PDF Version

November 20, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 36

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

In the Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to welcome Ms.

Amber Costello, who will be the subject of a Member's statement. She is joined

by her parents, Stewart and Sherryl Costello.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

the public gallery today, I'd like to welcome Ms. Madison Barrow, who is joined

by her parents Don and Glendene Barrow. Madison will be the subject of a

Member's statement today.

Welcome to you as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland,

Bonavista, Mount Pearl – Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's East – Quidi

Vidi, Harbour Main and I understand the hon. Minister of Health and Community

Services, the Member for Gander, has leave to make a statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th

anniversary of the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire Department and the members who

have served in the past and serve today.

I want to acknowledge and say thank you to our many

volunteers as well as those over the years who have given so much to the

region's protection and well-being. The hours that each firefighter volunteers

give peace of mind to the residents of our communities and ensure them that they

have someone to rely on in the event of a fire or any type of emergency.

The Witless Bay Volunteer Firefighters have performed

many heroic and lifesaving acts over the past 40 years and are to be commended

for their dedication and commitment. There are many challenges that face first

responders today in carrying out their duties and the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire

Department have done remarkable work, and over the years have lived up to that

challenge. I also want to recognize the partners, spouses and families of the

members for their continued support.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me

in congratulating the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire Department on their 40th

anniversary and thank them for the past 40 years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Provincial scholarships were recently announced, and

I'm honoured to stand here today and recognize three bright young people from my

district who were recipients. These scholarships are awarded to high achievers

who just finished high school, are attending a post-secondary institution and

are based on results from public exams. Ultimately, it's the culmination of

years of hard work and dedication as it relates to their secondary education.

The Electoral District Scholarship, valued at $1,000,

is awarded to three high school graduates in each district who achieve the

highest Department of Education and Early Childhood Development scholarship

score.

In the District of Bonavista, Stacie Abbott and Lauren

O'Driscoll of St. Mark's School and Brittany Pitt of Heritage Collegiate were

the recipients. These three young women and future leaders have certainly done

their schools and communities proud. I'm sure that they will go on and do

amazing things in life.

I ask that you join me in congratulating them and

wishing them success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Mr.

Speaker, it's my privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the

tremendous success which was the 29th Annual Mount Pearl City Days celebrations.

Once again this year, the festivities included various

activities for citizens of all ages and interests including: a family outdoor

movie night, a pig roast, a picnic in the park, a senior's afternoon tea, a

classic car and motorcycle show, a drive-in movie and a community breakfast. A

new addition to the festival this year was Neveah's lemonade stand in support of

children who are battling cancer.

As in past years, the festival culminated with the big

birthday bash, which saw thousands of residents and visitors gather at the Ruth

Avenue Sportsplex to participate in fun activities, games of chance and take in

some of the best entertainment that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer,

including the Masterless Men and the Navigators.

Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any

festival of this magnitude would not be possible were it not for the hard work

and co-operation of a number of community partners.

I would therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to

join me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the City Days Advisory

Committee, the various community groups and organizations, community sponsors

and all of the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success

story which was City Days 2017.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

MR.

LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

success of Labrador West's 14th Annual Alvin Parrill Hockey Tournament.

Even Mother Nature wasn't going to put a damper on the

47 hockey teams and 600 players that gathered in Lab West from all over Labrador

and Quebec, despite the 45 centimetres of snow that fell in less than 48 hours.

This is the only tournament in the province that

includes every division and there were lots of great memories made during the

long weekend.

The winners in each division got a banner to take home

and hang in their arena. This year the banners went as follows: Midget,

Churchill Falls; under 20 female, Lab West; Bantam, Lab West; Peewee, Goose Bay;

and Atom, Goose Bay. There was an MVP award given to one player on each team for

every game played who worked very hard and never gave up, despite the outcome.

The planning behind such an event comes from countless

hours of hard work and commitment from a great group of organizers and, without

them, this event would never happen.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking them for

their dedication, year after year, to make this event a huge success and

congratulations to all teams.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to rise

to congratulate a young constituent who has had recent success in provincial

debating.

Grade 12 student

John Harris participated three weeks ago in a debate organized by the Roderick

J. White Foundation for Science and Reason in Society, or SARIS, a local

education and advocacy group. SARIS is a charitable organization based on

advocating for evidence-based reasoning in all aspects of public life.

John Harris and his

debating partner, Hannah Breckinridge, first competed against 10 other teams at

an invitational tournament, organized by the Newfoundland and Labrador debate

union, in order to qualify for the SARIS debate and lecture. The championship

topic the two qualifying teams debated was: Should Prison be Punitive?

These top two teams

debated in front of a live audience at Memorial University on a serious and

challenging topic. John's team ultimately placed second, and all four youth

participants took home scholarship prize money from SARIS.

Congratulations to

John Harris and the other student debaters: Hannah Breckinridge, Henry La

Prairie and Luke Battcock, who participated in the tournament and SARIS debate.

I ask all hon.

Members to join me in congratulating these young people on their success and

wish them the best in their future debating careers.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

I rise in this hon. House to recognize

Amber Costello, a young woman from my district who was presented with the Future

Leader Award at the 2017-2018 Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador

Scholarship Program gala held at the Holy Heart Theatre in St. John's last

evening.

Amber is the

daughter of Stewart and Sherryl Costello of Conception Harbour and the

granddaughter of the late Wilf Doyle, the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian

to cut a record.

The Future Leader

Award recognizes a participant who has faced obstacles and,

despite these challenges, has continued to succeed. The award carries with it a

$500 scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, despite living with a learning disability,

14-year-old Amber, a student at Roncalli Central High School in Avondale, works

extremely hard to maintain an honours average. Within her community she is a

volunteer, gives countless hours to St. Anne's parish and Woodford's Comfort

Manor.

I had the privilege of attending the Miss Achievement

awards gala, which awarded nearly $10,000 in scholarships to many exceptional

young women like Amber.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me

in congratulating Amber Costello on her accomplishments and wish her every

success in her future endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

don't get to say this very often: The hon. the Member for the District of

Gander.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues.

I rise in this Hon. House today to recognize the

achievements of constituent Madison Barrow of Gambo. Madison is the daughter of

Don and Glendene Barrow and is currently a grade ten student at Smallwood

Academy.

Madison is an Encounters with Canada alumni and was

100th Anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. This application included

writing an essay and she chose to write about her great-great-grandfather

Eleazar Saunders who was wounded during the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917. She

was chosen to participate in the journey, along with four other youth from

across Canada.

The first leg of her trip took her to Ottawa where she

read at the National War Museum's remembrance candlelight vigil. She then

travelled to Lille, France to attend the 100th Passchendaele Anniversary in

Ypres, Belgium.

Madison participated in a variety of ceremonies

including: the Last Post ceremony at Menin Gate Memorial; the Ceremony of

Remembrance at the St. Julien Canadian Memorial; Sunset Ceremony and Vigil at

Passchendaele Canadian Memorial; a ceremony at the John McCrae Memorial; and a

ceremony at Hill 62 Canadian Memorial, where she shared her essay.

Madison was also one of the Newfoundland and Labrador

ambassadors that went to Beaumont-Hamel in 2016 to commemorate the anniversary

of that battle. She was selected at a Heritage Fair because of her project about

her great-great-grandfather.

Madison has a keen interest in the history of World War

I and II as a result of her grade eight social studies teacher, Ms. Joanne

Broders. She has a great respect for our veterans past and present who served to

protect our country.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms.

Madison Barrow of Gambo while concluding with Madison's own words: “May we be

challenged by our Veterans' devotion to give our best to our families and

country as well.”

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize November 20 as National

Child Day, a celebration of children's rights.

Members of this House of Assembly are wearing blue

ribbons today to recognize National Child Day, which commemorates Canada's

adoption of two documents focused on children's rights: the United Nations

Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the Child.

National Child Day demonstrates our commitment to

ensuring all children are treated with dignity and respect. This commitment

includes the opportunity for children to have a voice, to be protected from

harm, to be provided with their basic needs, and to have every opportunity to

reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to

celebrate National Child Day with children and early childhood educators at

Family and Child Care Connections. The centre is a community-based, non-profit

early learning family resource that provides a variety of programs, services and

supports to parents, family home child care providers and others.

Our government is committed to enhancing access to

exceptional and affordable early learning and child care opportunities during

these important early years of development.

Mr. Speaker, I ask parents, early childhood educators,

teachers and other community members to remain ever mindful of the commitments

that are celebrated on National Child Day. Working together, we can ensure the

rights of children are respected, that each child has access to the endless

opportunities around them, and that children are recognized as important members

of our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. This side of the House would also like to acknowledge November 20 as

National Child Day. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration of Rights of

the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are an

invaluable testament to the fact that as a society it is incumbent that we give

advice to those who are vulnerable, and we ensure that children are provided

with their basic needs and protected from harm.

All 40 Members of the House may quite often disagree on

public policy and the way in which it is administered, but I'm confident each

and every one of us will always ensure the children of Newfoundland and Labrador

are treated with dignity and respect.

The spirit of National Child Day must be acknowledged

and celebrated every day by governments and legislators so that all children of

Newfoundland and Labrador have increased opportunity to reach their full

potential.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I'm pleased to commend the work of Family and Child Care Connections

in supporting families and child care providers.

Government says it is committed to ensuring that

children are treated with dignity and respect, that their needs are met and that

they can reach their potential, but I ask what is government doing about the

large number of food bank users in this province who are children; about child

poverty; about child care that is available only to a minority of those who need

it; and about the lack of respect for the rights of deaf and hard of hearing

children in the province, which is covered by the UN convention, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour.

