
dots and join the lines, but we can't do anything about that. We just don't need
to make their job too much easier in the process.
So,
again, if the Sackler brothers or Purdue or their lawyers are actually
listening, this bill is to hold you accountable as organizations and as
directors for the untold damage you have wreaked on the people of this province.
All we will be able to do through our resources is to put in health economists
who will come up with sums, and they will boggle the mind.
We have
millions of dollars a year being spent on medical transportation for addiction
services. We have nearly $5 million a year we have put into the new addictions
hub and spoke model – and that will expand. We have an ask in for the federal
government for further support. We have huge bills coming, and this does not yet
quantify the health impact that's indirect.
There
was an estimate in 2014 through CIHI that we were, as a province, $50 million
down on indirect health care costs in this province. Since then – that was 2014
– in 2015, when I walked into this office, there were 1,200 people on the
methadone program. As of the beginning of this year, there are 3,300 people on
the methadone and Suboxone program. In addition to that, we have wrapped
services around them that were not there before to fill the gaps.
This
morning, I was speaking to stakeholder groups who are involved in peer and
front-line work around addictions and people with substance use issues. They
were suggesting to me that the number of people whose lives have been impacted
directly by opioid and substance use issues is, in actual fact, probably three
times the number that we are aware of. We've gone from 50 million in 2014 to at
least three times that number today on the figures we know about. You can
multiply that in turn by three; this is a geometric progression in terms of
cost.
On that
note, I wish to just sum up once more so if anyone is in any doubt about this.
To the wholesalers and the manufacturers of these drugs that were marketed
deceptively: We are coming for you. I would urge every Member in the House to
vote for this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
excellent legislation and I am pleased to see it come. I do have a couple of
questions I would like to pose to the House. I would like to point out there are
a number of areas that this opens up for discussion, so perhaps it could lead to
some other potential legislation along the way.
Certainly, one of the first things that comes to mind is while this legislation
is a backstop to the broader legislation being proposed in British Columbia, I
see nowhere the criteria listed for when this legislation would be enacted. For
example, if the legislation in BC turns out to not be making any headway or any
tracti