May

27, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 33

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Fitzgerald) Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for

the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's

East; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2008 of

Baltimore School in Ferryland. On Thursday, May 8, I had the pleasure of

attending the graduating ceremony along with the graduates, parents and special

guests.

The evening started with a mass service followed by the graduates and their

families joining for a dinner reception and grand march. The graduating class of

Baltimore witnessed forty young men and women take a new bold step in turning a

page on one

chapter of their lives and opening the page on the next.

The verse chosen to be printed in the evening's program is indeed fitting

for the opportunities available in our Province today. It stated: Always have a

dream, no matter what comes your way. Remember life is what you choose, not what

you hope. Always have a dream, keep pressing towards the prize. Release the

past, embrace tomorrow, let your spirits rise.

Mr. Speaker, Baltimore school supports the young people from Kindergarten to

Level III from Brigus South to Cappahayden. It has a long tradition of

excellence in academic and athletic achievements and the class of 2008, no

doubt, has continued to contribute to the school's tradition and no doubt will

embrace all tomorrows and let their spirit rise.

It was indeed a pleasure for me as MHA to share with these young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their

successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities

that await them in the future.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Baltimore graduating

class of 2008 for their achievements to date and wish them well in all future

endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the

Jewish Holocaust Memorial Service which was held recently on the campus of

Memorial University. It was indeed my very good fortune to be invited to this

very moving and emotional event.

The Holocaust Memorial Service is held annually by the local Jewish community

as part of a worldwide effort to not only recognize the tragic loss of life but

to remind us that the Holocaust took place because individuals, groups and

nations, decided to act or, more importantly, not act.

The theme of this year's service was "Children of the Holocaust".

The stories of three Jewish children caught up in the Holocaust brought home the

horror of those times.

Particularly moving was the story of Felyks Kohn who

escaped the concentration camps at age twelve. While highlighting the abuse he

suffered, it also showed the compassion of ordinary passers-by who would have

been better served to do nothing for this escapee but instead chose to help, at

great risk to themselves.

The story was made even more poignant when the narrator, Dr. Barbara Grandy,

introduced Mr. Kohn, who was in attendance, to the audience.

This service also made a particular point to acknowledge the less familiar

victims of the Nazi regime. Groups such as Gypsies, homosexuals, the

developmentally delayed, and the physically challenged were disposed of for no

other reason than they could possibly compromise the gene pool of Hitler's

"Master Race".

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending

congratulations to the organizers of this very necessary Memorial Service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 512 Air Cadet

Squadron of Bishop's Falls on another successful annual review and promoting

leadership and goodwill among our youth.

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, the squadron held its fifty-ninth Annual Inspection,

and the review was conducted by eighty-sixyear-old Gordon Lannon of Bishop's

Falls, a World War II Veteran.

Throughout the year the cadets participate in community events, improve their

physical and intellectual capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the event was also an opportunity for the cadets to perform

mobile displays such as their drill team, effective speaking and, of course, the

band.

This was followed by the presentation of awards for which the cadets were

recognized for annual performances, attendance, and dedication to the cadet

movement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the

512 Exploits Squadron on a successful year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform members of this hon. House of an

important partnership that our government entered into earlier this morning with

two community partners, the Canadian Red Cross and Newfoundland Power, with the

objective of enhancing emergency preparedness throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Over the years, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Red

Cross, Newfoundland Power, and a host of other agencies, departments and

corporations, have carried out and established strong histories in emergency

response. When a disaster strikes, representatives from all these organizations

are among the first groups to respond. Although each operates to achieve

different objectives during an emergency situation, there was a clear

opportunity for partnerships identified which involves maximizing response when

a disaster strikes.

Mr. Speaker, when individuals and families are prepared for emergency

situations it not only benefits the responders, but also those people who find

themselves in situations requiring immediate aid. In choosing to get prepared,

individuals help themselves and others by giving emergency personnel the ability

to respond to those in most need.

Thus, the Ready.Kit.GO! partnership was developed with the purpose of

providing education and awareness to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on how to

prepare themselves for the unexpected.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure we can agree, adverse weather and its impacts are a

major concern in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Ready.Kit.GO! partners will work

together to encourage individuals to take action by being prepared for any

potential emergencies including flooding, ice storms, heavy snowfalls, high

winds and seas, et cetera.

The partnership objectives include: To maximize emergency preparedness

education and awareness in Newfoundland and Labrador; to increase the number of

people who are educated about and prepared for potential emergency situations;

to increase confidence in an individual's ability to handle an emergency

situation; and, to strengthen the ability of emergency personnel to respond in

the most effective manner possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the community sponsors that came

together and encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to do their part as

well, because emergency preparedness starts with the individual.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and say it

is very encouraging to see such wonderful community individuals, such as the Red

Cross and Newfoundland Power, coming together with government to make sure that

we are better prepared in this Province for any emergencies that may come our

way.

I am all too familiar with what happened last August in my local area, and to

see how people came together, the various groups and organizations, the two that

we mentioned here and many other community groups, who came together.

I believe, Minister, that many of the residents of our Province, in similar

situations throughout our Province, are becoming better prepared themselves.

When we see groups coming together to work with government, I guess it makes it

all the better.

The only thing I would have to say, I think back to the September 11 issue

that struck our Province back a few years ago. I know many of our municipalities

were getting prepared for emergency plans. I know some of them have done that,

and hopefully that will continue, working with government so that there is a

major, massive plan throughout our Province. Hopefully, all that will be

documented and we will know where each and every community in our Province is

working together with government.

So I want to congratulate the groups on this initiative, and we look forward

to others taking part as we prepare for any emergencies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

As we said a few weeks ago, when the minister made a statement during the

National Emergency Preparedness Week, everything that we can do in this way is

very, very important. The partners that the government is announcing today are

two extremely important partners in doing the work of emergency preparedness.

I was very pleased during the Estimates meeting of the minister's

department to get an update, both with regard to the commitment to coordination

of the emergency preparedness plans that communities are putting in place, and

the realization that the Fire and Emergency Services Agency is committed to

coordinating those plans.

I also was quite pleased, though, to learn about the emergency relief and the

status of emergency relief, which is the other end of the emergency, and the

fact that after the storm Gabrielle, of 900 claims after that storm, when the

minister reported there are only thirty-five left to be taken care of. I think

that is really good and I encourage the minister to keep up that kind of

response.

The other thing the minister told us in the Estimates meeting is that the

Province is working with the federal government to try to streamline the

emergency relief. We have examples of where that streamlining is essential, and

I encourage the ministry to continue with that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The Chair at this time would like to recognize a former Member of the House

of Assembly, the former Member for Labrador West, and welcome to the House of

Assembly, Mr. Perry Canning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government opposite continuously states that it is one of

the most open, most transparent and accountable governments in the Province's

history. However, its actions say something entirely different.

Yesterday, we received two pieces of legislation related to the Energy

Corporation. In our initial review, these proposed amendments will make this

corporation one of the most secretive organizational structures within

government, above the Access to Information Act, outside of the standard

auditing provisions and not subject to the laws that now govern other

departments of government.

I ask the Premier: Why would you be bringing forward such draconian

legislation in this House of Assembly for debate, especially in the last days of

the session?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked proudly about our resources in this Province and

how we want to develop them in the best interests of the people of the Province.

We have talked about the establishment of our Energy Corporation, who will

manage all of our equity and oil and gas and other resource developments here in

the Province. The oil and gas, the energy company, Mr. Speaker, is a hybrid. It

needs to function in the real world of business but at the same time it has to

be accountable to the people of the Province. What we are doing in this

legislation is giving the Energy Corporation the tools to be able to do that

effectively.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks it is in the best interests

of the public to shut them out of their own Energy Corporation and not allow

them to be divulged any information whatsoever, well I guess her definition of

public interest is much different than mine. Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance

to debate the legislation and I can guarantee the minister that it will receive

full vetting from the Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, if he will give his commitment today

that they will not invoke closure before a full and open debate occurs on Bill

35 and 36, and also that there is public consultation held with regard to those

pieces of legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would not expect any less from the Opposition. That is their job to

question this legislation and make sure that there is a high level of

accountability. That is why you have an Opposition, because even though we have

a very good government here it is always important to ask questions. We are not

going to invoke closure, Mr. Speaker. I have invited members of the Opposition

to a technical briefing tomorrow morning. I have offered, or in the process of

offering to the media a technical briefing tomorrow morning. We are prepared to

discuss the bill. We have delayed having second reading here today to give them

time to prepare, and we will stay here as long as it takes, Mr. Speaker. We are

proud of what we are trying to achieve here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can tell me if they are prepared to go for public

consultation regarding this legislation, as well?.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a full and open debate

here in this House of Assembly. We have been very clear, right from the

beginning, in terms of our Blue Book, what we were doing in terms of resource

development and how we were going to handle government owned equity and

government owned resources in this Province. This is the appropriate place for

that discussion, Mr. Speaker, and that is where it is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the recent Budget, government added two new drugs to the formula to

benefit those who suffer from kidney cancer. One of the drugs, Nexavar, is also

being prescribed to patients in the Province who suffer from rare liver cancer.

