PDF Version

November 22, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 38

The

House met at 10:30 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,

third reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, that Bill 22, Status Of The Artist Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill, Status Of The Artist Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “Status Of The Artist Act,” read a third time, ordered passed

and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, Bill 23,

and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,

Bill 23, and that the said bill shall now be read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a

bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is the

pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

considering Bill 25, the Prescription Monitoring Act, and we are debating the

third amendment in clause 4.

CHAIR:

Shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 5.

CHAIR:

Clause 5.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 6.

CHAIR:

Clause 6.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 7.

CHAIR:

Clause 7.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 7 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 8.

CHAIR:

Clause 8.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 8 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 9.

CHAIR:

Clause 9.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 9 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 10.

CHAIR:

Clause 10.

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an

honour again as we move through the prescription monitoring bill here to propose

the following amendment.

Subsection 10(2) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted: Upon the

request of the minister, a prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose

to the minister any information the minister reasonably requires to determine

compliance with the act or the misuse, abuse or diversion of monitoring drugs.

Mr.

Speaker, we present that as an amendment.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

amendment is said to be in order.

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,

in accordance with the whole conversation we've had in the last couple of days,

particularly on this act here, we're very supportive of the act. We're very

supportive of the intent and very supportive of helping move it forward.

Our

amendments are just to – if there's a particular gap that's identified there or

if there's some vagueness in the wording, to ensure it's more prescribed and it

meets the particular needs it was set out to do. What we noted here was just

that at times it could be sensed there might be a little bit of vagueness in the

wording, little broader than people would particularly like, a little bit open

ended. So the suggestion here was to change the language a little bit, to

tighten it up a bit, to keep it in line with the compliance of what the act was

all about and to ensure there's a better ability to identify misuse, abuse and

diversion of the monitoring drug system.

Mr.

Chair, we're putting this forward as an amendment, hoping we'll get support from

other Members of the House here to help move along a good piece of legislation

and entrench that in so it meets the particular needs and the outcome put

forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

welcome the Member opposite's comments about being supportive of the principles

of the legislation because, certainly, as I said the other day, we do have a

significant issue on our hands; however, the phrasing of the preceding

paragraphs and this particular

section under consideration is in actual fact,

when read together, fairly specific in that it requires reasonably necessary

related to the objects of the act which are stipulated as being misuse of

monitored drugs, appropriate prescribing and dispensing.

The

authority is only required for those non-compliant situations where there's been

a flag around a prescription. I think, bearing in mind my colleague's comments,

I would respectfully disagree and suggest that the wording, as it stands at the

moment, adequately addresses those concerns.

It is a

key component of the program. I feel that the wording, as it exists at the

moment, speaks closely to that. So I would respectfully suggest that the clause

stay as it is currently worded.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I stand

to support the amendment because I think every clause should have specifics in

it that make the point of the clause clear.

I hear

what the Minister of Health and Community Services is saying, but I also agree

with the amendment. I do agree with the amendment because I do think it is

important to say what the compliance is all about. The misuse, abuse or

diversion of monitored drugs is what it's about.

I think

a

section should be able to be understood on its own and not have to be referred

back to another

section to be understood. I think this does make it clearer, and

I'm sorry the minister doesn't think that clearer language is necessary.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to say for the record that I also support the amendment that's been brought

forward. I think one of the concerns we've heard from physicians, the NLMA and

so on, is they feel the way this bill is currently written that it can be much

more far reaching than perhaps is what is intended. I think this amendment

clarifies specifically the issue in this particular clause, and specifically

what we're talking about in terms of these monitored drugs and so on.

I do

appreciate what the minister is saying. If you tie it all back and you read it

all in context, one can interpret what the intent is, and I'm sure that is the

intent, but anything we can do to add clarity, to allay any fears that are there

that this could go much further and broader than is intended, then I think we

would be much better off to do that. I'm sure it would put at ease the minds of

the professionals that are going to be impacted by this. For that reason, I

support the amendment.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Is it the pleasure of the

Committee to adopt the amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

CHAIR:

Defeated.

motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 10 carry?

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,

we're making another amendment to clause 10, subclause 10(4).

Subclause 10(4) of the bill is deleted and the following substituted:

(4) Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a prescriber or dispenser

has contravened the act or has aided the abuse, misuse or diversion of monitored

drugs, he or she may disclose information to the appropriate regulatory

authority about the non-compliance or the potential abuse, misuse or diversion

of the monitored drugs.

I would

like to put this forward as an amendment to 10(4).

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

amendment to subclause 10(4) is said to be in order.

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,

this follows the amendment we put forward on 10(2), regarding just clarifying

and being more prescriptive as to the responsibilities, from the minister's

point of view, when we look at the misuse, abuse and diversion under the

monitoring drug program itself.

What we

had proposed in the previous one that was defeated is similar here; we just want

to prescribe it. These are conversations that we had with particularly the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and they support the concept of

the bill here. They support most of the clauses that are here but, in some

cases, similar to here and the discussion that we had it made sense; they want

it to be more explicit and spelled out so there's no misinterpretation, so it

makes it easier for them to ensure that their members are compliant, and there

would be better indications as to if there is somebody who is misusing, abusing,

or diverting the program itself.

Again,

we propose this and ask the hon. Members opposite to give this serious

consideration because we feel this adds to the valuable piece of legislation

that is being put forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

The

language, I would suggest, in this

section 10(4) is actually very precise. But

again, it loops back to the concept of the way this bill has been drafted as a

coherent, cohesive, integral whole. It refers back to the objects of the

program. These are clearly laid out in

section 3 and address the Opposition

Member's concerns. I really think that we are delving into what is really

wordsmithing rather than necessarily contributing to clarity.

So I

would suggest that the original wording should stand, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

standing to support this amendment. I understand when the minister says this

seems like wordsmithing but, in fact, when we're dealing with such an important

piece of legislation, wordsmithing is very, very important. Had the minister

brought this to a legislative committee to review before bringing it to the

House, perhaps we wouldn't have to do this type of detailed wordsmithing here in

the House. We do have the legislative tools to allow us to do that, to bring

this before the legislative committee.

concern when we're looking at some of this wordsmithing that really is very

important, that there are experts out there, for instance like the Newfoundland

and Labrador Medical Association, who had some very specific concerns, again,

around some of the words that are used and some of the specific issues covered

in this legislation.

I would

ask the minister – and I can appreciate his frustration in terms of why are we

wordsmithing – has he directly met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association about some of these specific issues since he tabled this

legislation? Has he directly met with them to address some of the issues that

they have raised? They have an incredible level of expertise in this area. That

would be my question to the minister, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for

the record, I want to support this amendment as well. I think it's adding more

clarity. I believe that if the NLMA are requesting this – the minister says

himself it's not really changing the intent. But if it makes them more

comfortable to ensure that it's very specific about what it is that's trying to

be achieved, if it makes sense, if it's not changing the intent in any way, then

it's beyond me why the minister would not be willing to entertain some of these

amendments.

Mr.

Chair, we have another piece of legislation that's going to be coming forward.

We're going to be talking about SIRT. One of the things I know that I've heard

the Minister of Justice talk about is the fact that in that particular case, you

have a professional organization like the RNC, like the RCMP, and they want the

scrutiny. They want to have those mechanisms in place to ensure the integrity of

their members.

I'm sure

that physicians are no different. The physicians, the pharmacists, they want to

make sure that their members are in compliance, that they don't have, as the

minister has referred to them, these rogue physicians, I believe – that's his

words, not mine. They don't want rogue physicians; they don't want anybody doing

anything wrong. It's in their best interests that we have good rules in place to

hold all their members accountable.

We need

to be working with them, not against them. If they have suggested these minor

amendments that makes them more comfortable, that gets them more engaged and on

board with what we're doing here, and if the minister has said that we're really

not changing the intent by doing it, then what's the big deal? I don't

understand it. It's like we're against it for the sake of being against it.

Anyway,

that's my commentary and I'll support the amendment.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, Mr. Chair, also I

believe that it's very important to be very prescriptive in this legislation

because the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has stated their

concern that rather than being heavily weighted on education and prevention,

that this piece of legislation seems very, very heavily weighted on punishments,

so to say enforcement, rather than education and behaviour change.

Now, the

Minister of Health and Community Services, the day before yesterday, said in the

House that doctors don't like change. Well, I believe our doctors do like change

and the doctors are having a really hard time dealing with, for instance, the

opioid crisis in our province.

