PDF Version

March

7, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 64

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, I welcome to our public galleries 10-year-old

Wendy Dalton, who is joined by her mother, Patricia, and father, Don Dalton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Wendy is the subject of a private Member's statement.

As well, we welcome to our public gallery: Mayor Paul

Pike of St. Lawrence, town clerk Andrea Kettle, and councillors Ernie Lundrigan,

Mike Stacey, Rodney Doyle, Amanda Slaney and Jack Walsh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

would also like to welcome to our public galleries: Port Saunders Mayor Tony

Ryan and Councillor Peter Kennedy who are in St. John's for meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

For

Members' statements today we have the Members for the Districts of Conception

Bay South, St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre, Burin Grand Bank,

Lewisporte Twillingate and Harbour Main.

The hon. the Member for the Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay

tribute to the Kiwanis Club of Kelligrews on the occasion of their 60th

anniversary. I recently had the pleasure of attending their anniversary dinner

celebration. They have worked tirelessly serving the needs of those in

Conception Bay South.

The Kiwanis Club of Kelligrews has had a significant

impact on the community over the last 60 years. To see an example of its many

contributions, one only has to look at the minor softball field located next to

the club, and their commitment to the youth of the area is very evident.

With projects ranging from developing the Sgt. Thomas

Ricketts Memorial Park and long-time hosting of the annual Santa Claus parade

and the infamous annual Kelligrews Soiree; the Kiwanis Club of Kelligrews is

committed to bringing the exceptional services to our community.

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

in congratulating the Kiwanis Club of Kelligrews on 60 years of service to the

Town of CBS, and wish them all the best in their future efforts to assist the

people in our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. George's Humber.

MR.

REID:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alex Henniffent, a business administration

student at Grenfell campus who was recently recognized at the Global Student

Entrepreneurs award ceremony.

While only 20 years old, Alex already has seven years'

experience as an entrepreneur and is a client of the Navigate Entrepreneurship

Centre in Corner Brook.

The Global Student Entrepreneur Awards program is

designed for undergraduate students who own and operate their own businesses.

Young entrepreneurs can learn to promote their business and its value

proposition by competing with other business owners.

Participation in local, regional and online

competitions will result in worldwide media coverage for the entrepreneurs and

their businesses. Students can also meet and benefit from the experience of

fellow entrepreneurs, the VIP judging panel and industry representatives from

the Entrepreneurs' organization.

Alex placed first in the Atlantic Canada's region of

the international contest series for 2016-2017. The value of the prize he

received was $30,000, which includes transportation to Vancouver, a trip to

anywhere in North America, business training, a website creation package and

$5,000 in cash.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House join with

me in wishing Alex well in his future endeavours and congratulating him on this

prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many people are doing wonderful work in my District of

St. John's Centre and today I recognize Susan Gillingham.

Susan is the pharmacist owner of Shoppers Drug Mart on

Lemarchant Road, one of the largest methadone dispensaries in the province,

serving over 270 patients.

Susan is participating in a fantastic study aiming to

increase access to HIV care. The APPROACH study is led by a team at MUN's School

of Pharmacy. APPROACH stands for: Adaptation of Point of Care Testing for

Pharmacies to Reduce risk and Optimize Access to Care in HIV.

Clients request a test verbally or discretely on a

piece of paper. The screening test is similar to a blood-glucose test with a

finger prick and results are ready in less than two minutes.

Susan and her team have received extensive training in

not just the physical aspects of the testing, but also in counselling for

delivering test results in a safe and caring manner. Positive results come with

a bloodwork requisition and people receive further testing.

This study is also in partnership with the AIDS

Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador. I thank Susan Gillingham and her team

for their leadership, improving our community, for their passion and their

compassion.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Burin Grand Bank.

MS.

HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Chief Petty Officer Second

Class Scott Osborne of the Royal Canadian Navy. Originally from Little Bay East

in my District of Burin Grand Bank, Scott is now stationed in Halifax.

Scott was in Ottawa yesterday where he was presented

with the Military Merit award by the Governor General, Mr. Speaker an award

given to service men and women who have demonstrated dedication and devotion

beyond the call of duty.

He has served on six naval ships, including HMCS

Toronto , which nominated him for this

award; has been twice an instructor at the Canadian Forces Naval Operations

School; and has been posted to CFS St. John's.

Anyone who knows Scott will be struck by his energy,

his positive attitude and his willingness to go above and beyond. His parents

Bill and Rita Osborne, sister Gail, brothers Ross and Ron, and indeed the whole

family can rightly be proud of him.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Chief

Petty Officer Scott Osborne on this award. He is a shining example of the more

than 700 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians currently serving in the Canadian

Armed Forces.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR.

D. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize an outstanding

gentleman from my District of Lewisporte Twillingate, Mr. Victor Baker

better known as Uncle Vic.

On March 3, I had the privilege of attending Uncle

Vic's 100th birthday. The celebration started with Victor being picked up by

horse and carriage at Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte, where he now resides. He

travelled to the United Church where a full house of family and friends awaited

his arrival for a surprise birthday party. The afternoon was filled with stories

of Mr. Baker's life, along with song and dance, in which this youthful man could

not stay seated, and danced and sang to nearly every song.

Mr. Baker is such a pleasant and caring man. He

appreciates everybody and everything. And people love him for that. When asked

by reporters what was his secret to living 100 years, he said the key was to

watch your diet and stay active. And as a testament to his humour, he told

another reporter that the key to being 100 years was being born in 1917.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating Mr. Victor Baker on his 100th birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

PARSLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured today to rise and recognize a special

constituent of mine from the District of Harbour Main. In October, nine-year-old

Wendy Dalton was selected as Mattel: You Can Be Anything contest winner, which

allows young girls to live out their dream career for a day. Wendy chose to be a

pilot; a profession that is male dominated.

In collaboration with the Gander Flight School, Wendy

was sent to Gander via limo with her mother Patricia and father Don. She was

given a tour of the flight centre, was taken through pre-flight checks and

shortly after took to the skies above Gander to fulfill her dream.

Working alongside flight instructor, Heather Philpott,

Wendy operated the various controls inside the cockpit and learned about the

importance of the instruments that keep a plane on course. Once back on the

ground at Gander International Airport, Wendy no doubt was elated by the

experience.

I believe she serves as an example to young girls

everywhere that no matter what profession you choose in life, whether it be male

dominated or not, with dedication and hard work you really can be anything.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Before proceeding to Statements by Ministers, we would also to recognize in our

public gallery today, Deputy Mayor Todd Strickland and Town Manager Melvin

Keeping from the Town of Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the committed efforts of the Premier's Task

Force on Improving Educational Outcomes. The task force was launched in November

as one of more than 50 initiatives included in

The Way Forward , which is our government's vision for sustainability

and growth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The task force includes four distinguished education

experts: Dr. Alice Collins, Dr. Marian Fushell, Dr. David Philpott and Dr.

Margaret Wakeham.

From January 30 to March 2, public consultations were

held throughout the province which included meetings with teachers, high school

students, members of the public and various stakeholder groups. In addition,

there is an online option for submissions which will be available until March 20

www.ptfnl.ca .

Mr. Speaker, the task force is examining the

kindergarten to grade 12 education system and considering a number of priority

areas in education, including: early learning; mathematics; reading and

literacy; inclusive education; student mental health and wellness; multicultural

education; co-operative education; indigenous education; and teacher education

and professional development.

The Premier's Task Force will provide recommendations

to assist government in developing an Education Action Plan which will guide and

support 21st century learning and educational opportunities for students in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are committed to

providing the best possible education system for our students and we will

continue to work collaboratively with our stakeholders to improve student

performance.

I ask all hon. Members of this House to join me in

thanking everyone who has taken advantage of the opportunity to share their

opinions during these consultations, and also in recognizing the members of the

task force for their dedicated work.

Thank you.

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. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Collins, Dr. Fushell, Dr.

Philpott and Dr. Wakeham. I've had the pleasure of working with some of these

individuals in the past and I hold their experience in the highest regard.

While I have a great deal of faith in the task force,

the same cannot be said for the group to which they will report. I would hope

the Minister of Education will listen more intently to the task force than he

did with other stakeholders such as the NLTA, the association of school

councils, administrators and teachers, parents and students as it relates to

improving education in our province.

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

statement. I'm delighted to acknowledge the task force, in particular, for their

efforts. They've had a huge task to perform and they have a long road to travel

at the hardest time of the year.

I'm very much looking forward to their report and have

great hopes, but I urge the minister once he has received the report, to work

closely and work with all stakeholders in ensuring that all the task force's

recommendations get implemented. I trust what they're going to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

BYRNE:

You

got that right.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this House of a

far-reaching advancement that our government believes will have a very positive

impact on post-secondary education in our province and on the economy of our

province.

At the end of February, I was very pleased to join the

Premier at the College of the North Atlantic's Corner Brook campus to announce

the establishment of a new Workforce Innovation Centre. This is an extraordinary

development, made possible by $1.8 million in funding from the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Development Agreement.

The Workforce Innovation Centre will fund a variety of

initiatives to help create sustainable employment and serve as an incubator for

new ideas and projects that will help our province prosper. Eligible

organizations, Mr. Speaker, such as municipalities, Indigenous organizations,

and post-secondary education institutions, can and will apply for funding

following a public call for proposals later this spring.

In The Way

Forward , we commit to have College of the North Atlantic and its 17 campuses

serve as local and regional economic generators and hubs. This centre represents

a giant leap in that direction. By harnessing the renowned creativity of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we can, as the Premier said, set our province

on a new path of discovery.