Prescribing of the drug to these patients - I think there are less than ten of

them in the Province - was a last ditch effort in terms of treatment. However,

the drug costs approximately $6,000 per month and those particular patients are

not covered.

I ask the minister: Will you commit today to broaden the coverage so that

these people who suffer with other forms of cancer, outside of those that you

have prescribed it for with kidney cancer, can also avail of the drugs at an

affordable rate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the drug that the member opposite is referring

to: Nexavar - I guess is the pronunciation - was included in this year's

Budget. It is now being prescribed for people in the Province who are suffering

from a form of cancer.

One of the things that I have said in this House before, I described the

process for having prescription drugs covered under our Prescription Drug

Program, all of these drugs as they enter the market, after they have gone

through their experimental phase and approval by Health Canada, they are

evaluated by a national panel. These are people who represent all of the

jurisdictions across the country, expect Quebec, and participate in a joint

process to evaluate drugs before they go on any provincial formulary. That

particular joint committee has not yet reviewed this particular medication for

liver cancer.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the process of being done now and when that evaluation is concluded,

they make recommendations to all jurisdictions in the country and we await their

recommendation to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that Nexavar is already funded for primary liver

cancer on patient-by-patient cases in certain provinces in Canada already. I say

to you, Minister, I understand the process and how a review works but these

patients desperately need medications and they need them today.

I have to ask you again, sir: What are you prepared to do, immediately, to

ensure that these individuals - some of them will run out of medications within

the next three weeks. What will you do to ensure that they will not have to go

without this drug that is a lifesaving drug for them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand, individuals in the Province today who may be taking this

particular medication were taking it as a part of the experimental process. As I

understand it as well, the review itself, the review that I just mentioned

earlier is underway as we speak and we await the recommendations of that review.

I think it is irresponsible of us to start adding drugs to our formulary without

a recommendation that has come from an already well-structured group of experts

in the field to do this kind of evaluation. As I said earlier, they do it for

every single province in the entire country, with the exception of Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These people need the drugs immediately, minister. I cannot stress that

enough. At a cost of $6,000 per month it is not affordable to them and I ask

that you look at a rapid review process. Look at what has been done in British

Columbia, look at what has been done in Quebec, where patients who suffer from

those same diseases in those provinces today have access to the drug.

Will you not do that and ensure that they have the medications, immediately?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the mechanism that we have as a Province

to evaluate any drug for its appropriateness and

appropriate treatment for any disorder is through a national review process, I

say, Mr. Speaker.

In this Province, ourselves, we do not have such a stand-alone committee. We

have participated in this process now since - I think it was March, 2007, this

program was established to look at all drugs, all prescription drugs that will

treat any form of cancer, I say, Mr. Speaker.

This particular committee will make the recommendations to this Province, as

they will with other jurisdictions, and when we get that recommendation we will

make a decision at that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that provinces do add drugs and expand drug programs

without the full review process that is done on a national level. With this

drug, it has been already added in British Columbia and in Quebec on a

patient-by-patient basis.

Again, minister: Will you not act immediately to ensure that these

individuals out there today, who I do not want to name here in the House of

Assembly but will tell you are running out of medications and they need to have

it immediately, will you not act today to ensure that the program is broadened

to accommodate those less than ten patients?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it would be completely irresponsible for me, as

a minister, to act independently without having the evidence, without having the

recommendations from a group of experts who are commissioned to actually do this

evaluation. When they have provided their expert opinion, I will be in a

position to make an informed decision. I do not have the capacity as a minister

to make that kind of clinical judgement, that clinical decision, and we do not

have the capacity in our own Province to take those kinds of evaluations, and

that is why we participate in the process. So, when the committee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: When the committee in question makes a recommendation that

they provide to others, I will be in a position to make a decision, Mr. Speaker.

If that happens in the next few days, I will be in a position to make that. If

it does not happen for a couple of weeks, I will not be in a position until that

happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are currently nearly 300 people on a waitlist in this Province to see a

urologist. It takes several months before many of these patients will be seen

and the wait-lists themselves are exceeding government's own benchmark

standards that they have put in place.

I ask you, minister: What is government doing to ensure that patients in

Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be seen by a urologist and seen in a

timely manner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of urology service in the Province; unfortunately,

Eastern Health had a urologist lined up to join the practice here in St. John's

in September of this year and the urology practice here would have been happy

with that additional individual coming to join their practice. In fact, Eastern

Health had made arrangements to provide the additional clinic space, to provide

the additional OR time so that individual could practice. Just very recently, in

the matter of the last recent days, that individual has advised Eastern Health

that he will not be coming in September. In fact, he is going to continue his

education for another year.

The original plan, Mr. Speaker, was to have this individual join in September

of this year. I think it was next year, another individual was joining. They had

two people lined up, one this year, one next year, coming out of the fellowship

program. So they had not been aggressively recruiting, I say, Mr. Speaker,

because of that. Now with this recent announcement, they have now much more

aggressively approached the recruitment and will continue to try to find

additional urologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the wait-list continues to grow for patients in this Province who need the

treatment of a urologist, I ask the minister: What is government looking at as

an interim or immediate solution? Are you looking at referring patients out of

the Province? If so, where will they be referred and at what cost will that be

to the taxpayer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so I can conclude my earlier comments.

Western Health has just recently been able to recruit another urologist as well.

So that individual will be arriving in Corner Brook soon, as I understand it.

In the interim, though, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health is trying to make

arrangements with other jurisdictions to be able to take patients on an urgent

basis who need that kind of intervention by an urologist.

With respect to the cost, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have

always approached this in a very simple fashion. If the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador need access to health services - like last year, for example, when

we needed to have people go out for radiation treatment - we identified the

need, we identified the location for those individuals to travel, and we have

covered the cost of that. The same thing will happen here, Mr. Speaker. We will

identify locations for those individuals to get the service, and when they do

that we will cover the cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know that there is almost a 60 per cent vacancy

rate for urologists in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister

talked about one physician being recruited in the Western Health Authority, Mr.

Speaker, or possibly being recruited, but I have to say, Minister, you have been

aware of these problems going back to October 2006. You have had ample

opportunity to deal with it.

I ask you again today: What are you going to do to increase the recruitment

drive to ensure that we can attain more urologists in this Province, at least a

better percentage than 40 per cent of our workload?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me repeat what I just said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker.

Eastern Health had been successful, as they thought, in recruiting two new

urologists: one to arrive this year, one to arrive next year.

The one that was planning to arrive in September would have made a major

difference to the current wait list and would have been a major asset to those

who are currently in that practice, I say, Mr. Speaker.

That fell off the rails the last couple of days, so they have now turned

their heads to very aggressively trying to recruit another individual. They have

engaged some recruiting agencies to give them a hand with that process, I say,

Mr. Speaker, but in the interim they are making arrangements with some other

jurisdictions to be able to take some patients for us so they will not have to

endure that unwieldy wait list that they are referring to, and we will be able

to provide timely access to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need

that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in other provinces in Atlantic Canada the wait list

is less than six weeks to see an urologist. In Newfoundland and Labrador that

wait list is extending by a number of months. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has

set benchmarks in this Province for wait lists in terms of how long a person

should have to wait before they can get treatment.

I ask you, Minister: What is the point in having benchmarks set within our

health care system if you are not going to provide the resources to be able to

meet those needs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The benchmarks that the member opposite refers to is a

series of services that each province in the country has agreed to start

monitoring the wait times, establish benchmarks for receiving those services.

I say, Mr. Speaker, within those defined services we are well within the

national average with respect to our wait time. There may be services like

urology which are not a part of that benchmark process, Mr. Speaker, but they

may, in fact, on occasion, like today there may be some long wait lists for

that.

We recognize that, Mr. Speaker, and we are doing two things, as I said a

moment ago: firstly, making sure that individuals of this Province have timely

access to the service, and we are working with other jurisdictions to be able to

help us with that. Secondly is the issue of the recruitment, Mr. Speaker, and we

have now engaged some recruiting agencies to give Eastern Health a hand with

that recruitment process. Hopefully, they will enjoy some success in the very

near future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On February 5, a letter was written on behalf of all the CEOs of the health

boards to the Department of Health and Community Services expressing strong and

unanimous support to implement legislation to licence midwifery as a

self-regulated profession in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister today: Have you responded to that request, and what were

your recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: In order for any profession to practice in Newfoundland and

Labrador they need to be regulated. One of the things that we do not have in

this Province is the necessary legislation to govern midwifery practice.