One

other issue that was raised by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association

is that many doctors will say, you know what, I'm not going to deal with

opioids. I'm not going to prescribe them at all because it's too complicated.

I'm

concerned about how this legislation will impact their practice. So I believe it

is very important to be very specific about the far-reaching possibilities of

the ministry and of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Information Centre.

It is very important to be as clear as possible so it doesn't create an

unnecessary freeze or a climate of confusion or a climate of fear by medical

professionals, because opioids need to be used in some cases.

The

other issue I'm very concerned about, Mr. Chair, and that I would like the

minister to respond to is the number of people whose doctors may stop

prescribing opioids. Now, some people may be in a circle of addiction with their

opioid use or have a heavy reliance on opioids. How many doctors – because folks

are coming to me in my district saying that their doctors are saying: I am not

prescribing opioids anymore, don't even bother coming to me about opioids. So

the doctors are also trying to find ways to help with people who may need help

with detox and with changing their habits on drug use.

Mr.

Chair, I'm asking the minister, what is his plan to deal with what might be an

unintended consequence of this, where people will go to the streets to get

opioids because doctors are afraid to or will no longer prescribe them, but are

at a loss as to how to help their patients get off an opioid addiction, and we

know the street drugs are far more dangerous?

So, Mr.

Chair, I believe that relates somewhat to this particular subclause. Again, we

cannot create an atmosphere where doctors feel they cannot do their practice

responsibly for fear of a big heavy stick.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Is it the pleasure of the

Committee to adopt the amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

CHAIR:

The amendment is defeated.

motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 10 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 10 carried.

CLERK: Clause 11.

CHAIR: Clause

Shall the clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR: All those

against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 11 carried.

CLERK: Clause

CHAIR: Clause

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,

we're making an amendment here to the act itself under clause 12, subclause

12(1).

Subclause 12(1) of the bill is amended by deleting the words and comma “for a

purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the

regulations,” and by substituting the following words and commas: “where the

inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a person is in contravention of

this Act or the regulations, and where information requested under

section 10(2)

has not been provided.”

Mr.

Speaker, we put this forward as an amendment to clause 12, subsection 12(1).

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I will

recess the Committee and we'll consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We're

looking at subclause 12(1). The amendment is not in order.

Shall

clause 12 carry?

The

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

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Again, I

would like to speak to clause 12. It is really about the power of inspections. I

believe that it's really important to be very specific here. We all know what a

critical bill this is and it is important to be specific. I would like to bring

forth, once again, the concerns that were raised by both the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner and the concerns that were raised by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

I was

quite surprised, in fact, when I last spoke, I raised some specific issues

asking the minister very specific questions and he had not responded. So I would

hope that, once again, he would respond. It is so very important to have this

legislation as specific as it needs to be in order to not have the unintended

consequences of prohibiting or discouraging doctors, physicians or other

prescribers from their full scope of practice because of what may seem to them

as lack of clarity in a piece of legislation.

I'm

concerned about the lack of consultation through the legislative tools that we

have available here in the House through legislative review committees, but also

I'm concerned that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has a

very specific concern about how this will impact people's privacy and what that

means for the powers that it gives inspectors, that an inspector can go into the

office of a medical professional and search those premises – that's a great

concern – and on the basis of what, on the basis of perhaps opioids?

Maybe

some people will see the real concern about misuse and abuse of opioids,

particularly in prescribing because it does cause a crisis and has far-reaching

ramifications in our province. What about other drugs that the minister may deem

as important to include under monitoring, whether it be antibiotics? It's a

concern that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised.

The

concern also that office raised was the lack of time for full consultation. I

would ask the minister if he would consider calling the Privacy Commissioner to

the House to speak to Committee to really clearly articulate what are his

concerns and how will they be addressed?

I would

ask the minister, again, has he, himself, met with the Privacy Commissioner

about the very specific concerns that he has raised? We can't support this

legislation without addressing those very, very critical concerns.

The

Privacy Commissioner, that office, is for the benefit of the people of the

province and for the benefit of all of us making laws here in this House. I

would ask him about how is he responding to those issues but, more importantly,

will he call and invite the Privacy Commissioner to this Committee to speak to

the issues that they have raised?

These

similar issues have been raised by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association. I ask the minister: In the interest of making the best possible

legislation that we can, that affects a crucial and critical issue in our

province, will he ask – will he invite the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association to come and speak to this House during Committee to discuss the

issues that they have raised?

The

minister has said that he has consulted with some of these organizations.

There's an international leader in public participation. It is the International

Association for Public Participation. They have some core values for the

practice of public participation. Those core values include – first of all,

public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a

decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. I believe

that everybody believes that here. That's what our democracy is about.

It also

says, then, that government may say we met with someone last January or we had a

brief conversation or we had a meeting, but in order to do that full circle of

participation and consultation, otherwise it's meaningless, that their core

value number seven is public participation communicates to participants how

their impact affected the decision.

We don't

know what government has done with the consultation that they say they have done

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association or what they have done

with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Because they are

absolute experts in their two particular fields, whether it be information and

privacy and the medical field. It is essential that before this legislation is

passed that these outstanding issues that they have raised, coming out of their

expertise, that we hear from them and know that they have been taken seriously,

that all consideration has been given to these specific issues that they raised

and that we all need to hear from them and make sure that the specific issues

that they have raised are satisfied according to this House and are satisfied

according to the very serious issues that they have, particularly the Privacy

Commissioner.

The

government is not required to absolutely take his recommendations, but I believe

as a House of Assembly who are considering legislation that we are morally

required to really seriously consider the issues that he has raised because it

comes from an office of expertise – expertise that the people of the province

are paying for, not to be taken lightly, not to be ignored.

Once

again, Mr. Chair, the expertise that comes out of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Medical Association, to ignore the issues that have been raised, to not address

them sufficiently would be a huge error on our part.

Thank

you very much. I would ask again the minister to stand and respond to these

questions. They are not hostile questions; they are questions that have come out

of a desire on our behalf, of our caucus, to ensure that this legislation is the

best it possibly could be.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I draw

your attention to clause 60(2) concerning discussions in Committee of the Whole

about items being strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. So

having granted the Member opposite considerable leeway in rambling off this

subject, I hope you'll allow me the same courtesy.

To join

the dots for the Member opposite, this act is to deal with an opioid crisis. It

may interest the Member that the magnitude of this crisis is such that every

man, woman and child in this province, effectively, is getting eight days'

supply of opioids each year. Eight days for every man, woman and child

prescribed in this province. That's the problem.

The bulk

of this act, in its principle, and the objects are quite clearly set out, is

around education. The remainder of the act is designed to deal with a smaller

group of rogue individuals who have traditionally been non-compliant and

problematic and are responsible, quite frankly, for deaths in this province, Mr.

Chair. The reason there is so much emphasis on this and the reason we have gone

down this road is because of previous issues with a very small group of people

who have caused us significant grief on this very topic.

So the

emphasis on the act has to be to deal with those kinds of issues simply because,

with all the loopholes that exist currently, they're getting off. These people

are not being held to account. To paraphrase, again, the bulk of physicians,

prescribers and dispensers in this province are responsible individuals who are

practising to the highest standards.

propose to deal briefly with two comments that the Member opposite made and then

I'm going to ask this House to support this clause in its entirety. The first

comment relates to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. First

fact: No information that is currently private in a personal health record will

be any different thereafter. It's not going out on the internet with peoples'

names plastered all over it, and to try and suggest such with this hyperbole,

supplied by the Medical Association, is fear mongering at its best.

The

Privacy Commissioner was on the phone with my staff after this bill was read

into the House in first reading. Public knowledge, publicly available, he was

speaking with my staff and, less than 24 hours later, he's out in the media

saying something completely different. Ask him that question, not me. As far as

the NLMA is concerned, the NLMA are an advocacy group designed to foster and

protect the interests of their members and I commend them for that.

The

driver behind this, however, is a group that the Members opposite have declined

to even mention, which is a College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland

and Labrador. They are the regulators of physicians. The ARNL, the regulators of

nurses, are similarly driving this.

The

Member opposite referenced the RNC, referenced law enforcement. They are keen on

this. This is not new. We are the last province to get in here. This is the

fourth such jurisdiction to have stand-alone legislation. We are not inventing

anything. We are not going off into the woods here. We are using guidelines,

acts that have been drafted in other provinces, which have been crafted to fit

the regulatory and legal framework of this jurisdiction, and they have been run

through Legislative Counsel.

suggest in this House that somehow the people in Legislative Counsel – either in

the Department of Health or in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, or

anywhere in government, have not done their job is really disingenuous and,

quite frankly, offensive.

basically, I hope you will grant the same latitude under the Standing Orders

that you granted the Member opposite because really and honestly this is not

particularly relevant to clause 12 or the items therein.