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. The Workforce Innovation Centre is a very positive initiative which

we all hope will produce positive results for the people of our province. This

is an initiative that was worked on heavily by the previous administration. I'm

pleased to see the partnership with the federal government came to fruition.

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market

Development Agreement can only be truly successful when a government actually

focuses on the province's economic climate and recognizes that fostering an

environment for sustainable employment and innovation is a step in the right

direction.

At a time when the Liberal government has done so much

to discourage economic growth in our province, it is nice to see something that

offers our communities and young people a glimpse of hope.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 the advance copy of his

statement, and this is great news. I'm really glad to see it. It will definitely

help our growing unemployment issue which, as we all know, is a serious problem.

I have one it's not so much a concern, but a question

to the minister because it wasn't clear to me. Is this a one-time grant? How

many years is this going to cover? What is going to sustain this centre over

many years? That wasn't clear from his statement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier hand-picked a former Liberal

leadership candidate and a Liberal financial donor to the highest, non-political

position in the public service the Clerk of the Executive Council.

So I ask the Premier today: Do you think it's

appropriate to have a politicized Clerk of the Executive Council?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all positions, certainly within government, what's

important is we get the right people that can do the job, Mr. Speaker, and the

person that we have in place right now has a very stellar record. As a matter of

fact, he had a lengthy career in public sector workforce in this province, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Coffey, for those that would know him as the current Clerk of the

Council, the head bureaucrat in our province is doing a great job on behalf of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most encouraging things that I

know since I became Premier of this province is the number of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who unselfishly are stepping up to key positions in this

province to help work with us through the current situation that has been left

by the previous administration, a record of mismanagement and poor planning, I

say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, the Clerk is supposed to be the most

senior, non-political office in government. This is another backtrack on the

Liberal's promise to take the politics out of appointments.

So I ask the Premier: Are you and your Clerk, Mr. Bern

Coffey, attempting to politicize the public service?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the question there, I would say to the Member

opposite, not at all. What we're trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is get this province

back on track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

We're very fortunate that the former Clerk is now working with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation doing a great job, Mr. Speaker. So this is not

about replacing people or putting people there for political reasons. This is

about making sure we have people that can actually do the job that we've asked

to do.

Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, it's about people that are

willing to step up. Step up from very great careers that they've had, both in

the public sector and the private sector, willing to help and step up for our

province, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it with the new CEO at Nalcor, who has a

stellar record. We know that he's making a great difference at Nalcor, and

helping us right now in the current situation, as I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite raises the question here; if you

look at your own record, political appointments that they have put into place,

like John Ottenheimer who was a leadership candidate just weeks prior to the

previous election, Mr. Speaker. They were decisions they made for political

reasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be clear to the Premier, I'm not questioning

qualifications of the Clerk. I'm questioning the promise that this government

made, that the Liberals made to take the politics out of appointments, and

putting Bern Coffey in such an important position is putting politics in to the

most senior position in government.

So I ask the Premier: Can you tell us and identify,

explain to us the process that you followed when you hired former Liberal MHA

Perry Canning to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mines and Natural Resources?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we've had with Mr. Canning and his appointment,

Mr. Speaker, again, it's another example of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian

who's now back in our province and willing to step up and support the

initiatives that what we need to do in this province, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at the past, and we look at how far we've

advanced this since we've taken government, Mr. Speaker, we need not go back too

many years when you look at elections in our province. When Len Simms would one

day be the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, the next day he

could be leading a Progressive Conservative campaign, and then he'd go back when

that was finished and go back into the same position again. Mr. Speaker, that is

politics. What we are doing is not politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard some of the comments over there, and I just

reiterate, I'm not questioning the qualifications of Mr. Canning or Mr. Coffey.

My question was what was the process, and the Premier hasn't told us yet.

So I'll ask him this question: Premier, can you explain

to us what was the process you followed when you hired former Liberal candidate

Lynn Sullivan to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Royalties and Benefits in the

Department of Natural Resources?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, once again, Ms. Sullivan had a great record

working within an agency or within a public sector workforce within our

province. Ms. Sullivan did a great job. Again, I would if you look at the

qualifications, in her case, Mr. Speaker, she came back and took a pay cut to

come back and try and help this government tackle the mess that was created by

the Members opposite.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when you look at the

process that we had used in attracting the people to work with this government,

it was a much better process that was used by the prior administration. And the

former premier himself knows that he reached into the RNC to put his own deputy

chief in staff, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Deputy chief.

Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not about

qualifications or capabilities of people, this is about the process. The

Premier's not providing the information. A very clear question is what is the

process they followed? In the case of Ms. Sullivan, it appears she didn't even

know what job she was going into after she was appointed. She had to find out.

So I ask the Premier this: Can you tell us what process

was used when you hired former Liberal political assistant Tony Grace to the

position of Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands in Municipal Affairs?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, to the Leader of the Opposition, you know, I take

exception to the fact that we've had people here with long careers within

government. To bring someone like Tony Grace, who has been around government

circles through the past administration Mr. Speaker, he worked there for many,

many years. It's been a continuous years of service in public sector within this

province, I say.

So he's qualified for the job, Mr. Speaker. He stepped

up to the job and doing a great job, I would say, in some of the restructuring

that we've seen within government.

These are people that have been inside the government

for a long, long time. When the opportunity came and the positions were

available to them to continue the great work that they were doing on behalf of

people, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they stepped up to the task and the

challenges that was offered to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say the opportunity didn't come, they created the

opportunity because it was only last fall that the Premier and his ministers

stood and talked about how all the deputy ministers and assistant deputy

ministers positions and people they eliminated, very qualified people they threw

out, and then they appointed their own Liberal friends to all these many

positions. Tony Grace was no different. While they were terminating others, they

were moving him in.

So the Premier still hasn't told us what the process

was, so I'm going to ask him again, Premier, if you can identify the process

used to hire your former Liberal Party executive member Ted Lomond to the Deputy

Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Can you tell us what

process was used for that political appointment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the process that was used when you go out and you

put management people in situations, you look for qualified leaders; that is

exactly what you do. You put the best people that you have available to you to

go into those key positions.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know, in some cases,

what process was used by the former administration to actually take some of

those very qualified people out of the positions that they were in to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was very simple, and I've asked several

times now and we still don't have an answer. I've asked the Premier: What is the

process he used to hire these people? He took good public servants out of jobs,

people who have served government for many, many years, he put them on the

streets, he eliminated them. They talked about all the jobs they eliminated and

then they backfilled them with Liberal friends.

So I'll ask the Premier again: Can you tell us the

process you used to hire former Liberal candidate Paula Walsh to the Assistant

Deputy Minister of Justice and Public Safety?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to be honest with you, it's pretty sad in this

House today when you look at a woman, a young woman who's had a tremendous

service and a stellar record again within the RNC in our province and through

Labrador and throughout this province, to even question the fact that she would

not be qualified for the job that she's been asked to do, that she stepped up to

do. It is a bit disheartening, especially tomorrow when we look at PMRs in this

very House when we'll be discussing things like pay equity and so on for young

women and women who are willing again, Mr. Speaker, to step up.

The former premier of this province, the current Leader

of the Opposition, is willing to question someone of their record, which Paula

Walsh has put in place in this province, it is very hard to stand up here and

answer a question about an individual who's doing such a great job on behalf of

this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I hear banter back and forth

across the floor. The only individual I wish to hear from is the individual

recognized to speak.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a lot of noise coming from across the hall

here today. I think they're a little bit sensitive over the line of questioning

today.

To the Premier's answer to the last question, not one

time today have I questioned the qualifications of any of these appointments.

I've asked repeatedly what the process was. The Premier wants to try and

grandstand and make it about qualifications or questioning someone's background.

It's not about that, I say, Mr. Speaker. It's strictly about qualifications.

I'll ask the Premier this because he has not yet told

us once what the process he used was. He campaigned on taking the politics out

of appointments his words: taking the politics out of the appointments. Their

signature bill was about taking the politics out of appointments.

So I'm going to ask the Premier, you appointed a

long-time, Liberal, strong supporter with very close ties to people within the

Liberal Party, a former political staffer, Carla Foote, to the most senior

communications position in government.

I'll ask the Premier: What process did he use to

appoint Ms. Foote to the most senior communications, non-political role in

government?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Wow

thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you think about that position and who was actually

filling that position that Ms. Foote is now into, I find the line of questioning

rather bizarre in some ways.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to one of the questions

that was asked about Mr. Lomond, Ted Lomond. In that particular case we had in

many of the cases that I talk about here, there were vacant positions that were

available for people to step into. So, Mr. Speaker, it was as simple as that.

It's important for any government, for any team, to put

the best available people that they have around them. That's what these

decisions were based on, making sure that we have strong Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in the positions often that were vacant that required good, strong

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to step into these leadership roles.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud, not of the work that's

being done even today, but also the work that's been done in the past as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did fill a vacant position because the government

opposite created these vacancies in these positions by putting long-standing,

qualified, hard-working senior executive members of government on the streets.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been asked several times

to provide the process used to make these political appointments when he

promised to take the politics out of appointments. He hasn't answered yet what

process was used, so I'm going to ask him: What process was used when he

appointed the former Liberal candidate, a long-time party supporter, a

significant financial contributor to some of their campaigns, Mr. George Joyce,

to the position of Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour Relations.

I ask the Premier: What process did you use to choose

Mr. Joyce?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the former premier, and now the Leader of the

Opposition, is asking questions about process. With Mr. Joyce, and I'll go by

memory on this, but he was hired by a former I'm guessing it was a PC

government in the '80s, by Minister Blanchard at the time. So the process of him

being hired and coming into government was done, you know, many decades ago, I

say, Mr. Speaker.