One of the things that I have said in response to the discussion we had in

this House recently with respect to laboratory technologists, another profession

who do not have any regulations governing them, I have indicated publicly, as

well as in this House, that it is our intention to look at umbrella legislation

to cover off a variety of health disciplines and I hope to be in a position to

move that agenda forward some time this fall; but, until we have the legislative

regime in place, we will not be having midwifery practice here until such a

legislative and regulatory framework gets established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that we are one of only two provinces in the country

that do not have this legislation in place. He would also know that there is a

push for it right across the Province by those who work in the profession and

also outside the country. We have proven that it works, because it is provided

in the Labrador Region at this present time.

I ask the minister: In bringing forward legislation on this in the fall, will

they also be looking at providing for the funding and the addition of the

positions within the health care sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: With respect to resourcing, whether it is midwives or

whether it is laboratory technologists or physicians and nurses, Mr. Speaker, we

will continue to do, as we have in the last four and a half, five years, we will

continue to resource our four regional health authorities to ensure they have

the fiscal capacity to be able to recruit the necessary human resources they

need to deliver the programs and services that they have been mandated to do on

behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The financial benefits of midwifes is evident in the lower number of

C-Sections required when a woman is cared for by a midwife. This would also fill

the service gaps that have been left by the shortage of obstetricians in the

Province.

I ask the minister: has your department reviewed the cost benefit analysis of

legislating midwifes as health care professionals, and adding them as a

mandatory service to our health corporations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The last time there was a review done on that particular

issue, it was done by a former colleague of yours when you were in government,

Joan Marie Aylward. I think she deferred making that decision until such time as

your government was ready to turn your heads to it. We have done just that and

recognized that we need to create the legislative framework to have it put in

place.

As I said earlier, it is our intention to try to move forward with that kind

of umbrella legislation to deal not just with midwifes but a variety of

disciplines that are not yet regulated in our Province. It is our intent to

provide umbrella legislation to be able to do that. When we have that in place,

Mr. Speaker, we will be much faster than the previous administration in

providing the necessary resources to be able to hire the necessary human

resources that we actually need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Business.

Yesterday, the Minister of Business stated that he would not release any

details relating to Prudential Consulting and the government's decision to

reject the proposal that would have created 150 jobs in Central Newfoundland.

The government of New Brunswick meanwhile recently approved a similar project,

and in our conversation with officials there they say Prudential is a well

established, credible company in that province and the project is a good

investment.

I ask the Minister of Business: why is the deal good for New Brunswick? There

is also one in Nova Scotia. Why are they credible enough to deal with Keyin

College in this Province, for example, and yet their deal wasn't good enough

for the Department of Business to deal with here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as clearly outlined by the Minister of Business

yesterday in regard to releasing sensitive information with regard to business

deals in this Province and going forward with the due diligence part of that

process, it is incumbent on us to always respect the wishes of the particular

investor. Certainly, because of disclosure agreements and confidentiality

agreements we have to respect that. We are not in a position at this particular

time, and neither is the Minister of Business, with releasing any information in

regard to anything pertaining to that business deal with Prudential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite evident that the minister is unwilling to provide any pertinent

details whatsoever on the file, which potentially saw 150 jobs lost in this

Province.

Now, Prudential Consulting Inc. is well known and established worldwide, and

it provides a range of services.

I ask the minister: Can you at least tell us what type of service was going

to be provided in this Province by Prudential?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, as was asked, I am not able to provide that

information at this particular time.

The Minister of Business is out of the Province on business. Certainly, he

will have to review that file in regard to those disclosure agreements and

confidentiality agreements, and pertaining to those, and what was written in

those, and agreed by the two parties in question, the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and the particular business, Prudential, that we are talking about,

that has to be reviewed before we can release any information, because we would

not want to violate any confidentiality agreements that may be in place with the

Department of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Government Services is, no doubt, standing in as the

alternate for the Minister of Business, I take it. Therefore, he is aware of his

briefing book and what is happening in the department; otherwise, he would not

be doing that.

I state for the record that the Minister of Business, in Estimates meetings

recently, indicated that he had travelled to India regarding several business

files concerning this Province.

I ask the minister: Was one of the files that he dealt with, while he was in

India, Prudential Consulting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that under

advisement in regard to the confidentiality agreements that are in place, and

have to be reviewed, and see if that particular information can be released.

Certainly, the minister did go to India in regard to the pursuit of inward

investment in this Province. It was a worthwhile trip, connected to a federal

delegation as well, as I understand it, and certainly we will see what happens

with that particular trip by the minister.

Certainly, we envision inward investment in this Province from various parts

of the world as we grow our economy, and the Department of Business and the

minister is certainly aware of that and certainly going to pursue it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Minister of Business is responsible for attracting new business

to the Province, and the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is

responsible for keeping businesses here in the Province, and encouraging those.

Both ministers have witnessed, in the past couple of days, a loss of 150 jobs on

their watch. As the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development knows,

Island Aggregates of Deer Lake just announced 150 layoffs as a result of the

company closing.

I ask the minister: Are there any current financial arrangements - loans,

investments, whatever - by this company at the present time with the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Island Aggregates have found themselves

in some financial difficulty, the details of which I am somewhat familiar with;

but, of course, it is a private enterprise and it is up to them to deal with it.

As to the question of whether there is any money in Island Aggregates by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, and I

cannot give you the exact figure - I can get it for the member immediately after

Question Period, and the term, and what it was for; I am certain that is

something I can provide - but I am aware that we did have a small investment in

Island Aggregates going back some years, the details of which I would be more

than happy to provide to the member after Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, at the Commission of Inquiry over the past couple of months we

have heard testimony from the former CEO, the present acting CEO, the former

vice-president and the current vice-president, that a major issue they have all

faced is trying to deal with the daily running of the authority while dealing at

the same time with the job of restructuring.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is this government going to put necessary

financial monies into the health care authorities so they can put real effort

into the ongoing reorganizing that is clearly an issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how many times I can answer that question in a different way.

We are putting $2.3 billion into health care in this Province. Since we have

formed government in 2003 the health budget has increased by some $700 million a

year. Now, Mr. Speaker, with that kind of financial investment, each and every

year since we have been in government there have been significant increases in

our health investment; in the last three in particular close to 10 per cent

annually.

Major financial contributions to the four authorities - and those four

authorities are the primary benefactors of that money. I think in Estimates you

will recall that of the $2.3 billion that is being spent, $1.6 billion or $1.7

billion, I think it is, goes directly to the health authorities to respond to

their mandate to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say, Mr. Speaker, with that kind of continual annual increase in the

investment we are making in health care, I am not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by simply saying that the transition process that the health

authorities are going through is a very natural process; they have been able to

manage it quite appropriately in the last two or three years. There are still

some outstanding issues, but they will deal with those in due course, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will put it very clearly, what was said by some of the people I have

referred to already, that they needed staff who were dedicated to nothing else

but reorganizing - not the daily running, but the reorganizing.

The money that the minister is speaking about, there is nothing in that money

that is dedicated to allowing teams to be put in place to have dedicated staff

working on reorganizing. That is what I am asking the minister is he willing to

do.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member opposite were to listen

to the transcript of the inquiry more closely she would have gotten the full

response, which was - I heard several of them say - in retrospect, in hindsight,

had we known today, or knew then what we know today, we may have asked for some

additional resources; we may have approached it differently.

Here we are in 2008, three years after we announced the consolidation of the

authorities in this Province, and some of them have all but completed the major

piece of the transition process that will occur in bringing organizations

together. So they are sitting in 2008 reflecting on the last two or three years.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that they said, too, which the member opposite

did not say, is that with respect to the ER-PR issue they, too, would have

recognized that had they wanted to manage that issue they may have now

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am speaking in the present. I am not speaking in retrospect. I am speaking

out of conversations that I have had with people in administration in the health

authorities. I am speaking out of conversations that I have had with those who

are offering the services. They say that still things are not organized; still,

they need to have things put in place for a clear communication, for a good

running of the agencies, so that all the authorities are running under the same

policies. There is massive work still to be done.

Will this government recognize the reorganizing work that needs to be done?

That is all I am asking.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: All I am telling you is that we have invested heavily in

health care in the last three to four years, and we will continue to do that.

These great conversations that the member opposite is having with people in

the health authorities at 10:00 o'clock this morning I spent an hour with

the board chair and the CEO of Eastern Health. We spoke for an hour on a variety

of things, but not once, not one single word, not one single question around

their need for more money to deal with transition issues. They talked about a

variety of programming challenges, they talked about their budget for next year,

they talked about some of the things they want to do in the long term, and they

talked about their vision for the future. All of that, Mr. Speaker, but not once

did either one of them say to me, we need more money today to deal with the

outstanding issues as a result of transition. Not one comment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to table the 2007 Business and Financial Report

for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I further table, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition,

approximate expenditures on the Lower Churchill Project to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I herewith table in the House of

Assembly the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April,

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Pouch

Cove, Torbay and area with regards to the Torbay Bypass Road.