MR.

HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Workforce Innovation Centre at College of the North

Atlantic's Corner Brook campus supports innovative research and projects to help

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gain and maintain sustainable employment. Four

inaugural projects have now been selected to share more than $1.7 million in

funding.

These projects were selected based on their alignment

with our government's vision for private sector job creation and economic

development in The Way Forward and our

Immigration Action Plan. Priority was also given to projects that address

emerging issues and support the ongoing efforts of the Cabinet Committee on

Jobs, especially building a skilled aquaculture, agriculture and technology

workforce.

Mr. Speaker, the Genesis Centre will explore ways to

increase the number of female and immigrant technology entrepreneurs;

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador will support rural workers who wish to

transition to the tourism sector; the Social Research and Demonstration

Corporation will deliver an innovative aquaculture training model for

entry-level positions; and the Association for New Canadians, in partnership

with Memorial University's Grenfell Campus, will implement a program connecting

refugees with agriculture employment opportunities.

By tapping into the passion, ingenuity and exciting new

ideas of these partners, the Workforce Innovation Centre will help us build a

stronger, more diversified economy and an even brighter future for Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood today and provided some

basic information on the Workforce Innovation Centre, for which I hope will

produce positive results. I'd like to focus my response – the minister claims

this was brought about because of the Liberal government's vision for private

sector job creation, economic development and the Immigration Action Plan.

Before the minister begins to beat his chest about

these economic initiatives, it should be noted that the actions taken by the

Liberals have put the economy into a tailspin. Their own numbers confirm it. The

number of private sector jobs has plummeted, there are fewer opportunities for

new graduates and the province is no longer viewed by immigrants as an

attractive place to live compared to only a couple of years prior.

As a person who loves this province, I want nothing

more than to see it succeed and I wish the Workforce Innovation Centre the very

best. I also wish to acknowledge the minister in trying to resuscitate an

economy that was smothered by his own Liberal government.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. Diversifying the economy is critical to the future of Newfoundland

and Labrador and we're glad to see these long, overdue investments, particularly

the focus on supporting women, rural communities, immigrants and refugees;

however, in the state that we are in, these initiatives alone won't be enough to

address out-migration of young people from our province.

I have to ask the minister: What is government doing to

encourage young people here and now to stay, work and live in the wonderful

province that we have?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mothers

Against Drunk Driving on the 30th anniversary of their Project Red Ribbon

Campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Throughout November and December, MADD will distribute millions of red ribbons

across the country. These ribbons serve to raise awareness of the terrible cost

of impaired driving and honour the memory of those who have been killed or

injured in impaired driving crashes.

It is important to remember that illegal and

prescription drugs, as well as alcohol, can impair a driver's ability to safely

operate a motorized vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, these deaths and injuries are entirely

preventable and we all have a role to play in reducing these statistics.

This morning the Minister of Justice and Public Safety,

the Speaker of the House of Assembly and I attended the provincial launch of

this year's campaign at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Headquarters.

This year, RNC officers will show their support for

Project Red Ribbon by lacing up their boots with red MADD Canada laces.

I commend MADD for their dedication to Project Red

Ribbon over the past 30 years and for their valuable contribution to this most

important cause.

I encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and my

colleagues in this hon. House to participate in the 2017 campaign.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. Mr. Speaker, we also congratulate Mothers Against Drunk Driving on

their 30th anniversary on the Project Red Ribbon Campaign.

Last week, we stood to remember victims of road crashes

and issues involved in road safety is certainly on the minds of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and so it should be. As I said last week, road

safety is a shared responsibility and we all must do our part.

I want to thank MADD for all the work that it has done

and continues to do in raising awareness on a very important issue. I also want

to thank the RNC officers for their support of this year's Project Red Ribbon

Campaign.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. I join in thanking Mothers Against Drunk Driving for this annual

effort to raise awareness of the damage caused by impaired driving.

The minister reminds us that deaths and injuries are

preventable and we all have a role to play, but she didn't tell us what

government's role will be in the future to increase road safety. There is more

to prevention, Mr. Speaker, I say, than just attending an annual event.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he will commit here

today to the Muskrat Falls inquiry being completed and a report made public

before the next general election.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, when you put together the terms of reference as

something as broad and as far-reaching with such an impact as a terms of

reference about the inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker, you

speak with the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner established a date,

that being December 31, 2019. That was at the request of the Commissioner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that Members opposite, the PC

Party, the leader and all the other MHAs over there with the PC Party, they are

used to directing people that should have their say, people like the PUB when

they kicked them out of this process in March of 2012. When they asked for

simply 90 days, they kicked them out, they shut it down. Mr. Speaker, we want to

let the Commissioner have his say. The date was put in place by him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, then: You're saying this was the

decision of the Commissioner; did you consult with anyone else about having the

possibility of the inquiry and the report completed before the next provincial

election?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I take exception with the fact that he would question the advice of

someone like Judge Richard LeBlanc. That is what he is saying there, Mr.

Speaker. We've given the judge the time that he asked for, Mr. Speaker, for us

to interfere in this established process.

Now, there's information that they might have, that

they probably don't even need an inquiry about, so come on with it. I asked you

for information on September 26, 2015; you weren't willing to come with it then.

What is it that you were hiding then that you'd like to make public right now?

Mr. Speaker, we've waited two years for you to come

clean on the Muskrat Falls Project and you haven't done it. The inquiry is in

place. We will get the answers as –

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This coming from the Premier of the province who hid

oversight reports for 18 months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, 18 months under his watch, he intentionally hid oversight reports from

the Oversight Committee. He's delaying. The report will now be delayed until

after the next general election.

Premier, I can tell you I have nothing to hide, and if

you want the people to know what's happening, make sure the inquiry happens and

it's delivered before the next general election.

Will you do that, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you know what? I have nothing to hide, that I can

guarantee you. I've been speaking out on this project when it wasn't popular to

speak out on this project. When they were lining up like lemmings to lead people

to doubling of electricity rates in this province.

Is that the legacy you still continue to stand behind?

Are you now still saying that this is the best, that this is the legacy? This is

the best project for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the doubling of

electricity rates at a time when you said you were flush with cash? Did you put

the money into the right project, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member opposite? Is he

still proud of the project that he sanctioned?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

Well, let's find out and get on with the inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

P. DAVIS:

May of this year, we asked for a review done on the project. In June, the

Premier finally spoke to it and said we can't do this now because it's going to

disturb the project. Now, all of a sudden, on the eve of a by-election,

interestingly enough, he announces he's going to hold the inquiry not to start

until 2018, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, 18 months they hid information. Why is it

your inquiry does not include anything that's happened over the last two years?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I will tell you right now, I for one will be glad

to sit in front of the Commissioner and speak about my experience on the Muskrat

Falls Project prior to becoming Premier and while being Premier, Mr. Speaker. So

let's make that very clear.

Now, I would say to the Member opposite, what he should

do is read the terms of reference of the inquiry. It goes back prior to 2012 and

it goes on beyond that, Mr. Speaker.

I will comply. I will be more than willing to sit in

front of the Commissioner and discuss my experience from the beginning to the

end of this project. That you can guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to know is the Cabinet

confidences that may be required. Are they willing to put that information out

there, Mr. Speaker, because they hide it in the past?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier wants to talk about the terms of reference.

I'm fine to discuss the terms of reference.

Who developed the terms of reference, Premier?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It wasn't the Members opposite. They had all kinds of

opportunity to have public input into the Muskrat Falls Project. Let's not

forget, Mr. Speaker, this is the same crowd that kicked the PUB out. They told

the people of the province: We have preplanning done, pre-engineering done, no

worries about cost overruns, don't worry about scheduling. They said they had

that all under control, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I tell you right now, the project speaks for

itself. It's over schedule. It's over budget, and it's not on the backs of the

men and women. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are doing exactly what they've

been asked to do. It's not about them.

This project is having an impact on both present and

future generations, Mr. Speaker. We are pleased today to call this inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier either forgot or intentionally neglected to

answer the question.

It was very simple: Who developed the terms of

reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the terms of reference was put in place by

Justice LaBlanc. There were some discussions that were had with the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety. So these are the terms of reference that were put in

place as a result of those meetings. As quickly as we could get those terms of

reference out there, we did so.

Now, I want to address going back a few questions. Mr.

Speaker, in June of 2016, this project was 48 per cent complete. As of September

30, 2017, just 14 or 15 months later, the project is now 85 per cent complete.

The transmission line is virtually complete. It is now in the position to

actually do this inquiry so we can get the information that people of this

province deservedly need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a briefing provided to the Opposition after we heard

this announcement was taking place, we requested it. We just received it a short

time before Question Period started today. Officials advise that the Department

of Natural Resources drafted the terms of reference for the inquiry. The Premier

is saying today it was Justice LeBlanc who drafted the terms.

Premier, can you clarify that? Was it the Justice who

drafted it, or was it actually the Department of Natural Resources that provided

direction on it?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to stand here and speak to the terms of

reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry, something that's been asked for by the

people of this province.

I can say here in the House that there are a number of

parties that had a say in this, including individuals within the Department of

Natural Resources, the Department of Justice, all throughout government; but, at

the end of the day, Justice LeBlanc would have also been involved in this

process when it comes to the terms of reference.