I'm

going to sit down and take my seat again and commend to this House that we

support this section.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

If the

Member opposite wants a ruling on a point of order, then why didn't he call a

point of order? Number one, the Member for St. John's Centre spoke specifically

to the content of the clause – specifically to the content – to concerns that

have been raised about the content of the clause and why those concerns are not

being paid attention to.

So I

really object to the minister making a ruling on his feet. That is a ruling you

should be making. If he wanted to do that, why didn't he call a point of order?

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Shall

clause 12 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

My apology, Mr. Chair.

thought I heard the Member rise on a point of order.

CHAIR:

The Chair did not rule on a

point of order from the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services. There

was no point of order.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

thought when she rose she said she rose on a point of order.

CHAIR:

There was no point of order.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Chair, it's interesting

to listen to the minister opposite and the debate here this morning becoming

somewhat testy on a very important piece of legislation. He likes to raise and

talk about – not likes to, but he did. He actually rose and spoke to Standing

Order 60(2): “Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to

the items or clause under consideration.” And then he went on and talked about a

whole bunch of other things.

So if

it's fine for him to do it, then it should be fine for everyone else in the

House to do it as well, which we'll do and I appreciate the latitude, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS:

Then he did it himself.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

12 is a very important section. It relates to two other sections, including 11

and to

Section 12 is about the powers of an inspector and compliance. We

live in a society where there has to be restrictions put on those who are

enforcing laws and rules, and as the minister referred to law enforcement. It's

not only police, but if an inspector is enforcing this law, once it becomes law,

then that inspector is also acting in a position of law enforcement.

Mr.

Chair, there are very strict rules in Canada and very strong restrictions on the

rights of law enforcement. There are laws in Canada which prevent law

enforcement and people in the role of law enforcement from walking in any

premises they feel like, whenever they like, to inspect books and records.

Now, the

concerns raised to us – I don't have the benefit of a career in medicine as the

minister does and I respect his years of service and his experience, but doctors

have raised concerns directly to me, personally. Not just the NLMA, who I did

meet with and they raised concerns, but doctors themselves have raised concerns

to me, personally, about these powers. So it's not just the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association. There are doctors in this province who have raised

those concerns directly about inspectors, about the inspection powers or powers

of an inspector.

Under

the act, the minister can appoint an inspector, or as it's worded here “ a

custodian or an employee of a custodian under the Personal Health Information

Act to act as an inspector ….” If you go to

section 13, it talks about: “ An inspector shall prepare a report which sets out the findings and

results of the inspection.” I talked about this in second reading, Mr. Chair.

The minister may

share the findings and results of an inspection, it says in paragraph (2). It

doesn't directly and pointedly say that the inspector shall file the report with

the minister, but it's presumed because the

section says the minister may share

the findings. So the minister has to know what the findings are. The report has

to be filed with the minister. There's no other direction I see here as to how

the inspector or where the inspector files the report.

The powers given

to those inspectors appointed by the minister are very clear: for the purpose

related to administration or enforcement of this act may inspect and examine the

premises, processes, books and so on of a person that the inspector considers

relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the act.

Mr.

Chair, that's very broad powers – very, very broad powers. It doesn't even

contain, as we raised in a proposed amendment, reasonable, probable grounds.

That's an accepted principle in law in Canada for someone engaged in a form of

law enforcement to have reasonable, probable grounds to do the work they do or

to make an allegation.

In most

cases if you want to do an inspection, you are required to get a warrant or some

type of a court order to do that inspection. We weren't asking for that in an

amendment. We are not asserting that should be the case here, but at the very

least there should be reasonable, probable grounds.

Doctors

have said to me: This is a problem for me and my practice. I'm concerned about

the privacy of my patients. Does this allow anyone to come in, essentially any

time, to my office and carry out inspections of my files and my records of my

patients? And they've expressed concern over that. His own colleagues,

physicians in this province, have directly expressed concern, outside of the

NLMA or not associated to the NLMA. That's why this

section is of particular

importance.

The

section could even say in exigent circumstances, which is sometimes used in law.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am familiar with exigent circumstances,

broadening the powers of law enforcement if there's urgency, if there's a rush,

there's something pressing, there's a reason why this needs to be done right

away. Even in exigent circumstances it can be a variety of things, but sometimes

the rules are not proper for what's happening at the time and there's a reason

why that should happen. The person who is doing the inspection, if there were

exigent circumstances, could define that and defend that, but that doesn't exist

here.

simply says: at reasonable times, for a purpose related to the administration or

enforcement. Even for just the administration of the act, they can walk into an

office, actually anywhere – because it says books or records of a person that

the inspector may consider relevant.

Mr.

Chair, that's a pretty broad term. That's a very, very, very broad term. You can

walk in and inspect records of a person and you can do that – not being in a

dwelling, that's laid out there, not in someone's home, but you can walk into an

office virtually anywhere of someone who might be engaged or have records

regarding drugs that are being monitored and examine them.

I don't

know; maybe a reporter does a story and says sources say that this is happening

or sources say this. Well, under this, maybe the inspector can just walk into

those premises and do an inspection of those books and records. Is that what I'm

reading here? I'm sure that's not the intent, but we don't know what

circumstances may happen down the road. We don't know what a future minister may

decide.

I'm not,

as I've said before, alleging that this current minister, that's his intent, but

maybe a minister down the road utilizes that rule or that law in a way that it

wasn't intended. That's why we have to be careful when we write laws, to make

sure they are used the way they are intended, that they protect people's basic

rights, they protect the best interests of doctors who are fearful about

continuing the practice as they do in prescribing opioids or drugs or whatever

drug may be monitored, and they've expressed that concern.

We have

to make sure the law is proper. I cannot be more sincere than I am here right at

this very moment to say this particular section, of all sections in this bill,

is a concern to me and Members on this side of the House.

Mr.

Chair, we're not asking for the world here and we're not asking for a battle;

we're just asking for an opportunity for improvement. I believe there's room for

improvement in the best interests of not only doctors and pharmacies, but for

patients and to protect future government and inspectors who will have to

conduct themselves according to this legislation. I believe it would be a good

move and the right thing for the government to reconsider this and to see if

they can reword this so that it better describes the intention of that

particular section.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

happy again to speak to this particular clause. I'd also like to speak to the

issues that the minister raised after I spoke the last time where he said I

rambled on and on and on, and that don't I know that there's an opioid crisis.

Yes, I

do know. Mr. Chair; everybody in this House knows there's an opioid crisis.

Every person in this province knows that there's an opioid crisis. We all know

that. We all know how urgent this is. We are not asking for unusual changes or

considerations to this particular clause; we are asking to make it the best that

we possibly can.

Now, I

see the minister's frustration. Maybe he's more interested in an autocracy

rather than a democracy. For him to say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

For him to say that all this

is, is just simply rambling –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member. I ask for all Members'

co-operation.

The

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

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

In fact,

what we are doing here today is what we have been asked to do. This is what we

have been elected to do. Unfortunately, this government has chosen not to use

the proper legislative tools that we have and not bring it to committee before

introducing this legislation to the House, and not doing real consultation.

The most

viable experts in our province are saying that there are some outstanding issues

and to not consider that, Mr. Chair, is an absolute waste. I don't understand

it. I'm concerned that these – he, basically again, called into question what

the Privacy Commissioner has said and done and what the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association has done. I believe that their intention is to make

this the best possible legislation that it can be to deal with that incredible

opioid crisis that we are facing – not good enough.

Mr.

Chair, the minister has said that they have done a jurisdictional scan. One of

the questions that I have is: With the results of their jurisdictional scan, is

it as broad ranging in other jurisdictions as our particular legislation is? I'm

not so sure. Ours may have more problems, maybe more far, broad ranging and

could be a problem. So that's what's being raised here. It's not about rambling.

It's not about grandstanding. It's not about anything except trying to make this

– this is about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

– trying to make this the

best possible legislation it can be.

I would

like to hear from the minister about other jurisdictions, whether they have such

broad search powers as what are being proposed here in his particular piece of

legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge the work that has been done by our

legal experts in government who've worked hard on this particular piece of

legislation, but this is the work that we have been elected to do on behalf of

the people and we have to get this one right. This is the opportunity to make it

the best that it possibly can be.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With regard to clause 12, I would like to hear from the

minister the specifics of what it is they are talking about in this clause when

it says: “An

inspector may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the

administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations, inspect or examine

the premises, processes, books and records of a person that the inspector may

consider relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with this Act or the

regulations ….”