I know I have presented several petitions now on behalf of those residents,

Mr. Speaker. I have to say that they have major concerns with regards to the

starting point of that particular highway, where it will travel through

approximately two kilometres of the Town of Torbay, and from all indications,

what has been planned is a five-lane highway. The people are asking in that area

if government would reconsider the starting point and more or less bypass the

town so that they will get away from the residential area and all the people. I

think there are 214 residents on that particular two-kilometre stretch and they

have major concerns for safety of the children who may have to cross a five-lane

highway for their bus transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I know the officials have met with some residents. They have

been dealing with that and I am just asking the minister, and through the

minister to the government, to take particular notice to the concerns that the

people have expressed. We do know that a couple of issues that have arisen are

in the area next to the airport where they have considerable problems with

diverting the road that way because of the extra costs of the construction and

the terrain, and also the watershed area.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition and urge government to reconsider the

beginning of that route. Hopefully, that can be addressed to address the

concerns of the residents of that particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Also,

further to that, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 3, pursuant to Standing Order 11

that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today being Tuesday, May 27.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock

today, Tuesday May 27, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today, being

Tuesday, May 27, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Order 10, second reading of a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

We continue debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 is

now open for debate in second reading.

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will

close the debate on Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point - there were a number of questions raised yesterday during

debate by the Opposition House Leader. I have the answers to those questions but

since the Opposition House Leader - Mr. Speaker, what I will do is I will move

to close debate at this point and then in committee I will answer his questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31,

An Act To

Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill, Bill 31, has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House presently, by leave. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, number

thirteen, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

(Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37,

An Act To Amend The

Liquor Control Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control

Act." (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 37, which is

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control

Act. This will authorize regulations to provide a mandatory exit time for liquor

establishments.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members might be aware, that holders of liquor licences are

permitted to sell alcoholic beverages from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days a

week. With respect to some liquor licence establishments, they can request and

receive extended licences which permit the sale of alcoholic beverages from 9:00

a.m. to 3:00 a.m. from Thursday to Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, under the regulations customers have half an hour - after the

sale of liquor is ended, they have a half an hour to finish their beverages, but

there is no law that requires patrons or customers to actually vacate the

premises. As a result of that, you have the rise of after hour clubs in which

the sale of liquor is not extensively allowed and you have people staying on the

premises.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as I indicated, is to amend the law.

As I said, there is no authority that requires patrons to vacate the premises

once sale and consumption ceases and there is no provision that enables

regulations to be made for that purpose. Consequently, it is proposed to amend

the act to provide authority, and that is what this Bill 37 does. It provides

authority to make regulations to require mandatory exiting from liquor licensed

establishments after the sale and consumption of liquor has in fact ended.

Mr. Speaker, the government has had a number of consultations. We know that

most jurisdictions in Canada have legislative provisions that require liquor

establishments to be vacated within a reasonable time after the sale of liquor

ceases. This provides liquor inspectors and it provides the police greater

ability to enforce liquor laws and the manager exit times are also supported by

most lounge owners.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's has approached the Newfoundland

and Labrador Liquor Corporation to review options, to assist the city in

addressing problems associated with after-hours bars in the downtown core. This

bill will provide authority to address those concerns should a formal request

come from the council.

Mr. Speaker, government has consulted extensively here. The Department of

Finance has consulted with the lounge industry and with enforcement agencies. In

particular, there have been consultations with Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador, with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and there

have been consultations with the Beverage Industry Association, the police, both

the RNC and the RCMP, obviously the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation

and the Department of Justice. There have also been consultations with women's

groups and with groups that are concerned with the prevention of violence. The

result of those consultations is that we bring forward this legislation to

provide for the mandatory exiting after the sale of liquor has been completed.

Mr. Speaker, a legislative review across the country indicates that of the

thirteen jurisdictions, of the ten provinces and the territories, Newfoundland

and Labrador and Ontario are the only jurisdictions that don't have mandatory

exit requirements. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island require

that patrons exit the premises thirty minutes from the close of sale. Quebec is

the same. British Columbia, the North West Territories and the Yukon require

thirty minutes, but in the Western provinces, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan

and Alberta, the requirement is that patrons must exit the premises sixty

minutes after the close of sale.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation will not be panacea. We

recognize that government is concerned and people are concerned about the safety

of the general public, the safety of patrons of liquor establishment and their

staff and police officers.

This amendment will not alter the status quo of the hours of operation of

liquor establishments, it merely gives authority for government to make

regulations respecting vacating the premises after the sale of liquor has

ceased. The amendment is designed to allow for the making of regulations to help

enforcement efforts in regard to illegal after-hours activities in

establishments. The measure will not have a detrimental impact on liquor

establishment operators as no liquor should be generated after-hours in any

event.

As I said, there have been heavy consultations. This particular piece of

legislation is not a panacea but it will provide an additional tool in dealing

with this problem. Government certainly recognizes that there are issues

relating to late hours and there are problems relating to violence and drugs

after hours, and this is a first step with dealing with this. Government does

not have all of the answers at this time but we will continue to review the

various options that are available to us. We will continue to consult with the

groups like the taxi association and the downtown business association, with the

bar owners and restaurant owners, and the police, and hopefully this will be

another tool to help government and all stakeholders deal with this particular

issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about Bill 37,

An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act.

I guess this is principally aimed, I would think, from the minister's

comments, at certain situations downtown here in the St. John's capital city

region, particularly George Street. I have been following the media and I guess

certain bars, albeit they might come to the end of their hours on a particular

night in which to sell liquor, there were no regulations which said when you had

to vacate the premises. I guess that has been causing some problems, certainly

in the downtown area.

I am just wondering, and maybe the minister can tell us, what level of

consultation might have taken place with anybody outside of the St. John's

Region. I do not know necessarily if making a bill that is going to address a

situation on George Street, St. John's, might have negative impacts on people

who live in other smaller rural communities in this Province.

I can think of, for example, at a Fireman's Ball in Ramea, you may well

have a liquor licence requirement to stop selling liquor at 2:00 o'clock in

the morning, but are we going to have some kind of general, generic regulation

passed which says that within sixty minutes of the sale of liquor everybody has

to go home? It is not uncommon in these communities that, albeit they abide by

the law and stop selling beer at 2:00 o'clock, they linger around in the club

for an hour or two after. I, myself, have been a band member who played in a lot

of these clubs until 4:00 o'clock or 5:00 o'clock in the morning, but they

are not selling liquor there.

I can appreciate that, if you are having a problem down on George Street, you

might want to do something to deal with the George Street situation. I just say,

with a little bit of caution here, that giving that Province-wide application

without any specificity here could have a negative ramification for these

communities. I am concerned about that, because you do say it is as a

regulation. So, will it be applied to everybody who gets a licence, for example,

that you close your bar at 2:00 a.m., some have 3:00 a.m., some have 4:00 a.m.,

whatever the limitation, and they will all be told that you close and everybody

has to be out within sixty minutes? Because I do not think that is necessary.

Like they say, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water, and you don't

need to squat a fly with a maul.

If there is a problem downtown on George Street, fix it. If there is a

problem on George Street, fix it, I would say to the minister, and give the

enforcement people the authority to fix it, but I just say, caution. We have to

be careful here, that if you just generally say everybody has to be out within

sixty minutes, I do not think that is appropriate, I do not think it is called

for, I do not think there was any consultation with the bar owners in the rural

areas of this Province in that regard, and I do not think everybody deserves or

should be treated alike when it comes to that issue.

There are lots of volunteer organizations, and there are lots of very

law-abiding clubs and establishments in this Province whereby you cannot be

telling people they have to leave automatically. I do not know how that is going

to be addressed. I would appreciate some guidance and direction. I am sure the

people who run these clubs would appreciate some guidance.

I call it the Liquid Ice bill, myself. I do not think that is the bar in

question, but I know there was a club downtown called the Liquid Ice,

apparently. In fact, I had the occasion, when I was Minister of Justice, to do

an overnight tour with the RNC in the city. I must say, it was an eye-opener;

because, albeit St. John's is not a massive huge metropolis, I certainly got

educated that evening, accompanying the police officers. In fact, we had a

gentleman from NTV at the time, Mr. Cecil Haire, who photographed the thing and

was a part of it, too, and it was amazing what the police officers go through

and do in the run of a night here in the city. I mean, I witnessed things that

night that I never, ever thought existed in a small city such as St. John's.

One of the things that I had the occasion to do, which was public knowledge -

it was all filmed and everything else - was a visit to a club called the Liquid

Ice. In that particular case it was a club down in the downtown area - I do not

think it was on George Street, I think it was on Water Street, actually, but in

that vicinity downtown - and all liquor had stopped. They had not sold any

liquor. All they were selling, from 2:00 o'clock on - and we were there well

after 2:00 o'clock - was ice water. Now, I don't know what he was selling

his ice water for - I don't think it was for the regular Wal-Mart-type prices

but, anyway, they were selling only ice water.