What I can say, there were some exclusions. Nalcor was

not consulted throughout this process and neither were the PC Party.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to clarify: Is the minister saying that the

Department of Natural Resources did have input and was part of the process of

developing those terms of reference?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Department of Natural Resources would have had

some input into the terms of reference, as well as the other parties that I

named.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

So,

Mr. Speaker, we have input from the Department of Natural Resources, the current

minister has been a minister for two years. It's the same minister who has been

identified in the terms of reference as the minister responsible for the inquiry

and it's the same minister who has made significant policy decisions about

Muskrat Falls over the last two years.

I ask the Premier: Do you see a possibility of a

conflict happening here? Maybe your minister may become a witness in this

inquiry.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, what we have here I think is a very broad

terms of reference.

I've said on numerous occasions, and the Premier said

it today: When it comes to an inquiry, we want the facts. What happened? The

second part we want is to ensure that the recommendations throughout will help

avoid a situation like this happening again in the future. That's what happens

in an absolute inquiry.

I can guarantee you, first of all, that the inquiry is

independent. That's why it's not led by government; that's why it's led by a

Justice. The second

part is that I can guarantee you, everybody on this side

would be ready to appear if compelled and put any evidence there, and I hope the

Members on the other side would be prepared to do the same.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister has confirmed that the Minister of

Natural Resources, who's been identified as the minister responsible for the

inquiry, the same minister who has made significant policy decisions over

Muskrat Falls, the same minister who led the department full of staff, who has

had total involvement with Muskrat Falls since the very beginning, is also a

minister who Member's opposite say will testify.

My question was: Do they not see a conflict of

interest?

Couldn't a different minister, other than the one who

has been so closely involved with this over the last two years, have been the

minister responsible and also someone other than her having been who drafted the

terms of reference?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the questions from the Members

opposite. What I would point out, there's one significant factor that he forgot

in the line of questioning: that the current Minister of Natural Resources was

certainly not involved in the sanction of Muskrat Falls as opposed to the

Members on the other side.

At the end of the day, the

Public Inquires Act allows for the justice of this independent

inquiry to compel everybody – everybody – to appear, to give testimony, for the

release of documents so that, at the end of the day, all the facts of this

matter will be known. This will be an independent inquiry that's quite broad so

that the people of this province get the full disclosure on what happened.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister doesn't want to speak to it if it's a

conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest or not, but I'll ask this

because when I had the short period of time I had to look through the terms of

reference once they were released this afternoon – and the Premier was heckling

across here: It does include the last two years.

Does the scope of the inquiry include management and

leadership of the project over the last two years or does it not?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the Member opposite that the good news

is that we have Question Period again tomorrow and the day after, so we'll be

happy to take questions on this absolutely every day because that's what the

people of the province demand. It's too bad that they weren't more forthcoming

with answers when they were sitting on this side of the House.

What I would point out, though, is that under the terms

of reference, it talks about the fact that everything will come out, including

reliable estimates of the cost to the conclusion of the project – to the

conclusion of the project. We're talking about the beginning right to the end;

everything needs to come out into the light of day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reliable estimates to the conclusion of the project

apparently involve the decision and policy decisions made by that government

since they've been in power or by Nalcor since they've been in power. Let's not

forget, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year their Premier's handpicked CEO, the new

CEO of Nalcor, announced no more surprises and, three months later, had an

additional billion dollars added on to the cost.

Will that be part of the scope of the project?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, let me make this extremely clear to the Member

of the opposite side, as well as to all the people of the province. This inquiry

and its terms of reference, which will be led independently by Justice LeBlanc,

will have the power to compel anybody and everybody, to compel all of the

evidence. We want absolutely every shred of information from the time that this

was thought up until the time it's completed to come into the light of day under

the watch of Justice Richard LeBlanc.

I say to the Member opposite, Nalcor, this government,

your government, everything should be scrutinized.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if the Commissioner is able to add

to the scope of the inquiry, if the Commissioner sees fit to do so.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated earlier in my questioning, the Commissioner

of this inquiry, Justice Richard LeBlanc, was actually consulted upon these

terms of reference. These would not have gone forward unless he felt that this

was all encompassing, whether it was broad enough to take in all the factors, as

well as the date – this was not a date that was picked by this government; it's

a date in which the Commissioner feels comfortable that they can get all the

information done and to get this inquiry done in a full fashion.

So what I would suggest to the Member opposite, again,

this is a very broad terms of reference for a very broad project and, at the end

of the day, there will be independence so that he can get all of the information

and all the answers that he and the people of this province need.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's too bad the government didn't move on this back in

May when it was first asked for and there would have been no trouble to have it

completed before the next general election, if that was the case, Mr. Speaker.

So my question was if the Commissioner can add to the

scope of the inquiry. That was the question that I asked, if he's able to do

that, because there are times when something will come up during the inquiry

which may lead the Commissioner down a road that wasn't previously seen or

anticipated. If that were to happen, can the Commissioner add to the scope of

the inquiry? That's the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The terms of reference, there was consultation with

Justice LeBlanc. This will be done independently; this will be done to allow the

justice to get all the information that they need.

Again, the terms were specifically drafted to be broad

enough to allow for all concerns to be brought forward. What I would say is it's

awfully low that the Member on the other side, his only concern is that this be

done before the next election. It's too bad that they didn't think about the

people of this province and not their own election prospects.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know, the minister is trying to say my only

concern – we have a lot more concerns than what he's pointing out there. The

Premier himself identified this as attached to politics in the very beginning,

so I can't help but wonder. They announced it on the eve of a by-election when

it's not going to start until 2018. The Commissioner wasn't available to attend

their announcement today and they're not going to have it finished until after

the next general election, so we can't help but wonder – especially when he

raised it in his own press conference, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is the Commissioner can add to the

scope of a public inquiry, but he would have to go through Cabinet to ask for

that. My question is: If the Commissioner asked to broaden the scope of the

inquiry, will the government commit to making sure the public is aware of that

request?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that Justice LeBlanc couldn't be here

today. Unfortunately, he is actually down handling court matters and we didn't

want to take away from that.

This is something that we've been working diligently on

to go out there for the people of this province. They've been asking a lot of

questions and up until two years ago, they certainly weren't getting any

answers.

We want all the facts out there. We want all the

information out there. We're willing to do what we can on this end to get that

information out there because what's the point of doing an inquiry that doesn't

answer the questions that the people have?

The question I have for the Member opposite: Is he

willing to make sure that he puts all the information that he knows about in

front of the Commissioner?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

First and final warning, I remind all hon. Members I

will not tolerate interruptions when I've identified a Member to speak, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are about the scope of the inquiry. In my

first review of this today, and we will have more time to review it in the

coming days, later today and in the coming days, was about advancing the scope

of the inquiry if the Commissioner so desires. Members opposite are not asking

that.

The inquiry regulations do not lay out clearly that

they'll review all the decisions and policy decisions made over the last two

years.

I ask the Premier of the province: Will you make sure a

full review of all decisions made over the last two years is included as part of

your inquiry?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly happy to have someone of the calibre of

Justice LeBlanc handling this because anybody that knows him knows of his

thoroughness, knows how he is going to want all the information out there.

What I can say in case there's any – I thought there

was some clarity over the last number of answers that the Premier and I have

given. We're going to put absolutely everything we are asked and more in front

of the Commissioner from the last two years. We have nothing to hide. I'm

wondering if politicians on the other side and from previous will make sure that

they do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you Members on this side of the House, current and

previous, will do everything we can to support and assist this inquiry and all

the work that it does. I can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

P. DAVIS:

I've said many, many times, I have nothing to hide. I asked for this inquiry

back in May when the Premier was dodging it. It's not until five months later

they finally call an inquiry, and interestingly enough the results are not going

to be back until a couple months past the next general election, Mr. Speaker, so

I can't help but ask about it.

The terms of reference don't clearly outline decisions

made over the last two years. Why is that, Premier?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'm hearing an echo because it's the same

question that was just asked and I'm pretty confident that we gave an answer.

The terms of reference are sufficiently broad to ensure

that everything that needs to be in front of the Commissioner, in front of the

people of this province, will be out there. This is not something that's going

to be, as with the previous administration, done under the cloak of darkness.

This is going to be done out there and televised right out in the public eye.

We are certainly happy to release Cabinet confidence as

it relates to this process to ensure that this administration's decisions are

put out there in the clear. I hope that the Members on the opposite, including

those that were around for sanction and before, will ensure that all that

information is put in front of the Commissioner, too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday, in the House of Assembly, the Minister of

Health blamed communications for the cancellation of cancer treatments last week

in Grand Falls-Windsor. He stated that the error was rectified. Just one day

later, on Friday, only one nurse was on staff when a patient showed up for

treatment, and treatment was delayed yet again.

I ask the minister: How can you blame communications

when staffing appears to be the issue?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

If the Member opposite had fact checked he would find

that the patient in question arrived early for their appointment and began their

treatment exactly at the appointed hour and was assessed on time. There were no

challenges with staff. The place was staffed fully, and no one was cancelled on

either day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not our understanding and it's definitely not the

media's understanding of what went on last Friday.

The Department of Health noted last week that it was

reviewing workflow and a model of nursing practices to be created.

Why did the minister blame it on communications issues

when his own department clearly states it's a staffing issue?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I referenced in the House last week, Eastern Health,

who run the cancer care program, were asked to investigate. There was no problem

with staffing on that day. The unit was fully staffed. We have gone back with

the assistance of the union to inquire about the communication error. That has

been rectified and will not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

His own department confirmed what the cancer patients

had said was correct, yet the minister still tries to blame the situation on

everything and everyone else.