And likewise with Tony Grace, you'd have to ask the

former Premier Williams because that was the guy that actually hired Mr. Grace

in the beginning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

So,

Mr. Speaker, the former premier is asking questions about a process of people

like Tony Grace, or people like George Joyce. These processes were established a

long time ago by the individual hires that he's asking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So if I understand what the Premier said, the closest

time that it came to a process, the process was that he was formerly hired by a

PC government so that made him right for the assistant deputy minister position.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier this because

we've asked this question about process over and over today, given him numerous

opportunities to talk about what process he used to make sure that he took the

politics out of appointments in all of these positions. There is right now a

process going on with government whereby managers and directors in government

are competing for restructured positions within the public service.

I ask the Premier: Will the competition that you

currently have underway within the public service where people are competing

against each other for jobs, will it include interviews or will ministers simply

handpick those positions as you've done with all these others today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The process for the individuals that have been impacted

by the decisions and the announcement we made on February 22 is a process that

has been agreed to with the public sector act in mind, in consultation between

the HRS department as well as the Public Service Commission.

All impacted applicants are to submit by the end of

business on March 6 their applications for positions. Applications should

include a recent copy of the employee resume, as well a

summary of why the

employee believes he or she possesses the necessary educational skills and

experience for the position.

Mr. Speaker, the deputy ministers are responsible then

to do the screening and make a recommendation on the somewhat, I think 60 to 65

positions that are posted, and we look forward to seeing successful candidates

receive those positions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the names and the positions that I went through

today during Question Period is just a small sample of political appointments

made by the Premier and his government. They politicized the Clerk, the highest

position within government. It's never been politicized like this in the history

of our province before; the highest communications position. They are moving to

politicize other positions. They politicized deputy ministers and assistant

deputy ministers. They're moving to politicize Access to Information, and now

they're making efforts to politicize positions in the public service.

I ask the Premier, people of the province do not trust

you and your government: Are these moves that are going to instill trust? Why

have you broken another promise to take the politics out of appointments when

you've made all these very clear political appointments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you remember, for the people of the province, Bill 1

in this particular Legislature was the Independent Appointments Commission.

Where we had Chief Justice Wells, we had Shannie Duff, certainly not someone who

is known to be a Liberal, we had Zita Cobb, we had Derek Young and Philip Earle.

These are individuals that stepped up to put, for the first time in this

province, a non-political appointments commission. Mr. Speaker, they've done a

great job. They've been able to put key people in place; politics completely out

of it, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

What we've done, for the first time in the history of

our province, is put indeed a very formal Independent Appointments Commission, I

would say, Mr. Speaker, and the former premier certainly did not have the

courage to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Can

the Minister of Education outline the process used to hire his former running

mate as the director of communications position in his department?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what political system the Member his headspace is in.

There are no running mates that I'm aware of in our political system. So I'm

sort of at a loss to even comment on what he's referring to. I have no idea what

the Member is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should remind you that you were both running

candidates when you were a Member of the NDP Party.

In April of last year, the Minister of Education stated

that the 2016 Liberal budget would not cause undue hardship for teachers. Well,

the teachers have spoken.

Does the minister now still stand by that statement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Thanks for the political history lesson from the Member for Bell Island, Mr.

Speaker.

Last year, we implemented a number of changes for a

very unfortunate reason, and that's because the previous administration over the

course of their term of office drove this province up onto the rocks, raided the

Treasury and basically ran for the hills afterwards, and continue today to take

zero responsibility for the financial mess that they want the next generation of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have to deal with.

We made decisions last year that were very difficult to

make. We made them based on the best research evidence available. We had the

courage to make those decisions, unlike the previous administration who doesn't

even have the courage today to admit responsibility for the mess they made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

your courage included cutting 217 teachers out of the education system.

Educators, parents and students have expressed concern

about the inclusive education model.

Will the minister confirm that pushing through full-day

kindergarten was at the expense of inclusive education resources?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, at the expense of repeating myself for about the hundredth time,

perhaps, there were 73 positions reduced through the teacher allocation formula

last year, not the number that the Member seems to come up with a different

number every time he stands here in the House of Assembly.

To a person I have been to closing in on a couple of

dozen schools so far in this year, in 2017. I was in several dozen schools last

year. I have spoken to kindergarten teachers and I have spoken to parents. To a

person, they have praised full-day kindergarten. The only person I hear

criticizing full-day kindergarten and saying that he doesn't want it is that

critic over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

This critic over here has never said he didn't want all-day kindergarten. It was

this administration who designed the process for all-day kindergarten, but we

were not willing to do it at the expense of the rest of the mainstream school

system, Mr. Speaker, and the inclusive process.

To quote the minister: We have to make adjustments to

inclusion, because if we don't, we will be failing our children.

What are these planned adjustments to the inclusive

program?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, again, I thank the Member for the question he asked me last week. As I

said, we stood in Opposition for a number of years calling attention to issues

and challenges associated with the inclusive education model that that

administration brought in, I believe it was 2009, with zero consultation with

teachers and the education sector. Drove it in, imposed it upon the education

system, never consulted with anybody, never put in a dime of additional

resources.

When we were running for election, the Premier said he

would establish a task force to review the education system. That was the

subject of my Ministerial Statement today. One of the key areas that they are

looking at is inclusive education. We are acting where they failed to act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Two-hundred-and-seventeen needed teachers removed from the school system last

year, Mr. Speaker.

The minister likes to talk about the past. Well, in the

past that minister actually condemned government for failing to, and I quote:

invest in new public libraries, stating they are such a crucial resource for

families with young children.

Will the minister tell us: What is holding up the

release of the consultants that you hired on the closure of libraries?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pretty sure the Member was here in the House of Assembly last week

when I said that that report was going to be released in the spring. And that

hasn't changed since last week when the same question was asked by the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, following Question Period yesterday, the only thing that the Finance

Minister could say in response to my questions over and over again was he's

wrong, he's incorrect, he's wrong.

So I ask the Finance Minister a simple question: Has

any direction on targets for cuts been given to departments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS.

C. BENNETT:

No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, that's not even believable, and answers like that contribute to the

lack of trust that people have in that Finance Minister and administration.

According to Statistics Canada, 16.8 per cent of people

in Newfoundland and Labrador were unemployed in January 2017. That's over double

the Canadian average. This government has put the economy into a tailspin with

heavy taxes and a lack of a plan, and it has negatively impacted consumer

confidence.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Is there any plan to

address the negativity and the hopelessness created by you and your government?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity to stand up again and answer a

question from the Member opposite who yesterday made a choice to speak about

information that he had not validated, he had not had facts. He never picked up

the phone and asked me the question, but he saw fit to come into this House of

Assembly and provide information to the people of this province that's not based

on fact, and by doing so created anxiety.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Member opposite to take a

long look at the tone of the questions that he asks in this House of Assembly in

the context of his contribution today and in the past to the economic realities

that our province faces, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, last week the Premier said, when referring to Muskrat Falls power

rates: In just three years, we will see double. That means people now paying

$300 a month will be facing a staggering $600 for their power bill.

I ask the Premier: What measures is the Premier

planning now to help homeowners, businesses and institutions prepare for these

skyrocketing power bills?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, thankfully someone in this House had the

wherewithal to ask a question about what is indeed a very pressing issue in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

I'm

not expecting the Official Opposition to be asking these questions. I wish they

would.

Mr. Speaker, I did say in this House last week about

one of the biggest challenges that we will face as a province is the doubling of

electricity rates as a result, or mainly as a result of the Muskrat Falls

Project.

We've put in many measures already. We talked about the

sale of surplus power. We made that commitment for many years now. We lead that

discussion when the Official Opposition refused to even go down that road. It

took them a few years to get there when they started realizing the impact that

this was having.

We're a few years away. We're going to look at whatever

mitigating efforts. We know there will be things that will have to be done, Mr.

Speaker, to deal with this, what is indeed a pressing issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, the people of the province are waiting for those plans.

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia's UARB acted decisively in

protecting the people of Nova Scotia from their excessive power bills, just as a

regulator is supposed to do.

I ask the Premier: Why won't he give this province's

PUB oversight of the Muskrat Falls Project so it can begin to protect the people

here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the UARB in Nova Scotia and we're seeing,

obviously, lots of interest in provinces like Ontario as well, Currently, right

now in our province we are just over 11 cents a kilowatt hour. So we are very

competitive as it exists today. We know that mitigating efforts will have to be

put in place in the future, but we're not quite there yet.

In terms of bringing the PUB into this process right

now, this project is nearly 80 per cent either done or committed to at this

particular point right now. So the PUB will have to be involved at some point in

terms of rate setting, as they always do. But when you look at the legislation

that we've sat through, both Bill 60 and 61, and the impact of Muskrat Falls,

with a power purchase agreement that is in place for the supply and purchase of

power from Muskrat Falls, there's very little that could actually be done right

now because of the measures that have been put in place. We have a contract that

is in place with Emera. There is a federal loan guarantee commitment.

So we will be there for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador who deal with this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Mr.

Speaker, a recent Emera document revealed it has a 59 per cent partnership

capital in the Muskrat Falls transmission line. I ask the Premier, is this

accurate and, if so, what are the financial implications for the people of this

province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I think that the document that the Member

opposite is talking about is some information that was put forward on a blog

right now. But when you look at the way the financing was put in place, the

structure was put in place by the prior administration, not by me not by me at

all, but by the prior administration and we've inherited this situation that

we're currently into. When you look at the Emera investment in terms of the

overall project, there are responsibilities. Because it was a prior

administration that said for 20 per cent of the project, they would get 20 per

cent of the power, Mr. Speaker.