Now, somebody might want that activity stopped, but the police indicated to

me at the time that there was absolutely no law being broken. Yes, the music was

loud and, as far as I know, that club has coexisted downtown for years and

years, albeit some people had their suspicions as to what went on after 2:00 o'clock.

You can suspect all you want but if they are quiet and all they are doing and

all the patrons are doing is dancing and laughing and carrying on and listening

to music, I would not think that we want to pass a law that says, all of a

sudden, you are not going to do that anymore, get out. That is kind of

intrusive, particularly when we are doing it just because somebody complained.

We have to respect the rights of the bar owners as well. We have to respect

the rights of the patrons. We have to respect the rights of the citizens, but

where is the balance? We seem to hear - again, we have a reactive type of

situation by the government whereby somebody downtown in the George Street area

is upset with somebody who made too much noise at a certain hour of the morning

and they came to government and said, fix it. Government are reacting again and

saying yes, we will fix it. I am just wondering to what extent you are going to

fix it. You talk about Big Brother. We have come a long ways from saying now

that you are a legitimate bar owner, you can sell your stuff and you can go out

but we are going to tell everybody now when you go home. We are back into the

days of the wartime, when we are setting curfews here now.

There is a bit of an issue here, I think, as to - as long as they are not

breaking any law, the liquor inspectors under the current law have the right to

go in at any time and see if there is any illegal activity in these places of

establishment. Any time. That could still continue. You do not need a new law

for that. If there is any observation that there is a law being breached, liquor

is being sold or whatever, or for that matter if anything is happening, if there

is any kind of illicit or illegal activity taking place within that

establishment, it does not have to be something that is just in violation of the

liquor law.

The police might go in, for example, and see somebody smoking a joint in the

corner. Now, that is a breach of another law. It has nothing to do with the

liquor law, and they deal with it. You do not need to change the liquor law

because somebody might be breaking another law. There might be somebody who

assaults somebody in the washroom. There are laws to deal with that stuff.

Again, we seem to have a case of big, intrusive government, and I ask these

questions because there are no exceptions here it seems. It just says we will

make the regulations and we can tell you all when to go home, folks. Thank you

very much. We consulted with the bar owners and the taxi operators and the

police, vis--vis George Street, that is fine. There are a lot more communities

in this Province than St. John's, with all due respect, and some pretty

well-behaved, law-abiding citizens.

I just think that, in the interest of those people, there should be some

guidance and assurance from the minister that we are just not going to fix that

problem but we are not going to be intrusive upon other people and their

activities either. I can assure you, it is going to be very upsetting to the

people of Ramea, in the example that I used, if you tell them when they have to

go to bed. If they go out to the firemen's ball and they stop selling liquor

at 2:00, which is complying with the law, and then you tell them: Well, thank

you very much now, go home and tuck yourself in by 3:00 o'clock. That is an

issue. I think that is a valid issue, and I think there has to be some assurance

from the government that we will not become that intrusive. We will not be that

dictatorial. We will not be that dominating.

I can appreciate the intent of the bill. In fact, I have no problem with the

bill itself, but I have these concerns. I am wondering if the minister - because

I would not want to be seen as just voting for this, which gives them the tool

that they may need in certain places, without raising these legitimate concerns

and getting some assurances from the minister that there will be a proper

fairness standard applied to various situations so that we just do not have a

carte blanche and shut everybody down. I do not see that here.

It just says here, according to what I am reading, it says you are going to

repeal paragraph 61(1)(

b) and we are going to say the following: That you

"prescribe a time by which licensed premises shall be vacated after the

close of sale of alcoholic liquor, and the days and hours during which alcoholic

liquor may be sold and consumed on a licensed premises." So, you may

prescribe. I am wondering: Are you going to prescribe it generally, because

generally, regulations are of general application? Are we going to have

regulations that are of general application or are we going to be specific? I

think we should have some assurance of that.

The other piece, by the way - I say to the minister in all fairness. The

second piece of that, I was not aware that we did not have that. I always

assumed that the existing liquor law saying the days and hours during which

alcoholic liquor may be sold and consumed on licensed premises - I assumed that

was always there. I am sort of at a loss as to why we would put it back here

again if it is already there because we repealed 61(1)(b). I take it, it is only

the (

b) subsection (

i) that is new to this, not the 2(2), not the ii.

Again, that is my concerns. I appreciate the legitimacy of the bill but I do

think it may have consequences for some very law-abiding people. I think you

might be called the party-poopers before it is all over if you do not give that

some consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see this bill come to the House. I recognize that the whole

issue is a complicated issue, but I do know, as an MHA in St. John's, while my

district is not in one of the key areas, the George Street area does not cover

it, it certainly is quite close to it and I know the concerns of people who live

Downtown.

The fine act that we have to do here is to walk this line between the rights

and needs of the businesses and also the rights and needs of people who live

close to businesses. That is the major issue, I think. It isn't that people

are complaining for the sake of complaining or because they are prudes or

whatever. The fact is, that in the Downtown of St. John's, a piece of George

Street fronts on George Street and backs onto New Gower Street. Right across the

street from these establishments you have housing, and you have quite a number

of people who live in that area. They have legitimate complaints when it comes

to the very late hours that they have to put with, with street noise and noise

from the establishments Downtown.

Now, it is tricky, I know, but I have heard people from Tourism, Newfoundland

and Labrador, I have heard bar owners from George Street, I have heard staff

from George Street, all of this in the media albeit, but I have heard different

individuals who are part of the industry saying that they would welcome

something that would allow the establishments to close earlier, that they don't

need to be there until four and five o'clock in the morning. That is here in

St. John's, I am not going to speak for other parts, but it is a concern.

The minister has said that this is a first step in a complicated problem, and

I agree with him that it is a first step, because I am not sure that this, in

and of itself, is going to solve the problems that the bill is trying to meet. I

think ultimately what might have to happen, here in St. John's in particular

because this is where it exists, is that the hour of 3:00 a.m. is too late for

being the hour when the sale of liquor ends. That is another piece of the pie

here, another piece of the puzzle, another piece that has to be dealt with. This

Act deals with one piece and one piece only.

Now, it seems to me that the Act does have flexibility, because the second

part of the Act talks about an amendment of

section 61. The bill talks about an

amendment to

section 61 of the Liquor Control Act, and the amendment that this

bill is suggesting is that

section 61 of the Liquor Control Act have added to it

a phrase that says: different times may be prescribed, by which licensed

premises shall be vacated after the close of sale of alcoholic liquor; and

different days and hours may be prescribed.

So, it seems to me that there is some flexibility being allowed here. We

already have flexibility in the Province with regard to the hours that

establishments close, and I would suggest that there could be flexibility with

regard to the hours when premises need to be vacated, but we do have to bring in

something that is going to give the board the authority to help deal with the

issue. This is the problem. Right now, the board does not have any authority.

The board could change the ruling with regard to 3:00 a.m. end of sale - they

could do that - but that is all that they can deal with. I would like to see

something encouraging the board to look at that.

You know, I understand the struggle, too, because George Street is an

essential part of the tourism industry of St. John's, and that is an issue, I

know that, so maybe there are times of year when one would allow later openings,

both in terms of the sale of liquor and in terms of the vacation of premises.

Maybe the height of the tourism industry is a time when there should be some

flexibility, but we do have to come up with something that is going to give the

board the authority to help respond to needs in the community, and this is

certainly one thing that does it.

I appreciate what has been said by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile. I do

know one of the communities in his district that I visited over the last couple

of summers. I remember going in to one of the establishments there expecting to

hear the band, but it was only 11:00 o'clock and the band had not arrived yet.

So it is not only on George Street that the bands start playing at midnight, I

realize that, and I do understand that in rural areas the gatherings are very

much a community event. It is not exactly the same as it is on George Street, so

perhaps there has to be flexibility.

As I read the full bill, it seems to me that some of that flexibility is

allowed, and I do not know if we need to change or amend the bill. Maybe what

needs to happen is that regulations could flow from the bill, and those

regulations may be more specific to meet the needs of what we are talking about,

and especially the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

I think that the board should be encouraged to look at flexibility in terms

of different locations, urban, rural, and even within urban that everything is

not the same in all aspects of the urban reality either.

I think the bill is being sought for. I think there are people who are asking

for this bill. I agree that I do not think that this bill has all the answers,

but the minister recognizes it does not have all the answers either. I will vote

for the bill, but I think we have to continue this discussion because I do think

that allowing establishments to sell liquor at 3:00 a.m. is a major part of the

problem also; it is not just the vacating. Because, if you say an hour after the

sale of liquor ends, then you are still talking about people being in the

establishment at 4:00 a.m., and if you are talking about an establishment that

is also abutting residential areas this is really problematic.

So, we have two issues. This bill is dealing with one, and I think the other

issue is the lateness of the sale of liquor in some areas.

I look forward to the minister speaking to this, when he responds, to give us

an idea of the thinking that is going on. Are they looking at that second issue,

and what are they proposing around that second issue? Are they just saying,

well, there is nothing that we can do about that?