Does the minister feel that a core staffing review is

required in our health care system?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for the question. We continue to

work with the Registered Nurses' Union around staffing. One of our challenges is

– whilst we have a very valuable contribution from nurses, we're blessed with

them, and we actually have more per capita than any other jurisdiction in

Canada, our challenge is to get best value for them. We are committed with them

and have joined with them on a workforce review management strategy and that's

actually in the process of being worked through as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding from last week's incident was that a

nurse had to be sent from Gander to help to do treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor.

How can cancer patients have confidence that staffing

shortages won't continue to be a constant issue when it comes to cancer

treatments?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Cancer chemotherapy is administered by nurses who

receive extra training. The program is run by Eastern Health on a provincial

basis. It is not at all unusual for staff to go from one centre to another.

Just in case the Member opposite gets worried, I'll

warn him now, there is a staff member from Eastern Health going out there next

week for further training for the staff in Grand Falls. So before he blames us

for having staffing issues out there, this is an education piece and it's part

of routine activity in the health care system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

So,

Mr. Speaker, what this sounds like is that we have a funding issue here for

Central Health versus Eastern Health, not an education issue here.

Last week, patients began to speak out against the

minister's statement. Has the minister personally contacted the patients

impacted and personally apologized for his department causing them undo stress?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Just to correct a factual inaccuracy, Mr. Speaker, this entire program, wherever

it is located in the province, is actually funded through Eastern Health.

As to the individuals concerned, certainly my staff and

Eastern Health staff have reached out on more than one occasion to the

individuals involved.

The issue around last week in Grand Falls was one of

communication, not staffing. There is no suggestion that the system is

inadequately funded or inadequately provided for in any way. If there are any

future concerns by patients and their family, I'll be happy to hear them, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

A forensic audit of the Muskrat Falls Project is key to

understanding what has gone wrong.

I ask the Premier: Why didn't he make a forensic audit

a condition of the terms of reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I know the Member opposite is very eager to get

on with this and so are we.

Mr. Speaker, if you remember back in 2012, this is a

project that was designed not to go over budget; it was not to lose schedule.

This was going to be the best thing for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. Well, I would argue that it really turned out that way.

One of the tools – we wanted to make sure that the

terms of reference were very broad for the Commissioner and so if it was around

forensic audit, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly in

section 8, it gives the

Commissioner the powers to do and use whatever tools they see fit to get to the

bottom of this problem. A forensic audit is an option and is a tool that the

Commissioner can use if they see fit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a tool that is essential. They should have had it

in there.

Two years ago government could have paused the Muskrat

Falls Project and conducted an inquiry – all the knowledge the Premier has

today, he had two years ago – possibly saving more than $4 billion and saving

the people from a crushing financial burden.

I ask the Premier: Why did you push just blindly on

with this project, only to begin the inquiry today?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I've said on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker,

publicly and to the Member opposite, that even two years ago, this project was a

big commitment. There were huge commitments on the supply of electricity to Nova

Scotia, who has billions of dollars that were now into the Muskrat Falls

Project. They would have been sunk in cost, Mr. Speaker.

Regardless, if it was two years ago, today or whenever,

that cost would have still been borne on the ratepayers or taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador, still borne on the taxpayers of our province. The

commitments would have been far-reaching.

The PC Party, if they did anything right, was lock up

this project and take it out of the hands of future decisions for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, by delaying an inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project for two years

after coming to power, government may have eliminated the possibility of

stopping the project.

I ask the Premier: Will he show us the evidence he used

for his two years of foot-dragging, the evidence he used to not stop the

project?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, well, I can guarantee you there has been no foot-dragging with this

administration. We had to make numerous changes, tons and tons of hours of work

that has gone into fixing many of the problems that we inherited, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Member opposite suggesting we should just walk

away from this project, exposing taxpayers and ratepayers in our province to

billions of dollars and get nothing back in return? Is that what you're

suggesting?

It still would have had to been paid. The bills were

not going to evaporate. They were not going to just disappear, Mr. Speaker. The

bills were there. The guarantees and the commitments were made by the PC Party.

Right now, we need an inquiry to get to the bottom of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows what I am asking for is the evidence

on what he based his decision on for not even pausing the project.

Mr. Speaker, in his news conference this morning, the

Premier said power rates will double by 2022. He's known this for quite a while,

yet nowhere today did he say what he's going to do to help mitigate this extra

financial burden.

So I ask the Premier: What is his plan to help seniors,

working families and small businesses of this province with the doubling of

their power bills?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly, on this side of the House, know the

impact of the doubling of electricity rates on our seniors and on young

families, Mr. Speaker. We also know the difficulty in people that are looking to

this province to create jobs if we are not competitive with electricity rates in

our province. That is what we are doing – we have a rate management, rate

mitigation committee that's doing work.

Mr. Speaker, in the

Budget 2016 we already announced some $210 million in rate

mitigation. We will continue to work on this. It's a few years away, but the

work must continue. We must put confidence back into the electricity system in

this province, and we must remain competitive. Doubling electricity rates are

just not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

time 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to the letter that the

Leader of the Opposition had sent in May to the department. The first item on

his letter was tabled in the House of Assembly in May in response to his letter.

The other items here, Mr. Speaker, that were a part of his letter I will table

today.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will move the following

private Member's resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House urges the government

to amend the school bus transportation policies to cover the transportation to

and from school of pupils who reside within the 1.6 kilometres of that school

where these pupils are primary or elementary students, and where those pupils

are secondary students whose safety may be jeopardized by the failure to provide

them with school busing.

It is seconded by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the private Member's motion presented by

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island will be the private Member's

resolution that will be debated on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there has been an identified lack of mental

health services in our provinces K-12 school system; and

WHEREAS this lack is having a significant impact on

both students and teachers; and

WHEREAS left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases,

will develop into more serious issues;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to increase mental

health services and programs in our provinces K-12 school system.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, mental health is quite a serious issue

across this province, across this country and, indeed, the issue has been

identified as a very serious one for this province. We've had a committee in

place that produced a report on mental health not too long ago. Part of the

measures that we need to undertake is ensuring that our youth have these

services available to them to help overcome some of the mental health issues

they are experiencing.

We all recognize that we're in times of fiscal

constraint, but the government magically finds money from time to time for

projects that are of interest to them from a political nature or from a hiring

point of view of people who are patrons of the party and whatnot. So we believe

that efforts should be made to find money to help the people of the province,

particularly the people who are our future, and that being our young ones.

We certainly call upon government to take this issue

very seriously for the youth of our province and to really look at improving

supports that can be provided in the K-12 system so that we have a healthier

province, healthier population and stronger leaders for tomorrow.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the 2013 risk assessment report made public in

June 2017 makes it clear that initial cost estimates and financial risks for the

Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project were understated; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project is way over budget,

diverting funds from other needs and potentially doubling electricity bills, and

it has raised serious concerns about damage to the environment and downstream

communities; and

WHEREAS Nalcor and the provincial government have not

been transparent or accountable as to why the 2013 report was not previously

made public, and the people of the province are left with many unanswered

questions;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately

conduct a forensic audit of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons why I asked the

question I did today in the House of the Premier, because the people of this

province see the need for a forensic audit and I think it is absolutely

essential that a forensic audit take place. I'm very sorry that the Premier and

the Minister of Justice did not see the need to make a forensic audit an actual

part of the terms of reference. I know they give the power to the justice who is

going to run the inquiry on Muskrat Falls to do that, but it should have been

seen as something that was absolutely important to the inquiry.

I note that in this petition people are concerned about

the possibility of the doubling of the electricity rates. Well, the Premier

announced today that, in actual fact, the rates will double by 2022, so if ever

we needed something to look at, it's not just what happened in the past, but

what is this government going to do about the doubling of electricity rates.

People don't know where they're going to turn and if

this government says there be mediation put in place that people will receive

support in paying their bills, that's still money coming out of the public

pockets, Mr. Speaker.

So the need for a forensic audit, of the past and the

present, is absolutely essential to really know what the impact of this project

is going to be on the backs of people. People are already feeling it because of

the money that is going into Muskrat Falls, and money that could have been saved

if this government had stopped two years ago to really look what was happening.

People are already suffering from the loss of services.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS inshore harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador

have serious concerns about their current union representation; and

WHEREAS the inshore fish harvesters of Newfoundland and

Labrador want the right to vote on which union will represent them;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to request that the government urge the

Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board to proceed immediately to a

vote of inshore fish harvesters to decide which union will represent them.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here of approximately 60

names on this one. They're coming from places such as New Ferolle, Reefs

Harbour, Shoal Harbour, Pasadena, Port aux Choix, Shoal Cove West, Bartlett's

Harbour, Bear Cove, Bird Cove, Castor River South, Princeton, Plate Cove,

Bonavista, Little Catalina and so on, numerous communities throughout the

province.

Basically, what's being asked for in this petition,

what it comes down to is the right for these people to choose. Obviously,

they're concerned. We know there are numerous concerns in the fishery. I

certainly don't pretend to be any expert on the fishery, but I do know it is

riddled with concerns. It has been for years and continues to be. If we want to

have a successful fishery here in our province, I think it's important that

we're all singing from the same hymn book, if you will, and that we're all

united in our stance to the federal government to see improvements. The last

thing we need is division amongst our fishers.

We've seen this division now go on for quite some time.

It's not healthy for the members. It's not healthy for the industry. Basically,

all they're asking for is to get on with it, have the vote so they can move on,

one way or the other, and have a united front, whatever that should be, to best

represent the interests of the province of the fishers and so on.