So the final determination on what the percent would be

have yet to be determined, Mr. Speaker. And we are very concerned very

concerned of many missed opportunities for people in Newfoundland and Labrador

as a result of this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Could the people of this province be

on the hook for some of the costs to Emera for the two-year delay in Muskrat

Falls and, if so, how much? Because they've paid for the Maritime Link; it's

done. What's it going to cost us, that delay?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The project itself, when you look at the Emera

component to it, it's a publicly traded company. As I said, the terms that were

outlined in the contract by the prior administration is what they are. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Emera will get access to power once a third

generating station or a third turbine actually starts producing power.

That is kind of where the contract is, Mr. Speaker. One

of the astounding things that we see in that contract is that it is the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the contract that was put in place by

the prior administration, could potentially be on the hook for overruns on the

Emera portion of this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

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.

MS.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On February 22, our government made an announcement

about changes to the management positions in government. At that time, I

indicated both to the media and to Members opposite in the House of Assembly

that when those employees who have been impacted by this change had all been

spoken to, I would table a departmental breakdown of those numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I'll be tabling that information today

based on the decisions and the announcements we made on February 22.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further tabling of documents?

In accordance with the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act I

am pleased to table amendments to the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules

subordinate legislation to the act. The amendments arise from the

recommendations made by the 2016 MCRC and were first approved the House of

Assembly Management Commission on February 27, 2017.

The amendments are being tabled in the House as

required under the act. As a copy is being distributed to each Member, I ask the

Members do I have the consent of this House that these amendments are considered

as read into the record?

HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR.

SPEAKER:

required, these amendments will be posted on the House of Assembly website and

will be brought to the next meeting of the House of Assembly Management

Commission for final approval.

Further, in accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby table the minutes of the House of

Assembly Management Commission meetings held on November 30, December 7, 2016

and February 1, 2017.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

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 emergency responders are at great risk of

post-traumatic stress disorder;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation

containing a presumptive clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in

various front-line emergency response professions, including firefighters,

emergency medical service professionals and police officers not already covered

under federal legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a mater and a very important one

that I've raised in the House last year. I've discussed it publicly and I can

tell you I met with a number of stakeholders over recent months and look forward

to meeting with more to discuss this.

PTSD goes beyond just what the prayers of the petition

here are asking for, which is a presumptive clause for PTSD. PTSD is being

better understood, better known, a much clearer understanding of the nuances and

what's involved in PTSD, the causes, the response, how people are impacted by

PTSD and their families. It's being better understood now than ever before. One

of the problems with a personal PTSD is their ability to apply for assistance or

to talk about what had caused the PTSD or the workplace stress injury.

Currently, under the rules of the Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Commission, or WorkplaceNL as it is now, an injured

worker, a person who becomes injured with PTSD, especially front-line responders

in our province, have to be able to establish what event caused the PTSD. What's

known now, more than ever before, is that PTSD is often not caused by a single

event but by a series of events or many years of workplace trauma or exposure to

significant events.

What the petitioners here are asking for is a

presumptive clause for people in those particular professions. As well, what's

needed, Mr. Speaker, is not only just the presumptive clause for people in front

line but also other people who have the risk and exposure to PTSD in other

workplaces.

The legislation should be updated. The legislation

should be improved. There should be other actions that government can take to

help assist and promote early intervention of those who are regularly exposed to

difficult and traumatic events so that the onset of post-traumatic stress

disorder and workplace stress injuries can be reduced, better understood by

those who are exposed to them, and then reduced lost time and also the impact on

the workers.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to table this

petition. It's another one I have on PTSD. I have tabled them in the past. I

expect to have more that will be looking for other aspects of improvements in

legislation to have a positive impact on workers throughout our province when it

comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and workplace injuries.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

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 Members of the House of Assembly are elected to

represent the interests of their constituents; and

WHEREAS recall legislation would increase democracy in

our province by making Members of the House of Assembly more accountable to

their constituents;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to introduce recall

legislation into the House of Assembly.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I've spoken about at

length in this Chamber in the past. In fact, I presented a private Member's

motion just last year, and it read:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House

supports the introduction of legislation for the recall of elected Members of

the House of Assembly, similar in principle to the legislation in effect in

British Columbia, where a registered voter can petition to remove from office

the member of the assembly for that voter's district provided the voter collects

signatures from more than an established percentage of voters eligible to sign

the petition in that electoral district.

So this is not a new concept. It's a concept that has

worked in other places in Canada and has worked in other places around the

world. I understand the sensitivities associated with it, particularly for

Members opposite, but I think it would be when we talk about the need for

democratic reform, I think it would be a step in the right direction.

Recall legislation is not a new idea. It was on the

books in Alberta in 1936, in one of the US states back as far as 1908. And it's

not a rare idea. Most US states have had recall at some level of their

democracy. In Canada, Alberta has had it in the past, and British Columbia has

it today. So it doesn't destabilize a democracy. Many would argue it strengthens

a democracy.

So given that all three parties in this Legislature

have talked about the need to modernize this institution and promote democratic

reform, recall legislation seems like an easy step. There's precedent for it.

There are jurisdictions where it's working quite well. It's a multi-step

process.

For instance, as I mentioned when I read the previous

resolution, a petition has to be signed by a specific percentage of the

electorate. There has to be a vote on whether to recall the Member, and there

are all kinds of checks and balances along the way. So it's not something that

could simply be done flippantly or in response to a broken election promise or a

bad budget or whatever the case may be.

This would be a positive step in the direction of

democratic reform. There are a lot of people out there who would like to see

recall legislation of some form come into our democracy. Unfortunately, that

private member's motion last year was defeated, but there's a lot of support for

it among the public. It's an issue that I'll continue to raise, and I hope other

Members in this hon. House will raise as well.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has removed the provincial point of

sales tax rebate on books, which will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to

15 per cent; and

WHEREAS an increase in the tax on books will reduce

book sales to the detriment of local bookstores, publishers and authors, and the

amount collected by government must be weighed against the loss in economic

activity caused by higher book prices; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest

literacy rates in Canada, and the other provinces do not tax books because they

recognize the need to encourage reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS this province has many nationally and

internationally known storytellers, but we will be the only people in Canada who

will have to pay our provincial government a tax to read the books of our own

writers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government not to impose a

provincial sales tax on books.

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

It's rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, when you think that

our own writers here in Newfoundland and Labrador, that everybody across Canada

will pay less to read their books than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

will. Because we will be we are the only province in the whole country that

imposes a 10 per cent tax on books. It's rather ironic really. It reminds me of

no, I won't go there. I simply won't go there, Mr. Speaker, but it is so

incredibly ironic.

Now, it's not only the effect on the people

individually in terms of the extra financial burden on books and again, we

have to constantly remind the Members of government who support this that we do

have the highest illiteracy rate in the province. We have the lowest literacy

rate in the province. But we're not affecting only individuals' ability to buy

books, but also we're really harming individual booksellers here in the

province.

For instance, Amazon only started collecting the taxes

since January 1, when they are importing books, selling books to individual

people here in the province. Chapters and Indigo started collecting the second

week of January, after Matt House, who's an independent bookseller here in the

province, complained to the Finance Department. But there are still maybe

hundreds of retailers who do online sales, who aren't collecting the tax. So

that means they are selling the books at a much cheaper rate than our own

booksellers are able to sell them here, because they're not charging the obliged

10 per cent tax.

So the Finance Department says no, it's not our

responsibility, it's a CRA matter. So our own Finance Department is not doing

anything about it, and CRA doesn't have a system through which it can monitor

the destination of online sales. So, Mr. Speaker, this is negatively affecting

the people and businesses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

BRAZIL:

East Bell Island, Mr. Speaker. Sorry to correct you on that.

MR.

SPEAKER:

apologies. Conception Bay East Bell Island, sorry.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Sir.

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 government recently cut vital funding to many

of the province's youth organizations; and

WHEREAS the cuts to grants to youth organizations will

have a devastating impact on the communities, as well as its youth and its

families; and

WHEREAS many of these organizations deeply rely on what

was rightfully considered core funding for their day-to-day operations;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

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

reinstate funding to the province's youth organizations.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, we talked about multi-year funding

here and it was a good piece of legislation that we all supported, and that we

want to move forward as quickly as possible; but it does bring up concerns when

only a few months ago, without proper notice, a multitude of organizations,

particularly youth organizations, were cut substantial parts of their core

funding. And it ranged from 40 per cent to 60 per cent and has had a devastating

effect on some of these organizations.

We're hearing some organizations having to layoff some

employees, some having to reduce hours of operation, some having to reduce what

programs they offer and we all know, and I attest and I would suspect most

Members in this House of Assembly have been part of some youth organization that

has received some form of government funding over the years. If it's the Boys

and Girls Clubs, if it's Big Brothers Big Sisters, if its Girl Guides or Scouts,

or if it's a number of the organizations that particularly service young people

in this province, they see the value.

From an economic point of view, the value here, and the

business community will tell you, they generate tens of thousands of dollars for

the economy because the ratio of the dollar invested in comparison to the dollar

that they themselves leverage is, in some cases, 3-1, 5-1. In some cases, some

organization leverage 20-1 the money that's put in by government.

So to cut that, not only are you cutting directly that

dollar figure but if you can quadruple that, in some cases, that's what is lost

to the taxpayers here. That is what is lost to our local economies, particularly

all these organizations that are in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Outside of

that, it's the program money, the investment we're getting by the amount of

money being put into the economy, but the service is being provided.