When it

comes to prescriptions and when it comes to the role of physicians and the role

of dispensers, there are electronic records that must be, at all times, accurate

and which can be accessed at any time with regard to prescription and with

regard to dispensing. So I'm wondering what it is the government is thinking

they are looking for when these inspections happen, when we have a system in

place that holds physicians and those who dispense accountable for everything.

What is

it they're looking for? This is what I want to know, because it looks like it's

just a hunt for something. What is that based on? Is it based on the fact that

the records don't look accurate or there's some reason to think the records

aren't accurate that we already have access to?

I would

like some explanation from the minister with regard to that point.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Maybe

if I just explain a little bit about how the process works. The challenge is

when going through a piece of legislation like this – which describes a program,

which is a process – we are taking little bits in isolation when this is an

integrated whole. I think if I just step back for a minute and paint a picture

it may answer some of the concerns of both the Leader of the Opposition and the

interim Leader of the Third Party.

Essentially, the Prescription Monitoring Program as it is envisaged in the

future will be, as the Member opposite says, a real-time exercise. The challenge

at the moment is that there are a considerable number of physicians who, whilst

they have the ability to interact or will have the ability to interact with the

Pharmacy Network real time, their records are paper based. They still rely on

control drugs, narcotics books for those practices where they dispense as well

as prescribe; although, just for the record, physicians now are no longer

allowed to dispense. I'm referring to some of the clinics maybe on the North

Coast.

So if

you then go through the process of the program working, at some point a

patterned behaviour or an incident would arise, flagged through the system that

would be out of the ordinary. It would be unusual. The idea then is that flagged

episode would generate a request from the program administrators to the people

involved to say: look, this is unusual, we're not quite sure what it means,

could you explain it? Could you – if you're a prescriber – clarify why you wrote

X pills for Y months on this particular prescription, or why the dispenser

handed out medication in that way? Ninety-nine times, or maybe even 999 times

out of 1,000, that response will be forthcoming and there will be a dialogue

between the administrator of the program and the clinicians involved.

What you

then move into is the challenge of the situation where – we have heard already

there are situations where behaviour is unusual and not easily explained. In the

event that the participant in the process declined several requests from the

program, reasonable requests, there would be an option here for that material to

be gathered without consent of the person involved. It would be done in a way

with people and individuals who were designated under the

Personal Health Information Act as

custodians. It's ring-fenced and it is within the constraints of this act and

also within the constraints of fear.

This

would then allow an inspector to access paper charts, paper books, records of

relevance only. The wording of this

section is only for compliance with the

objects of this act. It is not enabling anyone to go on a fishing expedition.

This is particularly and totally constrained to the objects of the act. Again,

you have to step back from this clause and go back to

section 3 and the other

leading sections which explain the ecosystem, if you like, of this.

So just

to answer some other questions, Nova Scotia has much broader regulation and

acts. The college there is the person or the group who deal with this and

they're deluged. Quite frankly, their advice was somehow you need to ring-fence

this. We, as regulators, don't want to see every bit of information that comes

through. We're only interested in behaviour of concern or behaviour where there

may be some professional issues.

On the

other hand, if you look at Ontario, and the reason the wording in our act

differs slightly from Ontario is that their legal system differs in two ways:

one is they have a different approach to drafting legislation and the second

thing is they have a completely different approach in terms of the way the

regulation system works. They have had a prescription monitoring program by

another name in place since 2010 and they have yet to have an inspector do an

inspection.

Just for

the sake of context for that, Mr. Chair, Ontario houses a third of all of

Canada's physicians. This is not something that's going to happen every five

minutes. If it hasn't happened with 33,000 doctors in seven years in a very

urbanized environment, I'm not sure that we're dealing with a problem of any

great frequency.

Once

again, Mr. Chair, I would recommend, most strongly, that given the way this bill

has been written, given the way each of these sections tie together as integral

pieces of a puzzle, that this

section should pass Committee.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 12 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 12 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 13.

CHAIR:

Clause 13.

Shall

the clause carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 13 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 14.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we're

going through the process here of putting amendments forward, getting some

clarification, having good debate and outlining exactly the agencies and

organizations who have advised us, who we've consulted with, who have given us

different perspectives on how we can improve this bill, the holistic intent here

is that we have a piece of legislation that meets the particular needs and

strives to actually achieve what it was set out to do.

What

we're proposing here: Subclause 14(1) of the bill is amended by deleting the

words “that are referred to them by the minister.”

The

amendment to subclause 14 of the bill would be done as such: The bill be amended

by deleting the words “that are referred to them by the minister.”

present that, Mr. Chair, for review.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We're

looking into the amendment of subclause 14(1).

The

amendment is not in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Shall clause 14 carry?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I would

like to ask the minister: What exactly is the role and purpose of this committee

and what would they be examining or advising on; and if they're advising, what

would be the materials that they would be advising on?

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question.

This

committee would be, if you like, a form of practice audit. The intent of this

committee is that it would examine the materials submitted in response to a

request for information, or in a case where compliance had been an issue with

any inspection.

For

example, if there was a prescription that was unusual in some way, the

information had been supplied by the prescriber or dispenser, then this

information would go to this group. They would then make a determination as to

how this fitted in with a clinical scenario. This is a matter of professional

practice and best standards; it is not a matter of administration. That is why

this clause is constituted the way it is. It allows a committee to be struck and

also then stipulates if such a committee has to be stuck, then this will be a

consideration in its composition.

The

reason it's phrased in a conditional is that given the frequency with which such

events might occur, it's totally unknown as to whether or not you would need to

have such a body there the entire time, as it were; and the other thing is that

it's phrased in such a way that it would be a contextual committee. So, for

example, if the issue was around dental prescribing, the committee could be

constructed in such a way that it would have expertise to look at dental

prescribing. If it was a midwife or a nurse practitioner, then it would be

structured in such a way to look at nurse practitioners' practice.

It's not

that you would have, for example, a hospital-based pharmacist opining on a

community-based pharmacist practice. We're trying to get a peer-group approach,

which is entirely consistent with other legislation and components of other

regulatory bodies and the health professionals council and such. So I hope that

answers the question.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 14 carry?

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We want

to make an amendment to clause 14(2).

Clause

14(2) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after subsection (2) the

following: Any committee that addresses within its terms of reference the

prescribing of monitored drugs shall include at least two prescribers and two

dispensers.

I have

that presented, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Committee will recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Shall

clause 14 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 14 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 15.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 15 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 15 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 16.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 16 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 16 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 17.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 17 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 17 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 18.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 18 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 18 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 19.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 19 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 19 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 20.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 20 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 20 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 21.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 21 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 21 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 22.

CHAIR:

Clause 22.

The

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

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is

the last amendment that we have to put forward. Clause 22 of the bill is amended

by adding in paragraph 22(

d) immediately before the word “respecting,” the words

and comma “for the purposes of sections 7 and 8 of the act.”

present it as an amendment to clause 22, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We will

recess the Committee to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte – Green Bay, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When

shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

When shall the Committee have

leave to sit again?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with

provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b), the House is in recess until 2 this

afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to recognize Mr. Jim Lester, MHA elect for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the Speaker's

gallery, I'd like to welcome Mr. Ethan Hunt. Ethan will be the subject of a

Member's statement today. He is joined by his father, Rick Hunt.

Welcome

to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery, I'd

like to recognize Mr. Bruce Templeton and his wife, Paula. Mr. Templeton will be

the subject of a Member's statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I also see and would like to

welcome a friend and colleague of mine, Mr. Steve Gordon, from the New Brunswick

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and he's here on business. It's good to have

you here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we'll hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Baie

Verte – Green Bay, Windsor Lake, Virginia Waters – Pleasantville, Fogo Island –

Cape Freels, Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune and Placentia West – Bellevue.

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, to live and work

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and help promote its arts and tourism

potential has been a satisfying venture for partners Linda Yates and David

Hayashida, co-owners of King's Point Pottery.

Involved

with many tourism initiatives in the area, David was recognized as this year's

winner of the Tourism Ambassador of the Year. Both Linda and Dave have given

selflessly of their time and energy to champion the interests of this industry.

Artist and entrepreneurs working together to develop the tourism industry in

their own hometown and are infusing the industry with new ideas and

opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, King's Point Pottery celebrated its 25th anniversary this year. It has

been a shining light in the scenic and beautiful seaside community of King's

Point since its inception.