That's what's being asked for here, Mr. Speaker. I was

asked to bring it forward on their behalf and that's what I'm doing.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS school-age children are walking to school in areas with no sidewalks, no

traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and

WHEREAS this puts the safety of these children at risk;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to ensure the safety of all children by removing

the 1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Conception Bay East –

Bell Island just made the motion, and that will be our private Member's motion

this Wednesday coming. It's an issue that affects a lot of us in this House. I

know, me personally, in my District of Conception Bay South, it is a huge issue.

It's something I've spoken on before and I'll continue to speak on it and

represent the parents who have this concern for the safety of their children

because ultimately that's what it comes down to.

Our children are our most precious resource. If we

can't provide a safe path for them to get to school, that's where the buck

should stop with any government or any person, no matter what position you're

in.

Right now, it's a policy that's been around so long. At

one time the policy worked based on the family models. My opinion is right now

this policy is outdated. It needs to be revised to reflect today's families. Two

people working, busier streets, busier lives, everything is changed, Mr.

Speaker, society has changed. There are more threats to our children.

It's something that when you look at the 1.6, a mile on

some of these roads during the wintertime. This has been an issue that's been

talked about over and over again. It's an issue that we can't – we have to keep

talking about it until we bring in effective change to provide safety for our

children because that has to be number one.

One other point, Mr. Speaker, every time this issue

comes up – and I'll say it again and be on record again. The minister was the

biggest opponent to this policy in 2015 until he became the minister. Now he's

the biggest fan of it. They need to take a serious look at this policy because

in 2015 and prior, this policy was terrible. Now all of a sudden it's not

terrible.

Mr. Speaker, I don't buy that, and I don't think most

of the people in this province buy it. I think it's time for this government and

this minister to take a serious look at this policy and do what's right and make

a safe path for our children to get to school each and every day.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's certainly a privilege today to rise on behalf of

the people of Ferryland district to present a petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the road on the Southern Avalon between Renews

and St. Shotts is in need of major repairs and forms a large piece in the Irish

Loop road highway system; and

WHEREAS now we have a World Heritage UNESCO site that

has increased further the volume of traffic in and out of the Southern Avalon;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to upgrade this

piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years we've been

able to do some upgrades in regard to this significant piece of infrastructure

leading to the Southern Avalon. As indicated in the petition, a significant part

of the Irish Loop which as we know from a tourism, commercial and economic

development is key to growth to the current period of time, but looking to the

future will play a huge role in some of the opportunities we have there to

develop.

Traditional industries like the fishing industry – the

crab industry is used in that region. For those that live there, there's no

major medical treatment facility or acute care facility in that region.

Everything comes north to St. John's to avail of the significant medical

treatment and infrastructures in place. So a highway is certainly required for

that.

As we look to the World Heritage UNESCO designation we

achieved last July, we've seen increased traffic this year as well. Looking at

economic development and opportunities from small businesses that have started

and will grow out from that, it's very important that this piece of

infrastructure be upgraded.

The current government's five-year road plan, I think,

had mention of this for 2019-2020. We believe there needs to be a look at that.

They talk about economic development in areas of opportunity where you can drive

those opportunities with investment and infrastructure. We think this is

extremely important, and we can't wait until 2019-2020. Even to start and get an

indication of a long-term plan over the next couple of years will be helpful to

start this process.

So we urge, on behalf of the residents, that this get

started, and certainly the minister revisit this and get this moved up and get

started as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of

a bill, Prescription Monitoring Act. (Bill 25)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “Prescription

Monitoring Act.” (Bill 25)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for allowing me to rise and to speak to Bill

25, Prescription Monitoring Act , as

it's referred to,

An Act Respecting the Monitoring of Prescriptions in the

Province, a bill that was brought in last week and spoken to by the Minister of

Health and Community Services. There have been a couple of speakers, and I'm

going to speak to it today as well.

Mr. Speaker, the monitoring of prescription drugs is

new for Newfoundland and Labrador; however, not new for some other provinces in

Canada. A number of other provinces have already instituted similar kinds of

legislation in other jurisdictions. I think pretty much all the jurisdictions in

the country have a program, with the exception of Quebec.

The bill brings about a program for Newfoundland and

Labrador, a program that currently doesn't have here. We'll become one of four

provinces to have stand-alone legislation similar to this. Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Ontario and PEI have stand-alone acts regarding this. Other

jurisdictions have amended established legislations to include a prescription

monitoring program.

What the government is proposing here is to do

similarly what four other provinces in the country have done to have a

stand-alone type of legislation. The program is based on the input and

collection analysis of data with respect to monitored drugs in the Pharmacy

Network.

So it allows for government to identify with problem

drugs. Quite often in Canada we hear today, and these days, a problem with

opioid use, narcotic use for many years, and we know that those drugs over

decades have changed and transformed over a period of time.

We know that for prescription drugs the knowledge and

understanding, the prescribing of such drugs changes, trends change as more

studies are done and understanding is gathered. That's what happens in medicine,

Mr. Speaker. It happens with varying diseases and treatments of those diseases

where better solutions are found, testing and research occurs and continues to

occur and then you find changes in programs and how they're used and so on.

I remember clearly a few years back on the evolution of

OxyContin. OxyContin is different than other drugs because normally when drugs

and new illegal drugs become available, are produced, new chemicals are created

around the world, they quite often come into Canada through Montreal, through

Vancouver, through Toronto as major centres and then will distribute and their

networks will grow from there.

For example, you see drugs being brought in through

Vancouver, which is new drugs, new chemicals that evolve. It's not unusual for

them to come in through Vancouver and then they would spread to the West Coast

from British Columbia to Alberta and so on. In Ontario, a similar kind of

circumstance; Ontario and the great Toronto area has the highest concentration

of our population anywhere in the country, which means there are high markets

for chemicals and a variety of drugs. But when the OxyContin issue came in, it

didn't begin and circulate and catch hold like traditionally has happened in

Vancouver and Toronto and in Montreal; it was an issue here much earlier than it

was in other jurisdictions.

The problem here grew rather quickly and then there was

a number of steps that happened here which worked to try and control it, to

understand it, get a grasp on it and to contain it. Fortunately, as the years

went by, OxyContin evolved into a newer drug which was harder to abuse and to

use for abusive and for addictive measures. We also know that in our population

today there's a significant amount of use and treatment for people who have

abused opioids in Canada, who have become addicted to certain drugs and then

treatments happen to try and understand that, to help those patients, help

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with that and help them to return to non-use,

which is the goal. We know a lot of times it doesn't happen as well as people

had hoped.

The Prescription Monitoring Program is to be able to

track the usage of certain prescribed drugs. OxyContin was a prescribed drug and

became a problem here in our province and it can happen for other drugs in the

future.

One of the differences of the act here in Newfoundland

and Labrador versus what we've seen in other provinces, for example, in Ontario,

Ontario has

an act they refer to as the Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act . The title of the bill itself, the

title of their legislation itself in Ontario is specific to narcotics.

Now, the bill itself allows leeway for addition of

drugs to a list of those that are being monitored, but the title of the bill

itself refers specifically to narcotics. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the bill

is simply the Prescription Monitoring Act .

As we had a look at other legislation in other

provinces, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to use my time today to and highlight some of

the differences we've seen and then what I anticipate will likely happen is when

we get to Committee stage where it's an opportunity to have a question and

answer period – not like Question Period, where we have 45 seconds, but you have

a longer period of time to ask questions and give some understanding and

background of why you're asking the question and also gives opportunity for the

minister to respond to the question. So there's more or less a discussion that

takes place as, for example, why is this a

Prescription Monitoring Act and not like what Ontario did, being a narcotic

safety act or a Narcotic Safety and

Awareness Act , as they called it.

So there are some nuances and changes. While we see

similarities in Ontario, we see similarities in Nova Scotia, PEI has essentially

adopted a duplicate. But what we see happened in some of those, we see pieces in

this bill before the House, Bill 25, on the

Prescription Monitoring Act . I'm going to talk about some of those

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Under

section 3 – I should back up.

Section 2 is always

the

section of

an act that has

definitions contained within it. Under

section 2

of the act, electronic health record is referred to in the legislation. It “ means

a province-wide record of a patient's health care history that is available

electronically.” It refers to the minister. It refers to “'monitored drug' means

a drug or class of drugs prescribed in the regulations.” It talks about personal

health information and

ties it to the

Personal Health Information Act . Personal health information means

personal health information that's defined under that particular act.

It talks about regulatory authorities being the

Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the College of

Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Dental Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board and a

professional regulating body prescribed as a regulatory authority in the

regulations.

When it says regulations, it generally means one of two

things. It generally means that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is

Cabinet, the Members of Cabinet can make regulations as outlined in the bill and

a specified minister can make regulations. I'm going to get to those a little

bit later because we see both of that in this particular bill.

Under

section 21, the Cabinet can make regulations in

prescribing drugs or classes of drugs to be monitored, may make regulations

excluding the monitoring of certain drugs within a class of drugs that are being

monitored, and so on. And under

section 22, it talks about the regulations that

the minister is able to make. “The minister may make regulations (

a) prescribing

regulatory authorities for the purpose of subparagraph 2(k)(v). So he can make

regulations.

In 2(k)(

v) under this, the one I just referred to, the

“professional regulating body prescribed as a regulatory authority in the

regulations.” So when it refers to regulatory authority it means – and what this

tells me is that the minister can add other regulatory agencies to the

regulations as he sits fit, and sees appropriate.

It also includes respecting the additional requirements

that are required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a dispenser may

dispense a monitored drug, respecting the information a dispenser is required to

record. It also includes respecting the Pharmacy Network regulations: the person

who may access the Pharmacy Network. It includes respecting the reports to be

produced under the act, and respecting a person with whom the minister may enter

into agreements with.