If government tried to provide those services, it would

be hundreds of millions of dollars. So we're getting tens of millions of dollars

invested in our economy, but we're getting hundreds of millions of dollars of

program delivery services. So that's a positive for the people of this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do ask that the Minister of Finance

and the Cabinet go back. It's a minimal saving, and I mean a very minor saving

in comparison; but the impact it will have on young people, the impact it will

have on our society, next year, five years down the road and the next

generation, it's going to be irreversible. So I ask, go back, reassess this, put

back the core funding. If you're going to move that way, it's a good move. Do it

right at the beginning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I would call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 68.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador that Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act

No. 5, be now read the third time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 68 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll only take a few minutes today. Yesterday, in

Committee, I asked the minister and we had a discussion after the House as well

and his answers yesterday, he was going to give some thought to three matters

that I raised. One was discussion about why age 22. Statistics reflect ages 16

to 25, so I asked the minister yesterday why not 25 versus 22.

Also, the length of impoundment for vehicles; officials

have provided information that the first impoundment would be three days. We

know other jurisdictions have seven days. The minister was going to reflect on

that too, if I remember correctly. And thirdly regarding impoundment, indication

was that impounding of vehicles would only occur when a person has a

blood-alcohol content of over 80 milligrams or refuses a demand provided by a

peace officer.

So in a case of a person over 22 has a blood alcohol

content between 50 and 80, who receives a suspension, my understanding is that

in that case the impoundment would not happen; or, if a person under the age of

22 who had a BAC of between zero and 50 milligrams, they would receive a

suspension and, in that case, the vehicle wouldn't be impounded either.

Anyway, I just remind the minister of those and ask him

if he's got any further information or comments to offer on the legislation

before we finalize third reading.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member opposite for the chance to further

comment. Before I say anything further, I'd like to acknowledge again the

presence of Patricia Hynes-Coates and Amanda Hynes-Coates who are with us and

watching our deliberations with MADD Canada.

As the Member indicated, I did have a good discussion

with him yesterday and reflecting back on the discussion and the debate in the

House over two full afternoons, two full sessions, a variety of media, numerous

commentary that we've received in our office, I've received personally, it's

been dramatic to see that, frankly, the province is telling us that as we move

forward with the passing of this bill, that they're looking for as stringent a

set of regulations as possible to implement and association with the passing of

this bill.

I met with my staff this morning and received assurance

that they also have that desire to do same. So what I'd like to offer as an

overview comment to the Member opposite is that we have that determination. We

will be continuing to work with other jurisdictions to look at the various

parameters that he's indicated, plus others, frankly, and we will be looking for

the toughest, most stringent mechanisms and mitigation measures that we can

apply in association with this bill.

The specifics around his questions if I could just

take a second in terms of why age 22, it's clear that some jurisdictions

certainly I indicated that Quebec and Ontario do reference this less than age

22. As I indicated in my remarks, it does provide one six years. Assuming you

become a new driver you've got six years to be under the scrutiny of a strong

environment of separation of alcohol and driving. That's it. We did have further

discussion on this point this morning and our staff are going to continue to

consider that. At this time, though, our position is less than 22.

In terms of the length of impoundment, and I believe

that this question and the Member can correct me if I've got it unclear but

it was from the perspective of a peace officer and making it clear that when a

peace officer encounters an impaired driver, making sure that they've got clear

direction.

In speaking with officials this morning, I can provide

the following clarification that it will now be mandatory for that peace officer

to impound the vehicle on two situations: One is if the driver refuses to

provide a breath sample; or secondly, if either the roadside test or a

subsequent test back at, for example, a police station indicates that the driver

is driving at an impaired level.

There is some discussion still, I will assure the

Member opposite, around the aspect of whether or not that level should be

dropped to 0.05. And I'm going to assure this House that we will continue to

look at this matter and if we can, we will certainly move forward on that point.

I believe that captures the scope of it, but I guess,

in

summary, I would like to reassure the House that we are determined to make

our roads and our highways safe again. By passing this legislation with the

support of MADD, and frankly with the support of the entire province, it's been

quite overwhelmingly to see the response. I'm looking forward to, in about six

months from now, releasing these regulations after a thorough education, a

thorough revision of the structures that need to be put in place to move and

tighten up the way Newfoundland and Labrador looks at drinking and driving.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I also would like to commend the folks from MADD, and

we know that we wouldn't be here today doing this work, were it not for the

leadership, the passion and compassion of the people in MADD and the teams that

work together in MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

We know that often, often it is folks in civil society

who push us to do the right things. And I'm very grateful for their leadership,

for the work that they have done, and for the insistence and persistence,

because that's what brings us to do often we need that push in order to be

able to do the right thing and to work together.

Now, yesterday in Committee of the Whole, I asked the

minister why the province hadn't looked at implementing the recommendation of

0.05 for the alcohol-blood concentration that MADD had recommended. And the

minister had said well, because it's a

Criminal Code matter. However, we know that in most territories and

provinces in the country that there is an aspect of administrative laws for

drivers. I'm not exactly sure, I haven't had a chance to go back to our law,

whether or not we have that ability within our province, but I believe we

probably do.

The minister responded to me and said, well, no, that's

a Criminal Code matter; not in our

jurisdiction. In fact, it can be within our jurisdiction if it's administered

under the administrative laws for drivers, and there are a number of actions

that can be taken, if in fact the blood concentration level is over if we

lower the rate as recommended by the Mothers Against Drunk Driver. There is

everything from licence suspension from a few hours to seven days, or again,

different provinces and territories have other suspension programs for repeat

infractions. It could be vehicle impoundments, education and remedial programs,

ignition interlocks.

So I would like again for the minister to consider

that, to consider looking at the potential under own laws for administrative

laws for any infractions that, in fact, we can take that recommendation from the

Mothers Against Drunk Driving to reduce the level for blood-alcohol

concentration. So I would hope that the minister would consider that, that the

Department would consider that. I believe that it is a really good

recommendation. All the recommendations from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving

are solid recommendations, and I believe this might firm up what we are doing

here in this bill.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Just a short comment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say as I said previously, that I

appreciate the suggestions, the recommendations. As I said and I want to assure

the House again, we are feeling an awakening in this province in terms of the

seriousness of this problem. The level of conversation is such that we realize

we need to get tough on this problem. Following an excellent meeting with all

senior officials in my department this morning, I can assure the Member of the

Third Party that that zeal is there, and we are going to do our best with these

regulations to honour the request, frankly, of this House and the entire

province.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 5. (Bill 68)

MR.

SPEAKER:

Bill 68 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass

and its title be as on the Order Paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second

reading of Bill 70.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Health and Community Services that

Bill 70,

An Act Respecting Patient Safety And Quality Assurance In The Province

be now read a second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 70 be now read a second time.

Motion, seconding reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting

Patient Safety And Quality Assurance In The Province. (Bill 70)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to open

debate on Bill 70, entitled

An Act Respecting Patient Safety and Quality

Assurance in the Province. This bill is actually one of a kind in this country.

Many provinces have brought together elements of patient safety through various

acts in their legislatures. It includes quality assurance in some, but there is,

however, no other province in the country that has a single comprehensive

statute with all of the elements found in this bill. Indeed, we have been lucky

in some respects to come towards the end of the pack because we've been able to

learn from others who've gone before us.

To put this bill in context, I think it would be first

important to actually decide what constitutes patient safety. There are many

definitions and there's a whole raft of literature, but I think the simplest

working definition is that patient safety is the reduction and mitigation of

preventable harm in the health care system.

The fact that preventable harm actually occurs is

disturbing to some, but effectively every day in this province health care

providers engage with the people of this province with the goal of providing

them with the best possible care. As a former health care provider myself, I

know that providers choose their professions because of a desire to help, not to

inflict harm. Indeed, my own profession has its ethos summed up through the

Hippocratic Oath, which can be paraphrased as first do no harm.

In actual fact, however, whilst in the majority of

cases, patients do traverse the system with good quality care and more often

than not favourable outcomes, there are occasions where that isn't the case.

Despite best efforts and intentions, patients are sometimes harmed as a result

of care that was actually intended to help them.

In Newfoundland and Labrador our health care system is

actually administered directly by four regional health authorities, each of whom

are responsible for ensuing quality services are provided to the people of the

province predominately on a geographical basis, but in the case of some health

authorities they assume a provincial or even a super-regional service.

One way of enhancing patient safety is for the RHAs and

health care providers to participate in a consistent approach to quality

assurance activities. Again, quality assurance may require a little definition

but, essentially, it has several elements to it. These activities provide or

involve the assessment or evaluation of the quality of care provided. So they're

metrics. They process metrics. They look at numbers. They look at percentages of

people who have problems associated with disease and try to separate those from

folk who would have problems that may be associated with the processes of care.

So it also, therefore, involves the identification of

problems or shortcomings in the delivery of care. Unfortunately, the nature of

health care and its personal involvement often means that problems with health

care actually end up in MHA's offices and on the floor of this House when they

would be more properly dealt with by actually going to the front-line providers

and managers.

Part of the quality assurance activities is to try and

have mechanisms to identify problems with delivery. Once you've identified the

quality of care and shortcomings, or potential shortcomings in delivery, you

need to then design activities that might overcome those deficiencies like a gap

analysis.

Finally, once you've identified where those gaps are

and put remediation in place, you then need to ensure that there's some

monitoring to keep an eye on your corrective steps. You cannot manage what you

do not measure, is a simplistic expression but it does actually help in this

context.

In the context of this bill, quality assurance

activities may actually focus on reviews of a particular event after it's

occurred or it could actually include a broader systems review. And as my

narrative progresses, I hope to highlight some of the areas where those would

occur but also to emphasize those areas where it doesn't delve. This is not

about clinical competence and it's not as much focused on the individual as it

is on the system.