In 2013,

it was named top craft shop in Atlantic Canada and it was also tagged as a top

shopping destination in the province on TripAdvisor for the past three years.

King's Point Pottery sells and promotes works of 365 different artists, most of

them craftspeople from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating David

Hayashida, Newfoundland and Labrador's Tourism Ambassador of the Year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

This Sunday, thousands of

families will gather for the St. John's Downtown Christmas Parade, and for one

of the parade's longest serving volunteers, so begins another marathon Christmas

season of 60 Santa visits culminating on Christmas Eve at the Janeway.

I'm so

proud to recognize Mr. Bruce Templeton.

Recognized with numerous awards for his community work, including the Red Cross

Humanitarian of the Year award, Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer of the Year

award, as well as induction into the International Santa Claus Hall of Fame,

Bruce's passion for children is inspiring. The sale of his books featuring

beautifully moving stories about his adventures as Santa's helper has provided

Dr. Bruce Aylward of the World Health Organization funding for polio vaccines

for over 300,000 children.

At next

April's International Conference of Santa Claus in Denver, Bruce will share

those special Santa moments with a global audience.

behalf of the children and families from our province and around the world, join

me in thanking Mr. Bruce Templeton for four decades of work with Santa. Let's

take heed of Bruce's advice: Stop and make memories for your children. Go

sliding, make hot chocolate, for in the end it is your presence, not the

presents, that count.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to honour the Vanier Elementary Garden Club. The garden club

was started in 2016, and despite the poor initial growing season, the garden

club was still able to donate potatoes from their growth season to the Single

Parent Association.

The

garden club boasts about 30 members, who love to eat what they grow. Under the

direction of Mr. Geoff Shinkle, the garden club has recently, with the help of

their families and community, erected hoop houses that have made it possible to

grow more vegetables.

Previously, due to summer vacation, the children were not able to witness the

fruits of their labour, but thanks to the hoop houses, they are able to grow

later than ever before. The radishes that were planted in the first hoop house

survived every frost we have had so far and should be ready to be harvested in

just a few weeks.

The

garden club hopes to have an even more successful 2018 and donate the fruits and

vegetables to the Vanier Breakfast Program or families who could benefit from

fresh produce.

Thank

you to Mr. Shinkle and the Vanier Garden Club for helping grow our community.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Fogo Island – Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, imagine hearing

the news that you need a heart transplant to live. Now imagine needing three

heart transplants before grade six.

Terry

Gill was born in 1989 with a defective heart and was soon to spend more time in

hospitals than his own bed. Most were spent at the Sick Kids Hospital in

Toronto.

In 1996,

Terry underwent two heart transplants. In 2003, Terry underwent another

transplant. All during this time, Terry's mom and dad made his life as normal as

possible.

recent years, Terry became an active member of the New-Wes-Valley Volunteer Fire

Department and currently sits on the town council, while working full time with

Hoyle's Ambulance. But Terry, being one of the most eligible bachelors I know,

got married this past summer. And together with his wife, were delighted to

introduce baby Sebastian into this world.

Terry

Gill stands as the best reason I know to sign your organ-donor card. Without the

consideration of others, Terry's story may have never been written. I chatted

with Terry before writing this and you should have seen his big smile.

Please

join me in celebrating Terry's life and story.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to congratulate the organizers, volunteers and residents for

the success of the fourth annual Strides kitchen party in support of Daffodil

Place that took place at the St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove community centre in

October, which I was delighted to attend.

Committee members Lorraine Bambury, Jane Williams, Rhonda Bungay and Jean

Sheppard are committed volunteers who give wholeheartedly of themselves to help

others in the community. In partnership with Penny Pardy and the Canadian Cancer

Society, the kitchen party features local entertainment and delicious food,

guest speakers and over 180 donated prizes, raffles and gift baskets. This

lively and inspirational event provides support for people with cancer who must

travel to St. John's for treatments.

The

kitchen party has raised over $50,000 in support of Daffodil Place. As of

September 2017, 1,412 nights for cancer patients from the Coast of Bays region

were provided by Daffodil Place with an approximate cost of over $250,000.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the fundraising

committee and all those who contribute to ensure we help ease the financial and

emotional burden of a cancer diagnosis and continue to make huge strides in the

fight against cancer: steps towards research, education, detection and

awareness, eradication and support.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia West – Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, adversity and challenge presents itself in different forms, often

beyond anyone's control. To some, it is overwhelming. For others, with a

positive attitude, it can be overcome. Such is the case with Ethan Hunt.

This

17-year-old from Marystown has consistently rolled up his sleeves and stared

down adversity head-on, despite a life full of challenges.

Just

this February, Ethan underwent heart surgery. In April, he had reconstructive

knee surgery. None of this has held him back and, Mr. Speaker, it's not about to

start now.

He is an

avid volunteer for Children's Wish. Each year, he organizes the Ethan Hunt

Project in support of the Janeway. In the new year, he will embark upon a new

mission to support the Ronald McDonald House.

He is

active in Special Olympics, a decorated sea cadet in RCSCC 121 Mary Rose and

dutifully serves as an alter server at his church. In fact, just this past

weekend, he was named the newest mascot for the Marystown Mariners. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, we may have a future MHA in our very midst.

Mr.

Speaker, Ethan, with his ever-supportive parents, Rick and Lori, has become a

shining example of positivity and giving back, determined to overcome whatever

life throws at him and being all the better for it.

Keep

smiling, Ethan. Thanks for being you.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize November 19 to 26 as Restorative Justice Week.

Last week, I was joined by my colleagues from the Department of Education and

Early Childhood Development, Children, Seniors and Social Development and the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women at an event with our stakeholders

in proclaiming this week and showing our support for this important initiative.

I am also pleased to be a part of a panel discussion this evening that will

explore the use of restorative justice approaches to address challenges in the

province's education and legal systems.

Mr.

Speaker, restorative justice focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime

while holding the offender responsible for his or her actions. It provides an

opportunity for the parties directly affected by crime – victims, offender and

community – to identify and address their needs.

Mr.

Speaker, this government strongly believes in restorative justice and recognizes

we need to find innovative ways to address the numbers of people incarcerated,

to look at why they are incarcerated and to determine how to reduce the risk of

reoffending.

The

Department of Justice and Public Safety has been exploring initiatives such as

the drug treatment court, bail supervision and adult diversion to keep people

out of court, address access to justice matters and improve peoples'

interactions with the justice system.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in acknowledging Restorative Justice

Week and all the individuals that are involved in making this happen, and I look

forward to continuing this important work with my colleagues and stakeholders.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister, first of all, for an advance copy of his statement today. We, too,

are pleased to recognize Restorative Justice Week. This week provides an

opportunity not only to acknowledge, but also to encourage a continued

discussion on better ways of assisting victims, offenders and the community at

large so the needs arising from matters of crime can be resolved in the best

interest of all parties involved, currently and for the future. It's important

to raise awareness for a restorative approach to address crime and conflicts in

our society.

I hope

this week will play an opportunity for all to continue that discussion. I thank

all stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, for having the drive and the vision to continue

discussing and keeping a focus on progress and improvement in our justice

system.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I applaud all those who are

doing the important work of restorative justice. Currently, all of our

correctional facilities are bursting at the seams. We are locking up people when

there are proven alternatives.

encourage the Minister of Justice to explore every option that offers

alternatives to incarceration when possible and, when not, to ensure every tool

possible to help people with rehabilitation be employed. We cannot afford not to

do this. I am looking forward to seeing restorative justice established in all

our educational and justice systems.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate Women in Resource Development

Corporation on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

For 20

years now, the corporation has been committed to increasing women's

participation in trades and technology. That work is to be commended.

Mr.

Speaker, our government provides operational funding to the Women in Resource

Development Corporation through Advanced Education, Skills and Labour's Labour

Market Development Agreement and Youth Innovation Grants. This has created the

foundation for very strong working relationships between the corporation and

government officials, including those in Natural Resources and the Women's

Policy Office.

Newfoundland and Labrador, we continue to strive to become a world leader in

gender equity in the natural resource sector, and the Women in Resource

Development Corporation has played a vital role in our province's success. It

has positioned itself as a key partner for advancing gender diversity in the

workplace and has provided thousands of young girls and women throughout the

province with the knowledge, resources and supports they need to make truly

informed career choices, and successfully train and advance the science,

technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.