So there are some others there, a list of them there,

under

section 22 and I'll be referring to some of those during my comments this

afternoon.

Section 3 lays out the objective of a program. It says:

“

(1) There is established a program entitled the Prescription Monitoring

Program.

(2) The object of the program is to monitor, analyze and report

information related to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs in

order to educate, support and assist.”

It goes on to say: “(

a) individuals in the safe and

appropriate use of monitored drugs by identifying and reducing instances of

abuse and misuse of monitored drugs; and (

b) prescribers and dispensers in

appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored drugs.”

Just to clarify that, it says: “… the program is to

monitor, analyze and report information related to the prescribing and

dispensing of monitored drugs in order to educate, support and assist (

a) individuals in the safe and appropriate use …; and (

b) prescribers and

dispensers in appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored drugs.”

The object of the act is, as I referred to a minute

ago, sometimes there are changes in how drugs are prescribed and monitored, and

also there is change in the formulation of drugs, how they act. Are they fast

acting or slowly acting? Are there safeguards built into the drug to prevent

misuse of the drug?

When we compare that to what the

Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act of Ontario has said, they've

taken a different approach. They said: “The purpose of the Act is to seek to

improve the health and safety of …” – in our case it would be Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. In their case it would be Ontario, the people of Ontario. It

talks about improving the health and safety.

The first object here in Newfoundland and Labrador is

to monitor, analyze and report information. I know the minister talked about

it's not set up as a method of policing doctors and pharmacists; even though

that's an aspect of the bill, that's not the intent of it.

The very first words under 3(2) is to “… monitor,

analyze and report information .…” That's what makes it sound like policing,

whereby in Ontario, they chose to speak about improving the health and safety of

their citizens. They do that by permitting monitoring, analyzing and reporting

information.

It is a little bit of a nuance, Mr. Speaker, because

the minister – I raise it because the minister during his time in presenting the

bill referenced on a number of occasions how this mirrors or is similar to what

other jurisdictions have done, including Ontario. He's talked about Ontario at

some length, about what they've done.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is the focus

they've put on this is about health and safety of individuals, where the focus

he's put on the bill for Newfoundland and Labrador is about monitoring,

analyzing and reporting information related to prescribing and dispensing.

Somehow, you know, sometimes that puts people a little bit defensive. People who

are professional prescribers, doctors and those dispensers, the pharmacies, puts

them a little bit on the defensive.

The choice of words is interesting, Mr. Speaker. In

Ontario it also says: “contribute to and promote appropriate prescribing and

dispensing .…” In Ontario it also says: “reduce the risk of addiction and death

resulting from the abuse .…” Ontario seems to put focus on people and the use of

drugs by people, Mr. Speaker.

Under clause 4, it talks about the minister shall do.

Mr. Speaker, in some jurisdictions the legislation establishes a committee – I

don't think I have it in front of me, but a committee on oversight. In

Newfoundland and Labrador and others, it's the minister.

This one says: “The minister shall administer the

program;” the minister shall “monitor the prescribing and dispensing of

monitored drugs;” the minister shall “evaluate the effectiveness of the

program;” the minister shall “provide information, professional consultation and

assistance to the regulatory authorities relating to the prescribing and

dispensing of monitored drugs;” the minister will “monitor the use of monitored

drugs;” the minister will “educate prescribers and dispensers regarding the

appropriate prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs;” the minister will

“educate individuals on the appropriate use of monitored drugs;” the minister

will “report to regulatory authorities on new and emerging prescribing patterns

for monitored drugs;” and also, the minister will “perform any other duties

prescribed in the regulations,” which the minister can draft himself.

Mr. Speaker, the only issue here, the only concern that

we have here, the only one I'm going to raise – and I should back up a little

bit on this. I failed to identify how we've come to the understanding of these,

because we've reached out to stakeholders, Mr. Speaker. We've reached out to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, we've reached out to the

Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and we've reached out to

the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I can't remember a time when the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner himself so quickly spoke out and raised

concerns about a bill, together – separately, yet they've both done that.

So we reached out to them, and what I found out was –

we know under legislation, by the way, and the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner, there's a requirement that the government consult with the Office

of the Privacy Commissioner, particularly on matters where privacy could change

or be impacted.

There was a consultation, I'll give that to government,

and there was a consultation done with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association; however, my understanding is – and I haven't spoken to all of the

groups that are potential stakeholders here yet, but my understanding is until

we received this bill late last week – we received it, I think, on the 13th. It

was first reading on the 14th and it was second reading on the 15th, but until

this bill was actually provided to us – at the same time we were provided with

the bill, my understanding is the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association

was also, for the first time, provided with a copy of the bill.

While they did have a consultation back in October,

where there was a slide show or a deck as it's sometimes referred to, and there

were discussions about the bill, the actual bill, they never had a chance to see

the final language and the final bill until last week. I heard Robert Thompson,

who I think his title is CEO of the NLMA, speak about this publicly last week,

on Friday. We know the Privacy Commissioner has also spoken out on some concerns

as well.

We took the opportunity to consult with those people as

well, and we're still consulting with them because even over the weekend, as

they dig deeper into the bill and they consider all the potential nuances that

could happen, then they've raised more concerns. Some things they've become less

concerned about, other things they've become more concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I should be very clear because this in no

way is a reflection – anything that I'm going to talk about this afternoon is in

no way a reflection on the current minister or the current government. This

legislation will be in place for future governments and future ministers,

whoever they may be. So it's important for us to look at it from that lens as

well.

If we raise a concern about an authority that the

minister may have, it's not referring personally to the current Minister of

Health. It's the position who has the authority, not the current minister. It's

the position who has the authority that raises some concern for us. So I want to

be clear and point that out. It's certainly not personal to anybody on the other

side of the House. It's really about whoever happens to be the minister of the

day.

Under clause 4 where it says the minister shall do this

and the minister shall do that, it also says under paragraph (

f) that the

minister shall “educate prescribers and dispensers regarding the appropriate

prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs.”

Mr. Speaker, some organizations feel that it would be

more appropriate for the minister and the work that he does, to help develop

educational tools and information and services regarding the appropriate

prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs. They say it's not the minister's

role today to educate prescribers and dispensers. This would be outside of the

role of the minister, as it exists today, for the minister to actually be the

person to educate prescribers and dispensers.

It would be more appropriate for the minister and the

Department of Health under the direction of the minister, it would be very

appropriate for them to help develop educational tools, information and

services, other than the minister or the department actually providing that

education.

Also, under clause 4 of the bill, further to that, that

the bill could also include that it develop a prescriber portal that permits

prescribers to compare their prescribing activity to peer groups.

Mr. Speaker, we know today, and the minister talked

about this when the bill was launched last week – I think his words were that

every physician, privately fee-for-service doctor and others besides, the ones

that are salary doctors as well, have access to electronic health records. I

believe the minister said there were five that they knew of in the province who

don't have a computer or an iPad, I think is what he referred to. There are only

five in the province and all the rest of them do. Knowing that this access is

available, then there may be another opportunity here to enshrine in legislation

another opportunity.

The minister even talked about – and I remember

listening to the dialogue at his press conference – what about the doctors who

don't have electronic sources available to them; they're not connected to

electronic health records. The minister made a point of saying that if you're

progressive in medicine – I'm not trying to put words in this mouth, but my

understanding from the answer was if you're progressive in medicine and so on,

then it's the right thing to do. I don't disagree with that. That you subscribe

to the advancement of technology and have that available to you as you do your

job practising medicine.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, if there was a

prescriber portal that permitted prescribers to compare their activity to peer

groups that it would be advantageous to have such a portal. What we mean by that

is if physicians are saying I want to have a look to see how I'm doing with this

compared to other doctors, they'd be able to do that.

That's under

section

Section 5 lays out a number of

areas that the minister may.

Section 6 talks about delegating his authority – “…

may delegate, in writing, any power or duty conferred on him or her under this

Act to a custodian under the Personal

Health Information Act .” Again, I point out here he may do that; he doesn't

have to do that. He may do that or she may do that, whoever the minister happens

to be at the time.

“A delegate referred to in subsection (1) shall comply

with all the requirements and have all of the authorities of a custodian under

the Personal Health Information Act ,

unless otherwise stated in this

Act.”

I heard the

minister talking about Newfoundland and Labrador health information services,

but the act does not specify that they will be the custodians or the ones

leading this particular monitoring program as a regulatory authority. Because

that's really what it is. When you begin to monitor prescribers and you monitor

dispensers, then you become a regulator of those programs. The College of

Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador

is a regulator when you compare them to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association being a peer group as a

professional association representing doctors in the province.

But Newfoundland and Labrador health information

services has been an independent branch of the health care operation that

collects and disseminates data and do very complex matters regarding health

information and provides those services to anybody who picks up the phone and

calls them, pretty much, they will try to ascertain the information that you're

looking for.

What this bill is about, as we saw back in

section 3,

is monitoring, analyzing and reporting information related to the prescribing of

drugs and dispensing of monitored drugs in order to educate, support and assist.

So it brings on a little different flavour to what Newfoundland and Labrador

Centre for Health Information – some refer to NLCHI – have traditionally done.

It's a little bit different than that.

If we go on to

section 7, “

(1) A prescriber who

prescribes a monitored drug shall record the information prescribed in the

regulations on the prescription.