I put that out, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister has been listening, and I

look forward to what his responses are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks

now he will close the debate on Bill 37,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is quite right. We are dealing here now

with one aspect of the problem, which is having people leave the establishments;

and this has originated with respect to the George Street problem. This will

deal with one aspect, the after-hours clubs, but there is another issue and that

is the hours of operation, and there are conflicting points of view with respect

to that particular issue.

The concern is that you have so many people - up to, I think, 6,500 people -

exiting clubs at the same time and not enough taxis, with some people being

intoxicated, and it causes problems and it causes law enforcement difficulties.

I think the police are of the view that, even if you move the hours earlier,

you are still going to have the same problem, just at a different time, and that

is why government is not in a position at this point - it does not have all the

answers, as I said earlier. They will continue to consult with the taxicab

association and the bar owners and the violence groups and hopefully we will be

able to come up with a solution.

With respect to the comments made by the hon. Opposition House Leader, I want

to assure the people in rural Newfoundland who enjoy the Fireman's Ball as

much as I do, in the communities in the district that I have the honour to

represent, that while this particular issue came out of the George Street area

in St. John's, the hon. Opposition House Leader only referred to one

section

of the bill; and, of course, there is another section, another part to the bill,

subsection 2.

While subsection 1 does give the board the authority to prescribe a time by

which liquor premises shall be vacated after the close of the sale of alcoholic

liquors, subsection 2 goes on to address that. It says, for the purposes of the

first section, different times may be prescribed by which licensed premises

shall be vacated after the close of the sale of alcoholic liquor. Different days

and hours may be prescribed in respect of different kinds of liquor, different

licensed premises and different kinds of licensed premises and different areas

of the Province.

The Opposition House Leader mentioned the Fireman's Ball in Ramea. I don't

think they are going to have a problem, and there are many areas of the Province

that are not going to have a problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that answers the questions that have been

posed and I would move second reading of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 37,

An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by

leave. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Osborne): Order please!

We are now debating Bill 7,

An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal

Health Information.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Yesterday in debate there were a number of questions that got raised in

respect to the bill and I want to provide some commentary for the members

opposite.

I think the Leader of the Opposition raised a question around the whole issue

of the cost of information and what provisions were in the legislation to deal

with charges for having access to information. I just want to refer her to

section 52 of the bill; 52 of the bill provides for a small fee to be charged

for the access to the - I am sorry, 52 not

Section 52 talks about the

individual's right to access the file. Then there is a provision in the bill

for the minister to establish a set of fees associated with printing and the

cost of the bills. I refer her to

section 52 of the bill, and sections 56 and

57, which deal with the whole issue of access, it deals with the issue of cost

for fees and the cost of copying. Ordinarily, these fees would be laid out by

the minister. Before the act is proclaimed such fees would be established, and

they would be established as being reasonable and not to be such so they would

prohibit people having access to their files.

The second piece, I say, Mr. Chairman, there was a question that arose around

the whole issue of

accountability. She was asking questions around what mechanisms were in place

to hold the custodians accountable. There is a series of sections in the bill

that addresses that particular point. I will not read the content of all of it,

but just let me walk through them fairly clearly with the member opposite.

Section 13, for example, talks about the custodian must establish information

policies and procedures - again, an accountability mechanism.

The second piece, in

section 14, where it talks about an oath or affirmation

of confidentiality for employees or agents or contractors or volunteers who

would work with the custodian.

Section 15, again, deals with the duty to notify an individual in the event

of a loss or a theft or other inappropriate disclosure of their personal health

information. Also, the amendments will require the notification to the

Information and Privacy Commission, as well.

Section 18 deals also with the designation of a contact person within the

custodian.

Section 19 deals with written public statements describing information

policies, procedures, identifying contact persons and describing a process to

access or request the correction for personal health information and how to make

a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Section 20, again, deals with the duty to inform an individual, or their

representative, of the purpose for the collection, use and disclosure of

personal health information.

Again, I turn your attention to sections 65 through to 82, all a part of

Part

VI, where it talks about the review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

In sections 83 to 86 deal with the appeal to the Trial Division, and of

course,

section 88 then deals with the offence and penalty

section and deals

with the fines associated with a breach.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the question around what accountability

mechanisms are in place, these are laid out fairly clearly in the bill and I

just highlighted the sections that have been referenced.

Another question raised yesterday in debate talks about the independence of

the review.

Part VI of the bill specifically speaks to the review process and

the powers and the authority that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will

have.

Section 65 through to

section 74 continues to outline the process of

review, including the timelines, which is one of the things that the member

opposite raised yesterday.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, that came up yesterday, was the powers that

are vested in the Commissioner.

Section 78 of the bill provides very explicit

obligations and duties on the Information and Privacy Commissioner to not

disclose personal health information. One thing we must also remember is that

the Information and Privacy Commissioner is also an Officer of this House of

Assembly and they have a responsibility. The general rules of confidentiality

will apply in terms of how they perform their function. The issues around the

use of the information or the access to information and how that person will be

bound by the confidentiality provisions in the House of Assembly, no different

for this particular bill here and how they access this information as it would

in any other.

Mr. Chairman, the other question that arose yesterday was the linkage here to

the ethics act. I think the question by the member opposite centered around the

circle of care reference. Now,

section 24 of the bill identifies a phrase that

deals with the circle of care. What basically this means is that the custodian

has a continued implied consent of an individual to disclose information to

other custodians or persons within that circle of care as they provide a

response to the individual health needs of the patients that they are dealing

with. Now the circle of care, which is a fundamental question raised by the

Leader of the Opposition yesterday, was: The circle of care, does it apply to

the research piece? Basically, the circle of care does not extend on health

research because those research projects are subject to an ethics review.

You might recall, Mr. Chairman, and the member opposite might remember, when

the Health Research Ethics Authority Act was created, it created a mechanism.

Anybody who wants to conduct research needs to make an application to a board

established under that authority. When they make application and outline the

nature of the research, one of the things associated with that application is an

outline of all of the issues around confidentiality, issues around consent,

protection of the information and how the people doing the research will

actually protect the information in question. So, the health records ethics

authority act, in and of itself, provides the protection of information for

people doing research and using health information in that process.

The other piece, Mr. Chairman, a question was raised in and around the

insurance companies, whether or not this act will apply to insurance companies -

providing information to insurance companies about your health status.

Mr. Chairman, in introducing the bill in second reading yesterday, I

indicated how this legislation was mirrored after the federal legislation PIPEDA,

and whether or not this it is our intent to have this legislation parallel

that of the federal government's legislation so that actually, in dealing with

companies in Newfoundland and Labrador and with custodians in Newfoundland and

Labrador, this act would apply, but the insurance industry, doing business

across jurisdictions and sometimes not just in Canada but internationally, they

will be covered by the federal legislation. Our legislation is mirroring that,

so the information provided by individuals in this Province to insurance

companies, in making claims, whether it is disability claims or other forms of

claims, where they have to provide some personal health information, that

information is protected by that particular federal legislation in the same

fashion as this legislation is intended to give a coverage, a protection for the

people of this Province as various custodians, as identified, deal with their

issues.

Mr. Chairman, I think the couple of other issues that were raised by the

Leader of the NDP yesterday when she spoke centered around some of the

amendments, or one of the amendments that are going to be made to the

legislation. I think the other question that the member opposite raised was with

respect to the whole issue of protection of information stored electronically,

how it transmits.

I think if we go back to my response to the questions around accountability

that were raised by the member of the Liberal Party yesterday, the Leader of the

Opposition, those same provisions that I listed off from sections 13 down

through to and including 88 deal with that whole issue of accountability. The

onus becomes on the custodian of the information, and they are held accountable

through those various sections of the legislation. They are equally accountable

whether it is electronic, paper, or in the case of oral conversations. The

protection of the information stored electronically is the same duty to that

obligation on the custodian exists for electronic information.

I think the challenge for each of the custodians here is the mechanisms they

have in place for electronic protection. Unlike written records that may be

stored in a vault or in a locked room and only one person you have to

physically walk into the room to get it, electronic information, stored

electronically, has multiple vehicles and multiple points of access, and it

could be very much remote from the actual unit itself.

Having the necessary security precautions, firewalls, and that kind of stuff

in place becomes extremely important. Yet, the responsibility to have it in

place, and the accountability piece, is built into the legislation regardless of

the mechanism for the storing of information.

Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, I have responded to the questions raised by members

opposite in debate, but as we go through each of the clauses I will be only too

glad to respond to any subsequent question that they might have.

Yesterday, as well, I indicated in second reading that there were a couple of

amendments that would be made. I will probably read into the record now the

amendments. One of them comes about as a result of some changes in the federal

legislation that came about as a result of the review of the PIPEDA legislation

with respect to a breach of data, and the recommendations that any time there is

a breach in our original draft we had said that the custodian must advise the

individuals whose information was disclosed. The amendment that I will read in a

moment will provide an obligation on the part of the custodian to report that

breach to the commissioner, and that was a recommendation that came from the

commissioner themselves as a result of the changes in the federal legislation.