The intent to Bill 70 is to actually provide a legal

framework for quality assurance activities. These would be undertaken by the

RHAs and the Department of Health and Community Services. It also, therefore,

would be a two-way communication.

It would provide direction to the RHAs to achieve that

consistency by enabling both the department and the RHAs to set standardized

requirements. Those standardized requirements would be around things like

reporting, how you actually conduct quality assurance activities and also an

element figured prominently, both in Justice Cameron and in the wider literature

and societal discourse, which is the concepts and practicalities of disclosing

information to patients and their families.

So the bill itself covers four major areas related to

the umbrella themes of quality assurance and patient safety, and to do that it's

divided into sections. One will be on reporting investigation and release of

information, the second will be on quality assurance committees and patient

safety plans, the third will focus on a provincial patient safety and quality

advisory committee, and the final part will lie around patient disclosure.

The RHAs will be required to report to the department

on specific safety indicators. These will be determined from time to time and

can be altered in the regulations that will be crafted under the act.

And I'm going to talk a little bit about handwashing,

nothing too gory for my colleagues here who are of a sensitive nature in the

field of patient care.

HON. MEMBER:

appreciate this.

MR.

HAGGIE:

You

may be surprised that I'd pick something like handwashing. You'd think that was

a fight that was long since over, but in actual fact it isn't. And of all the

things that health care providers and individuals can do to prevent the spread

of infection, washing of hands is probably the single easiest and most

important. It's something that we're taught as children and grandchildren, yet

it's surprising how often it lapses; it's slipped from areas in professional

life.

The commonest way of transferring bugs for want of a

better word viruses, micro-organisms that cause health care associated

infections is on the hands of health care workers during patient care. Everyone

thinks about wearing gloves but really that isn't always practical and, where it

is, there are still flaws with the concept that a single technique by itself

produces a solution to the problem.

The cross-infection and infection control literature is

very dogmatic. Hand hygiene is still considered the most single important way to

reduce health care associated infections, but compliance is poor. People rush,

they go from one room to another, there isn't a sink handy. The hand sanitizer

dispenser is broken or fallen off the wall, or simply empty from overuse and it

gets skipped.

It is actually quite frightening when you do these

audits and spray areas of door handles, for example, and phones, telephones. You

really don't want to know what's growing in the handset of the average

telephone. Stop! You don't want to know, that's right.

Paradoxically even the plug socket, the plug holes in

showers and tubs. So really, handwashing and hand hygiene is your final barrier

for yourself as well as the next person with whom you interact.

Shaking hands may be very sociable, generally accepted

western way of greeting but there are some people for whom that is probably not

a good idea.

The results of monitoring of handwashing within RHA

operated health care settings would actually become a publicly reported, open,

transparent, easy accessible indicator. It's one of many interventions that

actually educate, and by educating starts to change behaviour. A lot of people

will skip that or forget it simply because of forgetfulness. It's an error of

omission, not an error of commission. And it's simply just the busy world in

which they find themselves.

Public reporting encourages transparency and

accountability and allows people to see the effects of interventions from such

processes around quality assurance to see how they're working with time. So the

results would then feedback to improve health care worker understanding and

compliance, and maybe even identify deficiencies in current policies. So that

kind of information, in addition to others, would then assist the RHAs as those

organizations mandated to actually deliver health care with the effectiveness of

infection prevention and control and allow them to make future further

improvements.

As an aside, this is becoming even more important with

the declining effect of antibiotics with other quality assurance issues in the

system, the number of bacteria who are developing multiple resistant, becoming

so-called super bugs, is actually getting to the point in some jurisdictions

where it's going to affect the ability for people to undergo straightforward

routine surgery, putting joints in and having caesarian sections and these kind

of things. You're going to put the clock back to the 1930s. Handwashing will

mitigate against some of that, simple, low tech, very effective.

So as part of the reporting mechanisms, the RHAs would

be required to notify the department of specific occurrences and adverse health

events. If you had a cluster of infections and notice that your hand-washing

numbers weren't right, you may be able to tie the two together. These would then

become something that would be flagged at the provincial level again,

awareness and education.

The bill also defined adverse health events in

section

2. The logic behind this is again to provide a constant, consistent lexicon so

everyone's talking about the same thing. There were reports in 2008 and 2009 as

a result of provincial inquiries. There was an Office of Adverse Health Events

established, but the definition was not one of regulation or legislation, it was

one of usage. I think to have consistent

definitions would be very helpful. So

the bill and the

definitions are actually included in your draft.

It defines adverse health events as an occurrence that

results in an unintended outcome which negatively affects a patient's health or

quality of life. It's a fairly standard, fairly well-validated definition. An

occurrence is an undesired or unplanned event that does not appear to be

consistent with the safe provision of health services. So it's something

outside the norm.

The bill then specifies that certain adverse health

events and occurrences must be reported to the department, as the department is

ultimately responsible for the oversight of the RHAs and the province's system.

It would be important that this information is shared up the chain.

So every RHA would also be required to establish a

process for review, what we would call close calls. They're defined in the bill

as a potential occurrence that did not actually occur due to chance, corrective

action or timely intervention. This close call is a concept borrowed from other

fields of engineering, the nuclear industry and aviation have pioneered these

kind of concepts and actually have a whole literature about systemically

identifying errors and close calls and ways to document, track and reduce them,

ultimately.

The RHAs would then have to establish a process for

reviewing and investigating occurrences and adverse events. This would be done

under direction from the department to the RHAs through regulation, as to what

processes they should utilize at analyzed specific events. The importance of

this is at the end of it you have a standard framework. Whatever is happening in

Lab West is subject to the same processes, the same standards as whatever is

happening in Gander or in the Health Sciences Centre.

So the regulations would be drafted to support the

bill, if the House sees fit to pass it. Work on those regulations could begin

immediately. I'm advised by staff, both within the department and the RHA, that

it would take no longer than six months to get those regulations into place.

Changing tact ever so slightly, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker,

that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are familiar with the Commission of

Inquiry on ER/PR receptor laboratory testing, often shortened by the name of the

Commissioner, Madam Justice Margaret Cameron. Her report was presented to

government in 2009 and contained a number of recommendations for reform. It

actually followed on the heels of the Task Force on Adverse Health Events, which

was government initiated and led by the then Clerk to the counsel, Mr. Robert

Thompson. This was completed in 2008 and had numerous recommendations as well.

So it's not like the department started from cold, and

much work has been completed in addition to those within the department and the

RHAs on implementation of the recommendations in both of those.

There were changes recommended, particularly by Madam

Justice Cameron, about the disclosure of information to patients, which actually

required some legislative change. Whilst I can't speak to what happened between

2009 and 2015, my department has worked hard to make sure that the various

interests and stakeholders have had sufficient input to have their views

reflected with Madam Justice Cameron's in this draft bill.

section 17 of the bill requires a positive

obligation on the part of the RHA to disclose certain information related to an

adverse health event to a patient and/or his family. That is not an option; it

is a responsibility written in law, not regulation, that falls upon the RHA. And

basically, the disclosure has to include the facts of the adverse health events

and any new or otherwise unknown facts as they become known. So you can see from

the way this is worded, this is probably just not a single conversation.

Secondly, the consequence to the patient, as they

become known, because this may be something that evolves over time; the details

of the health services provided to the patient as a result of the adverse health

event so this is what they had from health care that they would not have

otherwise required had this event not happened and finally, any

recommendations from a quality assurance activity undertaken to review the

adverse health event.

This deals with the concerns of Madam Justice Cameron,

as well as patients and their families. How could this happen, what does it

mean, and are other people likely to suffer a similar problem in the future?

These four points detail a positive obligation on behalf of the RHA to actually

meet those requests, and do it proactively. The bill also requires that the

information provided to the patient be noted on the patient's health record as

had by the RHA.

Currently, each RHA does have a policy which addresses

disclosure, but Bill 70 imposes a positive duty on the RHAs by statute to ensure

that patients who are impacted receive the same type of information regardless

irrespective, rather, of whether they live in Lab West, Nain or downtown St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the first time in this

province, the first time the patients and their families who've been impacted by

an adverse health event will have a statutory right to recommendations that come

out of a quality assurance activity into the event that impacted their family.

There was another recommendation from Madam Justice

Cameron recommendation 34 and I'll come back to this a little bit later

but she recommended that there be no restriction on the right of access of a

public inquiry into the quality assurance information and its process. In

accordance with Bill 70 we have followed that recommendation, and public

inquiries will be able to access quality assurance information.

I will loop back to other elements of access to

information later, because it's not quite as straightforward as that. For those

of you who follow these things, you may recall that after the Cameron inquiry

there was a flurry of activity from regulators looking to have access to quality

assurance information, and this ended up going to court and there was a ruling

sought as to whether or not two pieces of legislation applied to quality

assurance information, and both of them were competing.

The judge of the day, in the way judges sometimes do,

actually ducked the question by saying the information requested wasn't quality

assurance information, go away and sort out the law at your own pace. So there

will be another piece to this public disclosure and access to information that

I'll allude to shortly.

It is acknowledged that there is a risk perceived by

health care providers in permitting commissions of inquiry to have continued

access to quality assurance information; however, a commission of inquiry is

created in response to major, significant events. And it's important,

particularly in the light of current societal views I think on other issues,

that these public inquiries are and are seen to have the access they need to do

the job to address the question for which they're constituted. These are not

everyday events, hopefully and fortunately. Certainly, if you look in the health

care field, Madam Justice Cameron's inquiry was a two-plus decade event.

It's hoped that the possibility of a commission of

inquiry accessing quality assurance information won't actually produce a barrier

to health care provider's participation in the quality assurance process. But at

the end of the day, that is a hope, and it's set against society in the public

inquiry, the rights of a public inquiry commission to do the things that it is

mandated to do.