The

Women in Resource Development Corporation has delivered workplace diversity and

inclusion training to hundreds of employers, provided linkages to skilled and

qualified women, and worked directly with the operators, contractors and

sub-contractors of our province's natural resource projects. The organization

has been a key part of creating a local, diverse, skilled workforce, and in

supporting industry in their efforts to create and maintain inclusive

workplaces.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague here in the House, the MHA for St.

John's East – Quidi Vidi, who was the first Executive Director of the Women in

Resource Development Corporation, and was dedicated to the development of the

organization.

I thank

all women who have contributed to the corporation's work, past and present, and

wish them many, many more years of great success.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, on this side of the

House, join in congratulating the Women in Resource Development Corporation on

the occasion of its 20th anniversary. I would also like to recognize my

colleague, the MHA for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, on her dedication and

previous work with the organization.

Organizations such as Women in Resource Development Corporation do tremendous

work in furthering gender equity in this province and we commend them for doing

so, but there's still much to do. I ask government to continue to work with

these stakeholders and work with industry to further gender equity 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 thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement, and I thank her for her

recognition of my role with WRDC. I'm absolutely delighted and I'm proud to

stand and celebrate the 20th anniversary – who would have believed?

I'm very

much aware of the accomplishments of Women in Resource Development Corporation,

particularly in the oil and gas and mining industries. WRDC first gave

leadership through the environmental assessment process in getting women's

employment plans introduced, first, in the Voisey's Bay mining project and then

the White Rose offshore development, and much has happened since.

Congratulations, Women in Resource Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, while Bill 25 is being debated in this hon. House, the Canadian Medical

Association has raised serious concerns regarding the government's heavy-handed

approach in its proposed Prescription

Monitoring Act .

As the

former president of the Canadian Medical Association, I ask the minister: What

is your response to those concerns?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you for

the question.

We have

an opioid issue in this province, as we do in this country. As of data released

very recently, every man, woman and child in this province has on average eight

days of opioids prescribed for them every year.

This

measure is part of a package to deal with the opioid issue. We consulted widely

and have had input from the regulators, particularly the College of Physicians

and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador, who have been fully supportive of

these measures and proposals, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to continuing in

committee in the near future on this bill.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

suggest to the minister that none of the stakeholders that we've met with or

spoken with were able to see a draft bill or specifics of the bill prior to it

being brought to the House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association has outlined three specific concerns

in their letter of November 22 to the minister and recommends that the minister

engage in a dialogue with stakeholders to discuss the concerns.

I ask

the minister if he'll commit to meeting with stakeholders and having meaningful

dialogue prior to finalizing this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

repeat what I've already said in this House. The consultation process was in

actual fact initiated by the Members opposite in the early part of 2015. We have

consulted with no less than 12 representative groups of prescribers and

dispensers and regulators and we have had no fewer than 24 individual bouts of

consultation face to face.

We have,

in addition, consulted with folk by telephone as recently as 20-or-so hours

prior to the debate starting in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Of all the groups that he consulted with, were any of them

actually provided with the detailed specifics and contents of the bill prior to

the bill coming to the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, the content of

the bill was derived from extensive consultations. As the Member opposite knows,

until the bill has passed first reading, the contents of it are not available

for public dissemination.

I will

tell you that within the confines of his confidentiality agreements with

government as legislated, the Privacy Commissioner had full of sight of that

prior to and he shared his comments with us right up until the time the debate

started and he entered the public arena with his comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We now

have a minister who is going to publicly criticize an independent Officer of

this House. We heard that this morning as well.

The

Canadian Medical Association recommends that the minister recognize the

authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador

and support their role and capacity in the practice patterns of physicians

including monitoring and subsequent interventions.

I ask

the minister: Why is he unilaterally imposing these rules upon physicians when

he has control?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate

that the Member opposite seems to attribute comments to me that I have not yet

made and sentiments that I have not expressed.

I have

not, at any stage, taken on anybody. I've simply recognized the Member's

questions and answered them honestly. His

interpretation is his affair and not

mine.

As far

as the discussions around heavy-handedness and this kind of thing, those are

comments that the Members opposite have chosen to bring.

This is

the result of an extensive consultative process to deal with a situation that is

killing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The time for analysis is over, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, nobody is

questioning the importance of this bill. We said at the onset, we support the

intention of the bill, the importance of the bill, the need for the bill in the

province. That's not a reason to rush it through without proper debate and

proper consultation and listening to important stakeholders from the community.

The

province's Privacy Commissioner has also raised concerns with the government's

proposed legislation. His concerns centre on privacy issues and the real

potential for problems in the future. It's not about the minister personally,

Mr. Speaker; it's about the potential in the future as well.

Has the

minister met with the Privacy Commissioner since his concerns have been made

public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's

again worth repeating here what I have said in the possibly four hours of debate

that has gone on around this act. That is private health care information in

this province will remain just that.

The

whole of this package around Bill 25 is constructed to acknowledge the

importance of the Personal Health

Information Act . It is built around that. The mechanism and the oversight

and the administration of it are done within that framework, with one exception,

Mr. Speaker, and that is to deal with the issue of non-compliant rogue

individuals who double doctor. I have nothing to apologize for in this

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking

the minister to apologize. I just finished saying a moment ago this is not

personal about the minister; this is about getting the best legislation.

The

minister doesn't need to be defensive. We need to have a discussion about how to

get the best legislation. That's what the House of Assembly is about, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Privacy Commissioner is an independent, non-partisan Officer of this House. He

has a role to oversee both the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the

Personal Health Information Act . Giving the Privacy Commissioner

just a briefing a couple of months ago I don't believe goes far enough.

Why is

the minister disregarding valuable input from a subject-matter expert, the

Privacy Commissioner? Is the Minister Responsible for Access to Information

comfortable with the Minister of Health's disregard for the Commissioner's

concern?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Once again, Mr. Speaker,

there are some slight factual errors in the

preamble to that question, not least

of which is my department staff were talking with the Privacy Commissioner

immediately prior to his press release and subsequent to the publication of the

bill under the authority of the Queen's Printer after it had been read the first

time.

The

Privacy Commissioner indeed is a very valued member of the health care team. We

have conducted recently a review of the

Personal Health Information Act and its working under Dr. Morgan. In actual

fact, if it hasn't already been released, that report will be released in the

near future. We are working to make that act better again, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So, Mr. Speaker, he's not

going to respond to the Canadian Medical Association. He's not going to delay

the passage and progress of the bill and have time to speak to their concerns.

The

Privacy Commissioner spoke publicly and when I asked him, he's not saying he

spoke to him after the Privacy Commissioner became public. So there are many

concerns that are mounting on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure all

legislators want to get it right.

I ask

the minister: What review was done to ensure the public, including patient's

constitutional rights, will be protected under this legislation? What review was

done? What consultation was done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I am not

a legislator in the sense of a drafter of legislation. We have that expertise

within House. However, it is my understanding that they, in their professional

capacity, would not allow us in any capacity to bring to the House a bill that

was in contravention of the Constitution or in breach of the Charter, Mr.

Speaker. I would offer that as the best answer to that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister responsible for Environment: Will you be

implementing a carbon tax in our province by next year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the question. As we said, we're going to have a product that's made here

in Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

I always

hear the Member talking about the carbon tax. I just want to remind him: your

party brought us the biggest tax that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are ever

going to see, called Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

So I can assure you, whatever

we do will be done for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will

come up with a program that is going to benefit the economic development of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, my next question is: When do you intend on telling taxpayers, families,

business and industry how much this carbon tax is going to cost them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, when we develop

the plan, which we said will be done in 2018, we will make it publicly known. We

said that. I know the former minister said that. I'm saying that, in 2018, we'll

have it done.

Unlike

Muskrat Falls, which we were told that it's going to be a medium or small

increase in rates, now we're going to find out that they're double – double –

going from $6.2 billion up to almost $12 billion.

anything that we do, we'll make it publicly known. We'll work with all

stakeholders. We will not exclude anybody, including the PUB, if necessary, to

make sure we get it right for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

I'll try again on another one now. Yesterday in the House the minister said

they're in constant consultation with the federal government; we're in constant

consultations with all partners of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister, who's involved in those consultations; can you be more specific?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, on the

ministerial level, it's the minister; on the staff level, it's the staff; and in

Newfoundland and Labrador, it's all the businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I mean, we made it quite clear. I've been quite upfront; the former minister has

been quite upfront on the consultations.

The

federal government has come up with legislation; they will make a backstop if we

don't come up with something made in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working at

making something in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you, though, it will

not put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians behind the eight ball like your

government did with Muskrat Falls.