(2) Before issuing a prescription for a

monitored drug a prescribers shall (

a) review the patient medication file …” –

and this is when it comes down to technology, so prescriber has to review the

medical profile of the electronic health record – “and (

b) report in the manner

prescribed in the regulations that the patient medication profile in the

electronic health record was reviewed before the prescription was issued. I'm

going to come back to this, Mr. Speaker.

“A dispenser who dispenses a monitored drug shall

record the information prescribed in the regulations.” And also in

section 8,

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: “Before dispensing a monitored drug the

dispenser shall (

a) review the patient medication profile in the electronic

health record” – or EHR, as it's sometimes referred – “relating to the

individual for whom the monitored drug is being dispensed; and (

b) ensure that

any identity verification requirements prescribed in the regulations are

satisfied.” So, Mr. Speaker, I raise that because there's going to be some

discussion from me this afternoon.

“A dispenser shall ensure that each time a monitored

drug is dispensed it is recorded in the pharmacy network in accordance with the

regulations.” Again, we haven't seen that yet. There are duties here of the

regulatory authority and then the collection and disclosure of information under

clause 10.

Under clause 10, “Where it is reasonably necessary to

achieve the objects of the program, the minister may collect, use and store

information in accordance with this Act and the regulations.” A very important

clause, Mr. Speaker, for people to understand,

section 10, where it is

reasonably necessary to achieve the objects of the program – remember the

objects are to monitor, analyze and report information related to prescribing

and dispensing.

So the minister is to collect this and use and store

the information in accordance with the act. “Upon the request of the minister, a

prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose to the minister any

information the minister reasonably requires to achieve the objects of the

program.”

I'm going to stop at that one, Mr. Speaker. I'm going

to stop here at 10(2): “Upon the request of the minister, a prescriber,

dispenser or other person shall disclose to the minister any information the

minister reasonably requires to achieve the objects of the program.” So I'm

going to stop at that one. It's a fairly significant power that the minister has

under this act. These are one of these sections that starts to broach on that in

that area.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has great power and when he

requests so a prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose to the

minister any information the minister reasonably requires to achieve the

objectives. When we talked to the Medical Association on this one, they talked

about determining compliance with the act, or misuse of the act, or abuse or

diversion of monitored drugs, not just the objectives of the programs.

The objectives of the program I've talked about,

they're very broad, very high level – very broad and very high level. Normally

when these types of oversights are added, it becomes about non-compliance with

the act, not about a high level of achieving the objects of the program, which

are inconsistent with what Ontario has. Ontario has already stated their objects

of the program are people's health and well-being, but Newfoundland and

Labrador's objects of the program are about monitoring and capturing

information, and then sharing that information.

The Medical Association has raised a concern, and I

don't disagree with them because with this particular

section under 10(2), it

should be about determining compliance with the act or the misuse, abuse or

diversion of monitored drugs. So I'm sure in Committee we will talk about that

one further. I notice the minister is feverously writing notes over there and

I'm sure we'll have some discussion on it.

The good thing about this process, Mr. Speaker, as we

raised some of these matters today the minister, I know, has the opportunity

then to consider them, talk to his officials about it and so on. So it's an

opportunity for him to do that before we get to Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, under 10(4):

“ Where

the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a prescriber or dispenser is

acting in a manner inconsistent with the objects of the program, he or she may

disclose information to the appropriate regulatory authority regarding the

manner in which the prescriber or dispenser is acting inconsistently with the

objects of the program.”

So very similar to my last comment is objects are very

broad ranging, but it should be about compliance with the act. What this does

not include here is: “Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a

prescriber or dispenser is acting in a manner inconsistent with the objects of

the program ....” That's pretty broad, Mr. Speaker, because the prescriber or

the dispenser may be very much in compliance with the legislation, but if they

are not consistent with the objects of the program or may be seen, then the

minister has very powerful grounds.

So where he believes on reasonable grounds that the

prescriber or dispenser has contravened the act, we believe would be more

important, or has aided the abuse, misuse or diversion of the drugs, then the

information must be disclosed. He or she may disclose information to the

appropriate regulatory authority about the non-compliance or potential abuse,

misuse of a monitored drug.

I think that's a little bit stronger because we don't

want to see a circumstance where the minister or anyone acting on behalf of the

minister will have access to personal records, personal health records, beyond

what is beneficial and beyond what is important.

Mr. Speaker, under

section 10(8), the act currently

says: “Where there is a conflict between this

section and the

Personal Health Information Act or the

Access to Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, 2015 , this

section applies.” So sections 1 to 7 in paragraph 10

which talks about everything from “a law enforcement authority may disclose

information relating to the administration and enforcement of this Act to the

minister.” So law enforcement now by law can share this information.

“Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that

an individual is abusing or misusing monitored drugs, he or she may disclose

information to a prescriber or dispenser.” All of these about collection and

disclosure of information, it says where there is a conflict with current

legislation this

section is the paramount consideration. Mr. Speaker, that gives

it very important powers.

Mr. Speaker, the

section goes on to 11 and 12; 11 talks

about an inspector. Now, this is an important one because it says: “The minister

may appoint a custodian or an employee of a custodian” – a custodian could be

Newfoundland and Labrador health information services – “under the

Personal Health Information Act to act

as an inspector for the purpose of this Act and the regulations.” The minister

can appoint inspectors as well, an inspector under the act. “A person shall not

knowingly make a false or misleading statement, either orally or in writing, to

an inspector while he or she is exercising powers or carrying out duties or

functions under this Act or the regulations.”

When we get to

section 12 where it says: “An inspector

may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the administration or

enforcement of this Act or the regulations, inspect or examine the premises,

processes, books and records of a person that the inspector may consider

relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with this Act or the

regulations, and the inspector may, without a warrant, (

a) enter any premises

(

i) which is a place of practice of a prescriber or a dispenser, (ii) where any

property, books or records are or may be kept, or (iii) where anything is done

or is suspected by the inspector of being done in connection with a requirement

of this Act or the regulations; (

b) make copies, extracts, photographs or videos

the inspector considers necessary; (

c) require the owner, operator or person in

charge of a premises to give the inspector all reasonable assistance, including

the production of books and records as requested by the inspector, and to answer

all questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the

regulations and, for that purpose, require the owner, operator or person in

charge to attend at the premises with the inspector; and (

d) require the owner,

operator or person in charge to make available the means to generate and

manipulate books and records that are in machine readable or electronic form and

any other means ….”

Mr. Speaker, it is very broad-ranging authority under

this

section being given to the minister, very broad authority to an inspector

to inspect.

The next

section after this under

section 12, which is

section 13: “An inspector shall prepare a report which sets out the findings and

results of the inspections.” So an inspector does an inspection. “The minister

may share the findings and results of an inspection ….” What that means when I

read that, there's a little piece here I think that's left out of it, but I

think I can fill in the blanks. When it says: “An inspector shall prepare a

report which sets out the findings and results of the inspection, ” it doesn't

say what the inspector will actually do with that report, but in the very next

part of it: “The minister may share the findings and results of the inspection

with (

a) regulatory authorities; (

b) law enforcement authorities; (

c) the

prescriber whose premises were the subject of the inspection; (

d) the dispenser

whose premises were the subject of the inspection; and (

e) other persons

prescribed in the regulations.”

So it's obvious that an inspector who carries out an

inspection of a doctor's office or a pharmacy and compiles a report, that report

is reported back to the minister because it's the minister who may share the

findings of the results of the inspection. We essentially have an inspector who

can be appointed by the minister and an inspector who can walk into a doctor's

office and want to review files, records, books and so on, and then report those

findings back to the minister.

When I read that, Mr. Speaker, I have to say the hair

on the back of neck kind of stood up because – and again, it's not about the

minister or government currently. It's not about them. My comments are not

personal to the current government, or any minister in the current government or

the current Minister of Health. But my thoughts were, well, this could really

lead to a problem at some point in time because we have a bill where the

minister can essentially add any drug to the list of drugs being monitored, and

then can send an inspector in to review the records of any person who is being

prescribed those drugs.

I'm sure we'll have a discussion about it as the debate

goes on. I look forward to having that opportunity to speak to minister about

that. But one

section that's problematic here under 12(1) where it says: “An

inspector may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the

administration or enforcement ….” That's problematic for me. If the bill was to

say an inspector may, at reasonable times, where the inspector believes on

reasonable grounds – and they've already used the requirement of reasonable

grounds. Reasonable grounds have been defined by courts and there have been lots

of cases over the years to talk about what reasonable grounds are. I think I

talked about this when I was up talking about the SIRT bill last week.

Reasonable grounds had been tested, and circumstances where someone had

reasonable grounds, and the high courts, the Supreme Court of Canada, have said,

well, what are reasonable grounds?

Reasonable grounds are more than just mere suspicion.

They have to be set on a base of facts, and I'm strongly paraphrasing now, Mr.

Speaker, because I haven't read the most recent rulings, but my recollection and

understanding of reasonable grounds is more than just suspicion, more than I

suspect there might be something going on there. Reasonable grounds would be

much stronger than that.

The current legislation does not require reasonable

grounds, but if it was to add at reasonable times where the inspector believes

on reasonable grounds that a person is in contravention of the act, not just

administration or enforcement but contravention of the act or the regulations.

And where information requested under

section 12 has not been provided, then

they can inspect and examine.

So what we're saying here is, instead of giving an

inspector what could almost appear to be in certain circumstances carte blanche

in many ways, to say: Well, look, if you want information, you ask for it. So if

somebody is being prescribed a particular drug that is being monitored and you

want to have a look at those records, well, you could pick up the phone and call

the doctor and call the pharmacy and say: I'm reviewing this drug, I want to see

all your patient records for that drug or I want to see certain patients.