Traditionally, you see, documents related to quality

assurance have been treated as highly confidential and not shared even within a

regional health authority, let alone between it. The legal protection of quality

assurance information has been regarded as a fundamental underpinning to the

process. It is felt to be essential to ensuing an open environment where health

care providers are more likely to share opinions and make recommendations.

This august House, in May of 1991, had a two-day debate

on access and rights of access to quality assurance information. When it passed,

in those days, what became the amendment to the

Evidence Act ,

section 8, that stated as amended after that debate,

which involved figures of the like of Hubert Kitchen, Lynn Verge, Paul Dicks and

the former Minister of Justice, I think at the time, was the father of the

current Minister of Justice. It was quite a debate.

Basically, once the amendment was passed, it stated the

quality assurance information and those individuals who participate in those

activities are not compellable in legal proceedings. Mr. Speaker, not

compellable is a term that has significant legal connotations. It means that

information gathered during the activity cannot be disclosed in a court and a

person who participates in a quality assurance activity cannot be compelled to

testify about what occurred in that quality assurance activity. That protection

only occurs for a quality assurance activity.

I think it's worth sharing some insights from my own

perspective about what quality assurance activities actually are like. They can

vary from the boring and anodyne to the openly hostile and vitriolic. And the

stuff that's said in there is said set against the background that it stays in

the room. It is, if you like, a health care provider's equivalent of a sandbox

where a computer programmer can deal with deleterious code and not kill his

computer system. It's done in a way that allows the outcome to be better than it

otherwise would have been.

It is felt, if that protection under the

Evidence Act is removed, that kind of

level of discourse and the quality of output will fall. So the bill amends the

Evidence Act and the

Public Inquiries Act to clarify the

relationship between the two, between legal proceedings in which quality

assurance information can be disclosed and those where it cannot.

The definition of a legal proceeding has been clarified

in this act and in a consequential amendment contained in this act to the

Evidence Act to include a proceeding

before a committee or a person under the authority of an RHA mandated to review

the clinical competency of a health care provider.

Legal proceeding also includes proceedings before a

committee of a governing body of a regulated health profession. What that does

with the protection, is quality assurance information is not to be produced

during a legal proceeding. So individuals who participate in quality assurance

activities cannot be required to testify in relation to those proceedings at a

legal proceeding.

It's not a blanket protection. What it does, though, is

it specifies that a legal proceeding before a regulator is included in this

protection. So to clarify, the output of the committee is public. The fact the

committee met is public. What goes on inside the committee is protected from

disclosure in disciplinary and legal proceedings in a civil action in a court of

law.

What it doesn't mean, though, is that anybody who

wants, for other reasons, to engage in a legal proceeding in a civil action or a

regulator who wants to find and establish the facts of the case, they have no

impairment of their ability to go and subpoena or request people to testify. All

it means is they cannot ask them about the speculations in the room. They can

ask them as to the facts. They can ask them as to the details of their direct

knowledge, but they can't ask them about the hearsay of what goes on in a room.

Quality assurance information is defined in Bill 70,

and means information that's generated or provided for a quality assurance

committee activity. So it will not include, and specifically excludes, anything

in the patient's clinical record, a hospital chart or a medical record, anything

that's maintained for documenting health care. That is accessible to anybody, as

it is currently.

When a quality assurance activity is being conducted,

however, if it appears that the actions of a health care provider don't meet a

standard of care and a review of the skill, knowledge or competency would be

undertaken, that falls outside quality assurance. A switch is tripped. Whatever

went on in quality assurance remains protected but the issue of competency and

skill is referred to an outside process through the regulator, or through

whatever mechanism the RHA feels is appropriate as a first step. That review

would be separate, not part of the quality assurance activity and once it's

identified as such and taken outside is not protected.

At the conclusion of an accountability review into the

competency of a health care provider so this is a separate process, if that

were a concern the RHA can impose its own disciplinary measures or change

their practice scope within the ability, or register a complaint of misconduct

to the relevant professional regulatory body.

It's important to note that information generated for

or produced in the context of this type of individual accountability is not

protected. So this is not a blanket protection for anyone who participates. It

doesn't hide the unsafe practitioner, if that's what people are worried about.

Information generated for this kind of a review, i.e. a

competency review, can be released in legal proceeding and can be released to

the health regulators. This clarifies what can and can't, and at the moment

there's such an element of doubt, that in particular my understanding is it's

the nurse regulators who've been besieging the health authorities looking for

information from a quality assurance process, feeling they have a legal right to

get it.

Our government appreciates and values the role that

regulators have, but it recognizes that there is some protection of process

needed for true quality assurance. One of the ways that regulators fulfill their

statutory mandate is through the disciplinary process, and this comes into play

when a regulator receives an allegation of professional misconduct about a

health care provider. They currently have the authority to obtain the

information necessary to process allegations and currently a lot of this comes

from the RHAs. That again is not impaired or constrained by anything recommended

in this bill.

It does, however, clarify that while they're not

entitled to quality assurance information, as regulators, they are entitled to

everything else: patients' records, patients' charts, RHA policies and any

public information about what may come out of a quality assurance process in the

future.

Quality assurance information only includes information

created for or produced in the context of a specific quality assurance activity.

It will, as I say, not include patients' charts and it doesn't cover areas of

skill, knowledge or clinical competency. That information can all be released.

Regulators are also entitled to speak to the

individuals involved and the only limit is that they cannot compel an individual

to divulge what was said in that box, in that sandbox during a quality assurance

process. Similarly, human resource divisions of the RHAs, when investigating an

issue about a clinical competency matter, will not be able to access quality

assurance information.

The idea of protection of the information under quality

assurance is to maintain the integrity of the process which is of the most value

to the systems when health care providers who are involved in it feel they can

participate in an open and honest and frank manner without their musings and

hearsay being hauled up in a court in legal matters.

Without such protection, and the uncertainties that

have existed since Cameron, and the decisions of Justice Diamond for example in

2014-15, the quality assurance activities that used to happen in the RHAs have

really chilled. They're frozen. And it's felt that this clarity will help to

re-establish that process, because a lack of quality assurance has been shown to

have a significant negative impact on patient safety.

Mr. Speaker, we sought the input of the health

profession regulators who would like us to have less protection. We've sought

the opinions of the professional associations who would have liked us to have

had a lot more protection for their individual members. And we've spoken widely

with advocates and representatives in drafting this bill, and I would appreciate

and like to acknowledge here their efforts and insights.

As I say, some groups say that Bill 70 doesn't go far

enough, and there are some that say it goes too far. Maybe that balance is

struck just simply by that fact alone. It does attempt, as a bill, as a

comprehensive piece of legislation, to achieve a balance in the protection of

quality assurance information so that only that is necessary for the quality

assurance systems issues will be protected. The objective, again, is to promote

full, open and candid discussion within that protected area, unimpeded by risk

or perception of risk.

While most of my remarks have focused on the area of

quality assurance, there are a number of other provisions in the bill; I've

simply emphasized these because I'm aware that they have been significant

sources of contention with special interest groups. The bill provides a

structure through which quality assurance activities will be conducted one

that currently doesn't exist at the moment in any cohesive way.

It will require each RHA to establish a QA committee

which will monitor, report and make recommendations on the quality of health

services to its health service board. It will also feed in and provide direction

to RHAs as to how to conduct a quality assurance activity. Some of the smaller

RHAs, particularly, have had challenges around these. There was a knee-jerk

action in 2009 and 2010 for any quality assurance activity to automatically

mandate bringing in outside specialists and consultants. This is overkill and

not necessary, but it was done because of a lack of clarity in the system at the

time.

The quality assurance committee within each RHA would

be responsible for overseeing processes in the RHA and may actually convene

subcommittees from time to time. So with a larger RHA, such as Eastern Health,

they have a QA, a regional committee, but it may have, for example,

subcommittees to look at cardiac program, subcommittees to look at mental health

in a community, these kinds of things.

Also, the RHAs will actually be required to develop

patient safety plans. These are plans that would focus on improving safety and

removing preventable negative occurrences which could impact a patient's ability

to get out of hospital. I'm thinking of initiatives in hospital now like falls

and medication errors and those kinds of things.

These plans would be the means through which each RHA

would tailor to its own priorities, but the provincial mechanism I'll allude to

in a minute will allow those plans developed, say, in Central or in Western to

be available for input or perusal by other RHAs, so they're not perpetually

reinventing the wheel.

As a provincial mechanism, Mr. Speaker, we felt a

provincial patient safety and quality advisory committee would be the way to go.

It would be established with representatives from the department, the RHAs, and

as well would have public members able to represent the voice of the patient, if

you like.

The committee's mandate would be to measure, monitor

and assess patient safety indicators, and the overall quality of health services

in the province. It would use those indicators and those quality measures to

make recommendations on gaps and how to improve things.

We have, for a long time, measured process

enthusiastically but poorly. What I am hoping with these is that we can look at

those process indicators that we can show are clearly linked to positive

outcomes or removing negative incidents. I think that fits very well at a

departmental and a provincial level with the thrust of where this government

wants to go in terms of outcomes and indicators and using evidence to feed back

into the system to tweak it, to make it better.

So to summarize, Bill 70 aims to achieve the following

objectives and I believe it meets those aims and does achieve these

objectives. Firstly, to standardize quality assurance processes and reporting;

to impose a positive duty on RHAs to provide patients, their families, and the

public with information relevant to the care provided within the health care

system. This is a significant first and was very popular with the public groups

and advocacy groups we saw.