Mr.

Speaker, to date, we have yet to get an apology from that government for what

they did to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the taxes that they gave them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I guess the minister is going

to have to try to find his briefing binder on carbon taxes, Mr. Speaker. So I'll

try another one.

The

former minister of Environment said your government would be monitoring

emissions from large industry for two years. He said your plan was to have two

years of data so that, by the start of 2019, companies will receive targets and

they will have strategies before them as to how they are going to meet those

targets.

Yesterday you said: We'll have a solution in 2018. Why the change? How can you

impose a solution before you even determine the targets?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I

have to put on my glasses for this because I was going to stand up with

questions that were asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday.

I'll read it because I was going to present this information later when he asked

that there were nine industrial facilities done. The report has been in. We are

finalizing it. Part of the greenhouse gas act, it's all made public. It will be

public in the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to present that

later as questions that you asked yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Can the minister clarify, is

the two years of monitoring completed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, under the act,

it has to be done every year. What we're going to be putting forth here now is

what was done up to this period as we speak, one year. That's what we're going

to make public, then continue on under the act that they all have to report the

greenhouse emissions.

So that

is part of the act and the act was passed in this House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker. So if you could see the act – and it's going to be made public, the

information that is right now collected will be posted online for the general

public to see, unlike Muskrat Falls where you kicked out the PUB, where you

would not release the full information to everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We will be open and accountable to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I remind the minister, Mr.

Speaker, that act that we passed last year was for two years monitoring. It

clearly states it in the act. It was done June of 2016, it brings us up – so

I'll wait for better clarity than one year; it's supposed to be two years, Mr.

Speaker.

Your

Liberal government, like the Trudeau Liberals, have left the people with more

questions than answers about what the pending carbon tax will mean for families,

employers and our economy. Why is your government hiding your plan for the

carbon tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, the last thing

that I noticed hid, the great tax for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is what

you called Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I stood in the

Opposition when the Member who brought in, who was the minister – I think it was

Natural Resources at the time – said phone Nalcor. You can phone in, tell them

what your power rate is and they'll tell you how much it is – this phone a

meter.

Mr.

Speaker, do you know what it was? Go up two cents, when you made that call,

actually.

anything that we do will be open. It will be public. The public will know. We're

in consultation with the industry, we're in consultation with all the

stakeholders and we're in consultation with the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure you we will not kick the PUB or anybody that can help us out with

this carbon tax out of the picture because we want it best for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I have

one request for the minister. Would he please go back and review his briefing

binder on the carbon tax?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

That's all I'm asking.

I'm

going to ask another one now and I'm going to try again. A study by the Angus

Reid Institute this summer showed the majority of Canadians and even a larger

majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, 62 per cent, actually, oppose the

carbon tax.

Why is

your government ignoring public opinion on the carbon tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to

laugh at the Member because I gave you my briefing note. I gave you the full

briefing book. You can have the briefing binder. I walked over and I gave you

the briefing binder.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not complicated. There's nothing hid here. The federal government

came out with a law. What we're going to do, we're going to produce something

that's going to benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, made in Newfoundland

and Labrador, for Newfoundland and Labrador, to help Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

If you

want another copy of the briefing book, you can have it. We're not hiding

anything on this side of the House of Assembly, unlike Muskrat Falls, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Unlike Muskrat Falls where

the PUB was kicked out, Mr. Speaker, and we couldn't even get information here.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind

the minister he did provide that information to me. But guess what? I read it;

he never.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

You keep talking about a

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador carbon tax plan. How can you be so confident

it will be enough to satisfy the prime minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, just on a

personal note, you may have read it. I wrote it, so I do know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, just on a

personal note there.

The

federal government has a law. The federal government passed a law on greenhouse

gas emissions. They have it and what we do we have to conform within that law.

We, as a province, and all the provinces in Canada have to conform within the

regulations that the federal government put forth.

What we

have done, we said we'll make something for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

because we want to benefit Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't want to put

people out, wondering if they are going to pay their heat bill or pay their

phone bills (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

writes his own briefing notes. He just told us. It's incredible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

What a minister. Wow.

I'll try

one more, Mr. Speaker. Can he tell us what his plan is to safeguard the

competitiveness of our onshore and offshore industries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister Responsible for

the Office of Climate Change.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, as I said

earlier, we're in consultation with all the industries and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We always consult. This government always consults.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to talk about why we don't consult. We want to look at the

previous government. Let's look at Abitibi, took over a mill they didn't want.

Look at the mill they didn't want.

We have

to look at Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to bring it up, but I can

assure you, that's going to be the biggest burden on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that any of us in this House are ever going to see.

They

kicked out the Joint Review Panel, they kicked out the PUB and they're

questioning us on the consultations we're having? It's shameful. You should

practice what you preach, Mr. Speaker, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

wouldn't be in the bind that they're going to be facing in the next three or

four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

After

almost two years of waiting, the Fisheries Advisory Council was finally created.

Can the minister provide an update as to what the council has done so far?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. parliamentary

secretary for Fisheries and Land Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, I'm so delighted

to stand in this House today and take his very first question. I studied the

news so hard the last two days wondering what it was going to be and really

hoped it was going to be about the big cat on the West Coast.

The

Fisheries Advisory Council – we're meeting with the stakeholders, we're meeting

with industry. As time permits, more information will become available. I'm sure

the minister, when he's here, will update everyone on every step of the way.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, we're all aware,

and I'm sure the hon. Member is aware, of the dramatic decline in both the

shrimp and the snow crab stocks and the quotas. Harvesters and plant workers are

very concerned.

How much

longer will we have to wait for the strategic action plan on cod revitalization

that your government promised to deliver?

MR. SPEAKER:

The parliamentary secretary

for the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

there's nothing like starting off with a bang, because I do represent an area

which is rich in shrimp, the groundfish and the shellfish industry. I can

guarantee you, this affects everyone.

We're

working with industry stakeholders on this. Everyone is involved in the

conversation. I can guarantee you we're going to do the right thing that needs

to be done to get this industry on the right foot.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about power generation

ability throughout the upcoming winter months.

Minister, based on your understanding, if we continue to have reservoir water

shortage, will there be enough water in the reserve to provide sufficient

generation to all of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this very important question.

As I

said yesterday in this House, reservoir levels are at 87 per cent, which is

slightly lower than what we would like in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has assured me that they have adequate thermal

generation and there should be no difficulty in supply this winter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

minister said she had concerns. I understand there are 1,000 gigawatt hours less

than there were this time last year.

Recently, the manager for Exploits Generation with Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro has said: Due to low water levels on the Exploits River, some of the

lowest in 50 years, power generation will be drastically decreased.

I ask

the minister: What is the replacement plan for this energy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

these are very important issues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to

ensure that we have adequate supply of electricity. This is very important to

us.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, it has been a dry summer and a dry fall and, as I said, reservoir

levels are lower than we would like to see them in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, over the last number of years, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has done

a tremendous amount of work on maintenance and upgrading of its thermal

generation systems. I can assure the Member opposite that even this past summer

there was work being done on them, maintenance of these generators.

Mr.

Speaker, I've been assured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will have adequate generation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, my colleague spoke of the Holyrood Generating Station and the

particular generator out there and the increase in fuel costs out there over the

summer.

I just

wonder from the minister, could you indicate: Is there greater capacity at

Holyrood, through that generator that could be used if there's a shortfall in

energy in the coming winter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over

this summer there was a tremendous amount of maintenance done, as the Member can

remember back in 2015 when there wasn't enough generation. Since that time,

there has been a requirement to have on standby the combustion turbine which was

operational during the summer; its backup power was required for Holyrood.

I can

assure the Member opposite, maintenance has been done. There has been a review

of the combustion turbine – sorry, the thermal generation opportunities in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I've been reassured by Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, that we are in good shape for this winter despite

the lower water levels. I again remind the people of the province, it is at 87

per cent.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland for a very quick question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder

if the minister could tell us: Based on the suspected low level of waters, what

is the expected generation decrease we could see this winter, and basically

where is that replacement energy coming from?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources for a quick response.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I think I've

answered his question.

We have

thermal generation, all systems are go, Mr. Speaker, on that thermal generation.

There was maintenance done at Holyrood this past summer to ensure that it was in

proper working order, Mr. Speaker. We have thermal generation as a backup to our

hydro generation, and I've been reassured by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

we're in good shape for the winter.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

In the

last three years we have heard loud and clear from parents about unsafe

conditions for the children walking to school. They are calling for a change in

the school busing policy so children and youth are not walking on busy roads

with no sidewalks or on roads because existing sidewalks are full of snow. We

need action now before another child or young person is injured or killed

walking to or from school.