The second piece deals with since we have tabled this legislation, this

bill, we have enacted the Regional Health Authorities Act. As a result of this

bill, the regulations with respect to the regional health authorities will now

become redundant, which is

section 6.(5) a through d which will now become

redundant.

The amendments I am about to read will deal with those two issues, so Mr.

Chairman, I will read the following amendments:

(1) Clause 15 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after proposed

subsection (3) the following:

(3.1) Where a custodian reasonably believes that there has been a material

breach as defined in the regulations involving the unauthorized collection, use,

or disclosure of personal health information, that custodian shall inform the

commissioner of the breach.

(3.2) Notwithstanding a circumstance where, under subsection (5),

notification of an individual by a custodian is not required, the commissioner

may recommend that the custodian, at the first reasonable opportunity, notify

the individual who is the subject of the information.

(2) Subclause 15(5) of the Bill is amended by deleting the phrase

"Subsection (3) does not apply" and substituting the phrase

"Subsection (3) and subsection 20(3) do not apply".

2. Clause 20 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection

(3) the following:

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where, following an analysis under

subsection 15(5), a custodian reasonably believes that the use or disclosure of

personal health information will not have an adverse impact as described in that

subsection.

3. Subclause 90(1) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after

paragraph (

e) the following:

(e.1) prescribing what constitutes a material breach for the purpose of

section 15;

4. The Bill is amended by adding immediately after

section 95 the following:

95.1

Section 6 of the Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Newfoundland

and Labrador Regulation 18/08, made under the authority of the Regional Health

Authority Act, is repealed.

With those amendments, Mr. Chairman, and in response to the questions, I move

that those amendments be made to the bill.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health

Information." (Bill 7)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to thank the minister for providing some answers to the

questions I raised yesterday in second reading of the bill. Mr. Chairman, most

of those particular questions, of course, deal with how people will access

certain information, and what the costs will be around that information. I think

he did outline that under

section 52 or something of the bill, I believe, he

referred to, it does speak for a fee to be imposed, but that fee was not yet

determined, and that there would also be a cost associated with the copying of

documents and so on that would be related to a person obtaining their medical

records from a hospital, a health care centre, a pharmacy, or whatever the case

may be.

Mr. Chairman, we just want to ensure that while the provision allowed for in

the bill is a good one, we also want to ensure that it is going to be nominal

fees that will be imposed, because we have heard of cases where people have paid

several hundred dollars to access medical records within our own health care

corporation, and I do not think that is acceptable. I do not think it would

certainly cost that much to make duplicate copies of most of these records, so

hopefully it will be in line with what is a reasonable rate to ensure that

people can get access to it.

Mr. Chairman, there were also some questions that we raised yesterday around

custodian and what the practice of a custodian would be, the abilities that they

had, which the minister responded to today, and we also raised some questions

around the circle of care in terms of giving consent, and if that would be

provided for as well, consent to the Ethics Act.

I did not get to hear your response unfortunately, and I am just wondering if

there was a correlation between the two or if different consent would have to be

given under two separate pieces of legislation.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, the issue around the consent for the research

piece - your question, if I understood it, dealt with the circle of care,

whether or not that circle of care included those individuals doing research.

Once you have given your consent, for those individuals who are in the provision

of services to you, it is implied that that information can be shared with other

clinicians who might be involved in providing services and care to you.

The issue that you raised with respect to the whole area of health research:

there is a provision in the Health Research Ethics Authorities Act that requires

you may recall that that was passed in the House that requires any

research being done that requires access to personal health information, any of

that research, there is an application process. You appear before a board and

make representation and application to conduct the research, and you will lay

out the nature of your research and the nature of the information you will

compile. Within that particular piece of legislation, in and of itself, there

are provisions that deal with the whole issue of privacy, issues around consent

to use information and issues that bind the individual to protect that

information. That legislation and the provisions in that legislation are equally

as stringent as the provisions in this particular legislation.

In this legislation here, we use language like custodian. I answered your

question earlier about the accountability piece, and all of the provisions I

laid out for you in this particular bill we are dealing with today that enforce

and ensure that a custodian is responsible to ensure they comply with the

legislation in a variety of fashions.

If we were to go to the Health Research Ethics Authority Act we would find

similar provisions that bind the people doing the research. They are held to the

same standard as we are measuring here for the custodians to be held. It is

dealt with when they make their application for the research and it is dealt

with under that particular piece of legislation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Chairman, obviously this Act will be presided over by a

privacy commissioner, and that commissioner has been given an enormous amount of

power under this particular legislation, to be able to carry out their required

duties and responsibilities. I understand, Mr. Chairman, from listening to the

minister and reading the legislation, that that individual will have the ability

to be able to conduct their investigations in much the same manner that we would

conduct an inquiry within the Province, whereby they would be able to call

witnesses, ask for testimony, do cross-examination and also request, through

government, any documentation that would be required to supplement that

particular inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly, as I said yesterday, feel the need to have this

particular legislation implemented in the Province. It has been in the works and

been developed over a process of about seven or eight years and it went through

extensive screening, both in the context of what the federal jurisdiction and

federal legislation provides, but also screening in terms of what was expected

and required within our own health care system as well.

The minister did table some amendments to the bill today. We did not have an

opportunity to look at the amendments in more of a sketchier detail than

in-depth because we only had an opportunity to be able to read and examine what

is there. I do not see anything that is being asked for in the amendments that

changes the scope of the legislation or the intent of the legislation, but more

so just gives it more accountability measures, I should say, in terms of how

things would be reported or brought forward to the privacy commissioner by a

custodian in one particular case and how the disclosure of information would

take place. So, we do not see anything on the surface at least that would cause

us any concern with regard to the amendments that the minister has put forward

here.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, that would conclude any concerns or questions that I

have with regard to the bill, and I thank the minister for his co-operation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just a couple of things, I thank the minister for his explanation. As he

indicated, one of the amendments speaks very specifically to something I had

raised, and I am really glad that got taken care of. That had to do with the

repealing of the

section from the Regional Health Authorities regulations and I

am pleased about that. It was a logical thing. It had to go, and we all know

that.

I just have a couple of points I would like the minister to speak to again. I

guess what I have heard the minister say, and I do not want to assume it, so I

will say it and then the minister can say that is indeed the case. When it comes

to the prescriptions that are in the sections that he talked about - 13, 15, 16,

18, 19 and 20 - I understand that all of that outlines what needs to be put in

place. My concern was not that that stuff was not there, but under normal

circumstances without a complaint, will there be any mechanism for monitoring to

see if things are in place? I think what I have heard the minister say is that

is more like an honour system. The act is putting the things out there and

people have to abide by them. If a complaint happens then the review

section

comes in, but that is only in the case of a complaint. Then if there is a

complaint, we find out if a certain custodian has actually gone against the act,

but that there will be nothing in the normal run where there would be a

monitoring to see if, in actual fact, a custodian does have all the things in

place that are outlined in the other sections.

I think that is what the minister has said. Maybe that is all that can be

done because of the wide nature of who all of these custodians are, but I would

be interested in knowing if the OCIO is going to be charged in any way with

looking at: Can there be any kind of monitoring to see things are in place? I am

thinking about - like with our educational systems, we have boards that are in

place that monitor to see if schools are complying by what needs to happen, et

cetera. Our health authorities, we have boards. In other places where we have

legislation there are ultimately groups that do monitor. Here, the role of the

Commissioner is specifically with regard to complaints and complaints only, but

maybe this is the only way it can be.

I would like the minister to speak a bit more to that point, about that whole

honour system.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Fundamentally, I guess the short answer is that is what it would amount to,

but in terms of some comfort you might want to take from the mechanisms that are

in place. Number one, in

section 19 we talk about the written public statement

describing the information. So anytime anyone in the Province goes in to see a

physician, a pharmacist or see anybody else who is providing information, or

they are providing information to, to help form a chart of some kind or a file

of some kind, you should see, in a very public way, in that facility and in that

office a notice posted around - their statements around how they are actually

doing that. That is one piece that is very obvious. I think everybody will have

an obligation to. The second is that they have to designate a person associated

with that. The other one which is, again - I suppose to some degree there is a

threat here because there is a fine for non-compliance of $10,000. So there is a

financial penalty if you do not comply.

The other thing that we have in place is through the regional health

authorities, which is - the entire Province has a regional health authority for

their respective area. The bulk of the information that will be contained on

patients will generally be a part of a health authorities operation. I think the

example you used the other day in the debate talked about a - it was either

yourself or the Leader of the Opposition made a reference to going in to have an

X-ray or blood work done and your family physician calling up your blood work.