Thirdly, it would create a mechanism whereby learnings

related to close calls, occurrences and adverse health events are actually

shared. Too often the smaller RHAs struggle and aren't aware that other of their

neighbours have actually had the same problem, dealt with it and fixed it. And

we found that out with incidents both small and large over the system in my

short tenure in office.

Finally, and the bit I spent probably the most, in

terms of time, talking about, it provides legal protection and legal certainty

around what is protected and what isn't, that does not currently exist. In that

void we have uncertainty, and in that uncertainty we have had a distinct lack of

ability to do some of the quality assurance work that I think professionals

would really like to get involved in, but they've been fearful because they

didn't know where they stood.

The intent of the bill is to provide a framework

through which policies and procedures adopted in the area of QA actually get the

force of law, because underneath this act will be regulations. It will be

through these regulations that we will have standardized committees,

standardized terms of reference mandate and we will start to homogenize policies

across RHAs and across themes. So if you're a patient receiving surgical care in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the patient safety framework, the quality framework is

exactly the same as if it was in the Health Sciences Centre.

It will provide legal support to the activities that

are already being undertaken by the department and the RHA. They've been doing

them through policy without regulatory framework or without a legal background.

It will provide direction as to the expectation of QA activities within the

regions and provincially.

There is no expectation. So any quality assurance

activity can be set at the moment by its mere existence to meet the standard,

because we don't have a standard.

This bill, however, is not and I would emphasize at

this stage is not about protecting people who should be providing health

services to an appropriate standard and who are not. They are not covered. This

may make them easier to spot, and, quite frankly, I think they represent a very

small fraction of the people who work in health care in this province.

To go away thinking that we have a health care system

that doesn't have people who go to work every day determined to do the best job

they could, I think would be a misapprehension I'd want to correct at this

point, because that's certainly not my personal experience. It's certainly not

been the experience I've got travelling around the province here in the last 14

months going from facility to facility. Universally, I've been met with

enthusiasm, dedication and a preparedness to do more than their simple job

description and time sheet would suggest.

What this bill is about is it's about creating an

environment where QA activities are undertaken consistently throughout the

province but in an environment that's conducive to frank and fruitful

discussions, because without frank and fruitful discussions some of this could

easily devolve into lip service. So there is an element whereby we have to

generate some trust with the RHAs and our health care providers so that they

will feel engaged in this process and want to engage. Once that happens and we

have those discussions, that's when you'll see the true benefit of QA activities

as they feed back to make a good system even better.

Providers do need reassurances that the reporting of

occurrences and adverse events will actually trigger something, and that once

that process is triggered it's not going to be one that exposes them

unnecessarily. It's not going to be a witch hunt and it's not going to be blame

and shame, because that has been a real concern that we've heard. I think this

framework goes some way to addressing what are basically cultural problems.

Mr. Speaker, we know that an adverse event can be

devastating for everybody involved. The patients and families have to live with

the consequence of the adverse events and the health care providers go home and

beat themselves up over it. They wake up at night and they dwell on it, and they

don't get back to sleep and it makes their life very difficult. It benefits no

one.

A framework like this, quality assurance activities do

improve patient care and do reduce adverse events in those jurisdictions where

they have a structure. This is a comprehensive bill, the like of which has not

been seen in Canada. It will reduce adverse events. It will allow for sharing of

information. And the important thing is that at the end of the processes people

involved and the system as a whole is wiser than it was the last time.

I will take my seat now, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask

all Members of this House to join me in supporting this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER (Warr):

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good afternoon once again. I'm actually very happy this

afternoon to rise to speak to Bill 70,

An Act Respecting Patient Safety and

Quality Assurance in the Province.

I certainly won't be as eloquent as the Minister of

Health and Community Services, but I do have a few things I want to say about

the legislation. I should say upfront, that I support the legislation. I intend

to vote for the legislation and I suspect many of my colleagues will do the

same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

KENT:

Thank you. Thank you for your enthusiastic support. I can hear you; it's not

that big a Chamber.

It's good legislation. It's legislation that I'm quite

familiar with. It's been drafted for quite some time, for a number of years.

There were some outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. I believe many of

those issues are resolved. There's a couple that I don't feel are fully resolved

that I do wish to speak to during my time today in second reading debate. I'm

hoping the minister will be able to address those particular points in his

closing comments in second reading. I suspect he will, and I suspect he can

anticipate some of the questions that I do have.

This is good legislation and it is necessary

legislation. Really, what we're doing here is providing a legal framework for a

whole bunch of policy that's been created over a number of years that already

exist. We're taking a whole bunch of policy and a whole bunch of things that are

in practice in health care today in our system here in Newfoundland and Labrador

and elevating it to the force of law. That's a logical step. It's a step that's

been planned for several years and I'm pleased to see it finally come to

fruition here this afternoon and, ultimately, very soon, I suspect this bill

will be brought into law.

So as the minister says, I think there will be those

who say that this legislation goes too far and there will be others who will say

this legislation doesn't go far enough. I know I've answered questions on this

draft legislation in this House of Assembly when I sat in the minister's chair

for a brief period, and trying to strike that right balance was a challenge then

and it's a challenge today.

I think for the most part this legislation, as it's

proposed, strikes a good balance. So I know full well that not everybody is

going to be happy with every element of this legislation, but based on my

limited experience I'd say that's predictable. That's to be expected.

I know that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association, for instance, has a view on medical peer review and does have some

concerns that they've shared with the minister on this particular piece of

legislation. So that speaks to the point I just made. Some folks are going to

say this goes too far, some are going to say it doesn't go far enough, and it is

about striking the right balance. But what's most important is that this is all

about enhancing patient safety and taking many things that are already now in

place in our health care system and making them law, actually putting them into

legislation. So I think that makes a lot of sense.

I'll just give you one example of the kind of work I

was familiar with that was going on and is going on in the health care system

already that I think is very much in line with this legislation. One project I

took an interest in during my brief time in the department that related to

quality and patient safety was a clinical safety reporting system. The clinical

safety reporting system was put in place, I believe, in the fall of 2012, and it

was in response to the Report of the Task

Force on Adverse Health Events . It recommended that a provincial electronic

occurrence reporting system be developed and that it be implemented across all

services and programs in the regional health authorities.

So there has been a lot of work done, and I want to

acknowledge the work of people in the Department of Health and Community

Services who've brought a lot of those initiatives into place, and the folks in

our four regional health authorities who've worked hard to bring a lot of those

initiatives into place.

We also talk about the recommendations coming out of

the Cameron inquiry, which in very large part have been successfully acted upon

and implemented, and this legislation addresses the bringing into legislation

that was called for in some of the recommendations that the minister spoke to

today.

But, in practice, a lot of the work that was being

called for is actually being done; it's been happening for years. I want to join

the minister, I think, in giving the people of the province some confidence that

this is not new; it's not like all of a sudden people have decided let's put

greater emphasis on patient safety. A lot of the initiatives that this

legislation is now bringing into law, so to speak, are in place today. There is

lots of good quality assurance and patient safety practices in our health care

system today, I would argue, better than ever before in our history, and that's

a good thing.

And, unfortunately, it took some failures in the past;

it took some near misses in the past to get to that point in some ways. But the

good news is significant progress has been made, and those reports that have

been referenced here today, the recommendations in large part were implemented.

I suspect this is much the same for the current minister. I would receive

regular reports from the department and from the regional health authorities

that measured and monitored compliance with recommendations coming out of

Cameron, and with recommendations coming out of the

Report of the Task Force on Adverse Health Events .

So that's been ongoing work for a number of years, and

this is not a I was going to say this is a final step, but it isn't, because

quality assurance and patient safety, that's an ongoing priority and it's an

ongoing journey, and we have to constantly be striving to make the system safer

and make the system better. This is a final step in dealing with some those

recommendations, because now we're actually taking what's in policy and practice

and bringing it into legislation.

Anyway, I started to talk about the clinical safety

reporting system as one example. Some of the benefits that that system brought

to patient safety involve a really timely process for reporting and feedback and

appropriate follow-up on occurrences across all four regional health

authorities. This system that was put in place in 2012 by the previous

administration ensures that those relevant occurrences are communicated among

the regional health authorities and with the Department of Health and Community

Services as well.

The system also helps ensure appropriate and timely

follow-up to prevent negative outcomes for clients receiving health services.

Another benefit is the provision of trends and analysis and reports on

occurrences at multiple levels of the health care organization. So managers are

involved in the health care system, the executive of the regional health

authorities are involved, the board of directors has a role to play.

While the regional health authorities have an

operational responsibility for programs and services that they provide,

including managing occurrences like the ones this legislation addresses, there

is a leadership role that the department has to play and is playing by dealing

with legislation like this, and by implementing systems like the clinical safety

reporting system.

Each RHA today, unless it's changed in the last 18

months, has an occurrence reporting policy that provides direction for reporting

and managing occurrences. It also includes a timely process for the follow-up of

occurrences. So I point all of that out because there has been a lot of progress

made. This legislation is about tying all that together. And it would have been

possible in the past to deal with this piecemeal and amend various pieces of

legislation to try and achieve the same effect, but what we're doing here is

taking an approach that is unique.

It's a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador piece of

legislation; we've learned from others' experiences across the country, but

there isn't a piece of legislation quite like this that ties it all together.

I'm starting to sound a little too positive, but I have to say I do feel

positive, for the most part, about this legislation because I have a vested

interest in it. I spent time debating it, spent time talking about it, and

trying to move the work along. It's an evolution, and I applaud government, and

I applaud the minister for following through and getting the legislation to this

point today.

At the same time, let's make sure we acknowledge and

celebrate the great work that's been done by health care professionals and

health care administrators and managers and leaders over the last number of