Maybe you go to the pharmacy first and ask: Who have

you prescribed this particular drug to? Because when a doctor sits in their

office, and according to what I read here in this act, when a doctor is going to

write a script for a drug, it doesn't have to be an opioid, it's whatever drug

the minister decides to add to the list of monitored drugs. So if a doctor

writes a script, there are a number of things the doctor is required to do. She

or he must look at the electronic health record.

We know when the health record is reviewed of the

patient, there's a fingerprint left there that it's been reviewed. So the

minister could easily look at that. Here's a patient, did the doctor review the

health record? That's easy to find out. A prescription pad is required to have

certain information, but the prescription is then taken by the patient to the

pharmacy and once it's filled, the prescription is actually stored by the

pharmacy.

I'm not sure what else the minister wants authority of

to inspect at the doctor's office, because that's what required under the act.

So maybe the minister can shed some light on that for us as we get through

Committee.

What else could there be that the doctor didn't do? If

he looked at the electronic health record, there's a fingerprint that can be

remotely looked it; regulatory authorities can look at that remotely. If there's

a prescription filled, it's gone to the pharmacy. So I'm wondering what else the

minister has envisioned the inspector could go to the doctor's office for. What

else is it he may look for?

What we're suggesting is maybe there's a different way

of doing that. Just saying that “at all reasonable times, for a purpose related

to the administration or enforcement of this Act … inspect or examine the

premises, processes, books and” so on can take place. I'm suggesting that to me

seems very broad and can be tightened up to include reasonable grounds. Then the

minister, during Committee, we can have a discussion likely on what else could

they potentially be looking for or what is it there to examine?

As the minister has pointed out, this is not about

policing. It's about improving the proper use and delivery of drugs. Proper use

by prescribers, proper process by dispensers and proper use by patients is the

comments I heard him focus on. Again, I'm not trying to put words in his mouth.

I'm certainly not intending to do that, but that was my understanding from what

I read and what I've heard. Maybe the minister, if I'm gone wrong on that he can

correct it.

Under

section 13 it says: “An inspector shall prepare a

report which sets out the findings and results of the inspection.” I just said

that. Also, it says: “The minister may share the findings and results of an

inspection with (

a) regulatory authorities;” and lists some others there as

well. It lays out a list of them.

Mr. Speaker, any findings and results provided by the

inspector to the minister or any other authority or person pursuant to this act

shall be non-nominal. That's a recommendation from the Medical Association as

well and of course the idea that we're talking about here is ensuring that is to

be non-nominal and tighten it up and make sure that we protect it.

Under

section 14: “The minister may, in accordance with

the regulations, establish one or more committees to provide advice and

recommendations on matters relating to the administration and enforcement of

this Act that are referred to them by the minister.” Again, if this was a little

bit different and instead of saying “may” could have said “shall” because the

minister shall – in some provinces there is a committee that has oversight, and

this could have said: the minister shall establish one or more committees to

help execute the monitoring program. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't say that.

Also, under (2): “The minister shall, by regulation,

prescribe the terms of reference for the committees, the composition of the

committees and the duties of the committees.” Under (3), “Notwithstanding

subsection (2)” – the one I just read – “there shall be at least one prescriber

and one dispenser on each committee.”

Under

section 14(1): “The minister may, in accordance

with the regulations, establish one or more committees to provide advice and

recommendations on matters relating to the administration and enforcement of

this Act that are referred to them by the minister.”

Mr. Speaker, in this section, whether or not any such

matters are referred to them by the minister, what we're talking about here is

they may reference matters relating to the administration of the act, but can

they do what's not referred to them by the minister? Can they do not only just

what's referred to them by the minister, but can they also review other aspects

if they so see fit to do so? Instead of just having it referred to them by the

minister, then it's related to administration and enforcement of the act.

Under 14(2): “The minister shall, by regulation,

prescribe the terms of reference for the committees …” and we're going to have a

little bit of a discussion about that, but there are some discussions within the

associations about composition of the committee. We'd like to have some

discussion about that in Committee.

It currently says at least one – excuse me, Mr.

Speaker. It currently says, “The minister shall, by regulation, prescribe the

terms of reference for the committees, the composition of the committees and the

duties of the committees.” Under subsection (3) it says, “Notwithstanding

subsection (2), there shall be at least one prescriber and one dispenser on each

committee.” I think we can broaden that. Instead of just having one physician,

one prescriber and one dispenser, I think there's an opportunity to grow on that

and maybe to have two prescribers and two dispensers on the committee, instead

of just one.

So, Mr. Speaker, flip over to

section 21. Under

section

21, which refers to “Lieutenant-Governor in Council regulations” making

authority – and I talked about this a little bit earlier. Under 21(g), it lists

– under the LGIC may make regulations, Cabinet may make regulations, prescribing

of drugs, classes of drugs and so on, excluding the monitoring of certain drugs

within a class of drugs and so on. It talks about prescribing of duties – I'm

skipping over some of them – and then “generally, to give effect to the purpose

of this Act.”

What's been requested here is about public consultation

before making any regulations. I referred earlier in my comments about concerns

raised about public consultation or the lack of public consultation. There was,

and I give credit to the minister, there was a consultation process, but the

actual wording and the specifics of the bill were not known.

My understanding is there is at least one regulator who

asked to have input before it came to the House and wasn't given that

opportunity. I stand to be corrected on that. I'd have to check my notes, but my

understanding is there is one who asked can we raise some issues here with you

and that opportunity was brought to the House. So that opportunity really never

presented itself, but we do know that when we get to Committee, we can make

suggestions for amendments, government can make amendments as well as the

Opposition, and I fully expect on this particular bill there will be some of

that.

Immediately after (g), which talks about: “generally,

to give effect to the purpose of this Act.” We could add about public

consultation before making regulations and that Cabinet shall not make any

regulations unless the minister has published a notice to the proposed

regulation on the website of the ministry and any other format that the minister

considers advisable and notice complies with requirements of this section.

As well, that the time periods specified in the notice,

during the time which members may publicly exercise their right to prescribe and

so on. What we're going to ask for in Committee here is that if you're making

changes to regulations that at least there be some consultation. Making changes

to the act or regulations, before you do that, then let's give stakeholder

groups and professional bodies, associations, oversight bodies and so on time to

have a look at it.

That's essentially what we're going to talk about in

more detail in Committee. Make sure there's notice and then allow for

consultation. Mr. Speaker, that's in the Ontario act. What we intend to propose

would require a process of consultation on certain parts of those regulations

and using language that is under

section 17 in the Ontario act, if the minister

wants to have a look at it. It's very similar to what Ontario has. It basically

says the minister and government, before they do this, they're going to consult.

They're going to consult with professional groups and bodies who could be

prescribers or dispensers. That's essentially what that's about, Mr. Speaker.

Under clause 22, which I referred to earlier, is the

authority given to the minister to make regulations. Similarly, under clause 22,

we're going to propose to the government that they consider some changes about

public consultation before the minister enacts changes that he's permitted to do

so under clause 22.

Then under 22(d), “… respecting the additional

requirements that are required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a

dispenser may dispense a monitored drug ....” What it says, so it's clear: The

minister may make regulations respecting the additional requirements that are

required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a dispenser may dispense

a monitored drug.

Similar to the other ones, Mr. Speaker, again this is

about public consultation before making those regulations, having discussion

with stakeholder groups and a public consultation to ensure that if they're

done, there's not going to be a significant, negative impact or effect to those,

and that it meets the goals and objectives of what the bill should lay out.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to a number of doctors since the

bill became public last week. Some of these doctors who are fee-for-service are

saying: I just got another layer of requirements that I have to do before I

prescribe drugs that are being monitored. They have to know what drugs are being

monitored. There are certain steps they'll have to take under the act to make

sure they're doing their job correctly and, of course, that means, in

likelihood, they're going to see fewer patients.

So there was some response that I heard from doctors on

that, but I also understand the importance of monitoring those drugs that are

being problems for our society today. This bill is very broad on what drugs may

be monitored.

Ontario, while it's called the

Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act , in the legislation there is a

similar allotment for the minister in Ontario to monitor essentially any drug;

however, the act itself refers to narcotics. The intent of the act by the title

of it refers to narcotics and Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't done that.

When the minister closes, maybe he can talk a little

bit about why he's not limited the number of drugs that could be monitored under

the act. Why is it so broad so that virtually any drug at all could be

monitored? I'm sure there are drugs that you can't think of a scenario or

circumstance that may require monitoring, and while it's not only the opioids

and narcotics that people become reliant upon and find it a difficult drug to

give up and change sometimes because people become dependent and reliant on

drugs, but there are lots of drugs that I can't think of why such a drug should

be included in this act or this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent almost an hour now talking

about some of the questions that we're going to raise in Committee. I did so

intentionally today so that the minister, while he's listening very carefully

over there – and I appreciate him paying such careful attention and listening

over there. As I've said, I've looked over a number of times and he's over

making his notes on it. So I look forward to his responses on these, either at

the end of second reading or we'll get into it more so in Committee anyway.

I thank you for giving me the time this afternoon.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very happy to stand and speak to Bill 25, the

Prescription Monitoring Act . This is a

very critical, very crucial bill. The minister, when he presented the bill, I

took copious amounts of notes because I know of his commitment to this issue and

his expertise in this issue.

He has stated his plan is to have this bill proclaimed

by January 1. If we look at the date that we have today, November 20, that gives

us on the calendar six weeks; but, in fact, we may sp