Historically, when health authorities provided that access to a physician's

office, there was no legislation that governed that connection. Now what this

does, it puts in place a legislative framework and a regulatory framework to

govern that relationship between the health authority and a practicing

physician, and the protocols for communication. Now the onus will be on a health

authority because they are now identified as the custodian of that information.

So, your blood work is done at a hospital somewhere in the Province and they are

the custodian of that information. Now if they choose to share that with someone

else electronically, a family physician or some other individual involved in

your care, the onus is on them now legally to ensure that the person they are

sharing it with has the protocols in place.

Now when a physician says: Can I get hooked up to your system electronically

because I want to be able to get reports immediately? The first question the

authority says: Well, show me your protocols. Show me the process you have in

place. Are you compliant with this legislation? Because if they are not the

authority will not connect with them. So, it gives you that extra element of

protection that does not exist today, because that sharing of information I just

referenced is taking place as we speak in the absence of this kind of extra

protection by the legislation, because the health authority is covered by ATIPP,

which is a public body. The physician who is a private practitioner is not

covered by it. This legislation is pertaining to all public and private bodies

and all the custodians identified in the legislation that I introduced or

referred to yesterday.

So, fundamentally, there is some strengthening of that obligation but you are

right in terms of there is no policing of this. There is no group of individuals

who will be going around the Province and saying show me your practice, show me

your protocols, and how does this work in your setting? That will not happen,

but there are some elements of protection that are built in here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his explanation. Just to point out, with regard to

section 19, because that is one of the ones I was looking at, the description on

the left-hand side of the

section says, "written public statement",

and I like the fact that the word public is in there. Then it says, "A

custodian shall, in a manner that is practical in the circumstances, make

available to those who are or who are likely to be affected by the custodian's

activities in a written statement." Then, there is nowhere that I can

see where it says that that written statement is, in actual fact, public. In

other words, the implication is that you are going to personally give the

written statement to the client who you are dealing with. On the left-hand side

the description implied to me that there would be some requirement, that there

would be a public nature as the minister indicated. You sort of indicated

posting it in an office or whatever, which is what written public statement

meant to me, but there is nothing in this

section that says that. It is one

concern that I have left, if the minister has any thoughts on that one.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I gathered the concern that you are raising has to do with whether or

not that is a notice of some kind, stuck on a wall or posted somewhere, or if it

is in a written pamphlet given to the patient. The intent of the legislation is

to ensure that that is a written statement, not something that is tucked away

somewhere, but something that is akin to a disclosure statement that you might

get if you were investing in some company, that tells a bit about the company

and how it practices and how it invests its money. It is akin to that. It is

intended to be a written document that you will be able to provide to the

patients that you deal with that describes how you do business.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, just for clarification as we go through, there were

some amendments. We will not pass the amendments first, we will do that as we go

through the clauses. Is that the understanding? Okay.

CLERK: Clause 15.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 15 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, I had proposed an amendment to clause 15, and I will

read it into the record again.

Clause 15 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after proposed

subsection (3), the following, "Where a custodian reasonably believes that

there has been a material breach as defined in the regulations involving the

unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal health information, that

custodian shall inform the commissioner of the breach." And (3.2) would

read, "Notwithstanding a circumstance where, under subsection (5),

notification of an individual by a custodian is not required, the commissioner

may recommend that the custodian, at the first reasonable opportunity, notify

the individual who is the subject of the information.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services

I am sorry, the

MR. WISEMAN: Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. There is a second amendment to

that clause as well. Subclause 15(5) of the bill is amended by deleting the

phrase "Subsection (3) does not apply" and substituting the phrase

"Subsection (3) and subsection 20(3) do not apply".

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services

that clause 15 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 15?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Clause 15, as amended.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 15, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 16 to 19, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 16 to 19, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 16 through 19 carried.

CLERK: Clause 20.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health & Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I had proposed an amendment to clause 20.

Clause 20 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the

following, "Subsection (3) does not apply where, following an analysis

under subsection 15(5), a custodian reasonably believes that the use or

disclosure of personal health information will not have an adverse impact as

described in that subsection.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health & Community Services

that clause 20 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 20?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 20, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 21 to 89, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 21 to 89, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 21 through 89 carried

CLERK: Clause 90.

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

MR. WISEMAN: We proposed an amendment to the clause. Subclause 90(1) of

the Bill is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (

e) the following,

"prescribing what constitutes a material breach for the purpose of

section

15."

CHAIR: It is moved by the Minister of Health and Community Services that

clause 90 be amended as read.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 90?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 90, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 90, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 91 to 95 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 91 to 95, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 91 to 95, inclusive, carried.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chair, I want to make an amendment. Immediately

following

section 95 will be

section 95.1. It says, "Section 6 of the

Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation

18/08, made under the authority of the Regional Health Authority Act, is

repealed."

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to add

section 95.1 as read?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion,

section 95.1 added, as read.

CLERK: Clause 96.

CHAIR: Shall clause 96 carry?

All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 96 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health

Information.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried with amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I ask that the Committee rise and report Bill 7.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bill 7 with

amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 7 with some

amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 7 with some amendments.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be now read a first

time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments to Bill 7

be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments to Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendments be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now

read a second 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.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments to Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 7 be read a third time?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third

time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I now call from the Order Paper, number 11, second

reading of Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The

Child And Youth Advocate Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth

Advocate Act." (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 33,

An Act To

Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

The proposed amendments to The Child and Youth Advocate Act will first

address the recommendations relating to the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate identified in the Turner review and investigation; two, provide the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate with expanded investigatory powers

substantially in the same form as those afforded to the Office of the Citizens'

Representative; three, add the four regional integrated health boards and the

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to the

schedule of the Child and Youth

Advocate Act; and four, amend all references to the Young Offenders Act to the

Youth Criminal Justice Act as the federal legislation has been rewritten.

Under the new act, Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate will have the

same authority as currently held by the Office of the Citizens' Representative

to investigate matters, compel individuals to provide verbal and written

information under oath or affirmation, and compel the production of documents.

As you were aware, Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate serves a similar

function to that of the Citizens' Representative in that both of them are

independent of government and report to the House of Assembly. Therefore, it is

our view that there should be consistency among the powers given to them in the

way the acts read. Under the proposed amendments, the Office of the Child and

Youth Advocate could contempt proceedings in Supreme Court against any

individual who fail to comply. While these powers are broader than those

currently held by the Child and Youth Advocate, the mandate of the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate will remain the same as under the current legislation.

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are intended to address concerns expressed in

recent years by the Child and Youth Advocate and the Turner review and

investigation with respect to access to information. This bill will set out

clearer rules enhancing the Child and Youth Advocate's ability to access

information, while at the same time, making it clear that those persons who in

the opinion of the Child and Youth Advocate are able to give information

relating to an investigation can and will make this information available when

it is required for the Advocate's review.

The problem with the current legislation is that the powers delineated in the

Child and Youth Advocate Act are insufficient to support the Office of the Child

and Youth Advocate in its role as an investigator. While under the current

legislation, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate has been delegated some

investigative tools similar to those afforded to the Office of the Citizens'

Representative. Examples of these, Mr. Speaker, are the right to refuse to

investigate in

section 18 of the act, the notice of investigation pursuant to

section 20 of the act. The right to information is outlined in

section 21 of the

act. The right of entry is outlined in

section 23 of the act, but the Office of

the Child and Youth Advocate does not have the key investigate tools - subpoena

powers which would enable the Child and Youth Advocate to compel individuals to

provide verbal and written information under oath or affirmation, to require

written responses to inquires and to compel the production of documents.

While

section 21 of the current Child and Youth Advocate Act does authorize

that the advocate has the right to information that is in the custody or control

of a department or agency of the government and necessary to enable the advocate

to perform his or her duties or exercise his or her powers under the Act, the

advocate has no power to compel individuals to provide information which, in the

opinion of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, is essential to complete

a review investigation.

All Canadian provinces, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of Prince Edward

Island, have various forms of provincial child advocacy legislation. The child

advocate in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick, all have investigatory powers such as the right to summons, to

issue a subpoena and the right to take a sworn statement for the purpose of

conducting investigations.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are outlined in the Act, and there is one

amendment I feel I should refer to. Again, one must remember that the role of

the child advocate is to review and investigation matters, as now outlined in

the Act, to review and investigate matters affecting the rights and interests of

children and youth. Under

section 15(1)(a), the Act is repealed and the new

section says, "receive, review and investigate a matter relating to a child

or youth or a group of them, whether or not a request or complaint is made to

the advocate." Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the role of the Child and Youth

Advocate is to investigate issues that arise to our most vulnerable members of

society in terms of children, and to determine if something went wrong, what

went wrong, and how we can fix it and prevent it from happening in the future.

Obviously, the lessons learned from the Turner report are very real, Mr.

Speaker, and ones that we are certainly all very cognizant of.

There is one

section of the Act that I should point out, Mr. Speaker, and

that is in relation to

section 15, where we have now added what some may see as

a restriction on the powers of the advocate, but I would suggest