I ask

the minister: Will he create a flexible busing policy that allows for situations

where the absence of functioning sidewalks puts young students at serious risk?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, as far as I know, are not responsible for sidewalks

in municipalities. Municipalities are responsible for sidewalks in their

communities. If there are dangerous conditions on roads, municipalities should

apply to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of

Transportation and Works, whichever department, to try to get funding in order

to fix those sorts of conditions.

already have a flexible busing policy. It's called courtesy seating, and most of

those problems with school busing are resolved within the first three to four

weeks of school, as has been the case this fall. We have a total of one

outstanding case at the moment.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

asking the minister: Is he saying that he has no concerns of the unsafe

conditions that exist at this moment? Forget the future – right now at this

moment, he has no concerns for the safety of our children?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm a father of

a primary school student. I am concerned about the situation in schools in this

province, of course I am. I didn't say that I was – I don't appreciate the

Leader of the Third Party putting words into my mouth.

I said

if municipal roads are unsafe they should – municipalities – apply to government

in order to get cost-sharing funding, like other communities across this

province have done. If there's a particular circumstance that the Member is

aware of, she should bring it to the attention of a Member of Cabinet or the

minister responsible. That way, those issues can be resolved rather than

throwing those sorts of allegations across the floor of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, first, the

Medical Association, then the Privacy Commissioner came out with serious

concerns about the proposed Prescription

Monitoring Act . Dr. Bruce Hollett, the province's key opioid addiction

specialist, said he was never consulted and has some pretty serious concerns, as

does SWAP and now the Canadian Medical Association.

Mr.

Speaker, I understand the minister's sense of urgency to get this legislation in

place, but I ask: Will he put this bill on temporary hold until he sorts out

these crucial issues with these experts and then bring amendments to the House

to address these outstanding issues?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

the Member opposite should realize that, as I've said in debate, this bill is a

balance. We have an equal constituency of people who think this bill is not

strong enough. We have concerns from the Medical Association, which we've heard,

and we have struck a balance to deal with what is a pressing issue, which

resulted in the death of 16 people in the last year and, as I say, puts us as

leaders in the number of opioid prescriptions per capita in this country which,

in turn, is a world leader in that unfortunate trend.

I would

suggest to the Member opposite we have struck a fair and appropriate balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, a potential

consequence of this bill is some doctors may stop prescribing opioids.

I ask

the minister: What is his plan to deal with this, and also the impact on folks

who have an addiction and are going to go to the street to get drugs that are

way more dangerous and may cause more deaths? What is his plan for this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, the emphasis

currently is on this bill, and that's entirely appropriate because we are

legislators. Outside this bill there is panoply, a jigsaw puzzle of pieces that

fit round in terms of harm reduction, in terms of education, in terms of

treatment.

The

Member opposite for two years sat on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health

and Addictions – and addictions I emphasize. This was part and parcel of what

that Member opposite signed off to with a 54-point recommendation plan. She

knows where we're going and you can't say all that in 45 seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre for a very quick question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: When is he going to use legislative committees like he promised? This

is exactly what happens when we don't use them to review and analyze bills

before they come to the House. They are not ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader for a quick response.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly happy to answer this question. Legislative committees are something

that we're striving for. We haven't seen them in this House in decades.

I'd like

to think that with the co-operation of all Members, we've made a number of

changes in this House in the last couple of years and there are more to come.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'd like

to read into the record a statement I made earlier. For the record, in Question

Period yesterday, there was an exchange regarding the tabling of the Marble

Mountain Development Corporation, the 2016-2017 annual report.

I have

looked into this matter and can confirm that the report was tabled by the

responsible minister on October 31, 2017. Physical copies were distributed to

each caucus; however, in error, it was not posted to the House of Assembly

website. I can also confirm that the Clerk has made all parties aware of this

error and the report is now available on the House of Assembly website.

Thank

you.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I just respond

to the question that the House Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday about

the reporting on the greenhouse emissions. There were nine industrial sites

under the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act .

Once those reports are in, they'll be finalized and they will be made public.

The ones

that will be made public in the very near future are for 2016 and 2017, one

year. They have to report annually on the greenhouse emissions. For the first

year, it will be done very soon and put online.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further questions for which

notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

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-sale 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

book stores, 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.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I stand and raise issues that were subsequent effects of the

imposed tax on books, the provincial tax. I've spoken to a few booksellers who

have talked about the impact on their business of this tax. I know the tax is

going to be removed, that the rebate will be in effect again as of January 1.

But I think it's really important to look at what happens when government may

impose taxes, what happens when government may impose legislation where they

haven't fully consulted with people who would be affected, whether it's in

business, whether it's in those who provide services to the province, to the

people of the province.

Again,

we look at how important it is to thoroughly investigate any decisions that are

made in this House. Not to unduly delay them, but to make sure they are the best

possible decisions on behalf of the people of the province and the future of the

province.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this wasn't a good measure. I've also spoken to someone

who part of their business involves selling books and they've decided not to

sell the books anymore. It's unfortunate. Perhaps they may change that decision

now that the rebate will be reversed in January, but it's hard to tell. This had

major, major, major effects on the people who write books and publish books here

in this province.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador has significant issues concerning food security; and

WHEREAS

expanding the farming, forestry and agrifoods sectors of the province would

promote economic diversification; and

WHEREAS

local agriculture products can be seen as healthy and fresh alternatives; and

WHEREAS

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the potential to be a leader in

agriculture development;

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

of Assembly to urge government to encourage and support new entrants into

farming and agricultural industries.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity this past weekend to be in my district, and

particularly Bell Island, who – people may not know – was a full-fledged

agricultural contributor to all of the Avalon Peninsula for decades and decades,

before the mining industry and even during the mining industry.

For a

period of time when I worked as the Economic Development officer over there in

the early '80s, I did get to manage a 60-acre farm. Now, unfortunately, my skill

set in farming is very limited to knowing that putting the right people who know

farming is very important and the benefits from that.

I do

have the opportunity here, after talking to some people who are starting to move

agriculture forward again on Bell Island, about how we had to get to that level,

where we are now about food security, where we are about food sustainability

here and where we are about food safety. So all these things are pertinent to

being able to move that industry again and get younger people back into it. To

do that, we've got to have incentives, we've got to have an education process,

we've got to have a mentoring program here.

I get a

chance to speak to this because I suspect any knowledge I have of the farming

industry will be overshadowed when my colleague expert in the farming industry

joins us here in the House of Assembly. I want to pick his brain to say not only

in my district but in the whole of this great province of ours, how we can

promote agriculture, how we can get new entrants in, how we can get

diversification when it comes to the farming industry to ensure food safety,

food security, food reliability. Also, particularly, around enhancing the

economics here and creating jobs, and creating sustainable employment.

So this

is an opportunity here. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

particularly those in my district, have talked about wanting supports and

encouragement from government and developing partnerships with agencies that are

out there who have an expertise to be able to support moving things forward and

educate.

I have

an opportunity to speak to this, and I can't wait for my colleague to join me

here so I can pick his brain also about how we can move this forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly pleased today to rise on a point of interest for residents of my

district.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of transportation infrastructure;

and

WHEREAS

it's a main highway and it plays a major role in the commercial and residential

growth of our region;

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

of Assembly to urge government to upgrade and perform regular maintenance to

this significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of

traffic to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken to this before here in the Legislature in regard to this

piece of infrastructure that connects the Trans-Canada Highway to Route 10, and

the need to have those upgrades, continue to have it upgraded and do an

investment that we've built on over the past number of years, but a continued

investment of certain requirements. I call on government to deal with this in

next year's 2018 road infrastructure plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

This being Wednesday, I now

call on the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island to introduce the

resolution standing in his name, Motion 5.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

apologize, as I was engulfed in talking about aquaculture –

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to stand and present the private Member's resolution on school busing.

I'll just read the resolution that we're putting forward.

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the government to amend the School Bus

Transportation Policies to cover the transportation to and from school of pupils

who reside within 1.6 kilometres of that school where those pupils are primary

or elementary students and where those pupils are secondary students whose

safety may be jeopardized by the failure to provide them with school busing.

It's

seconded by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Mr.

Speaker, we wanted to bring this forward for a number of reasons. As you may

have noticed, over the last number of months this has become a very hot issue

for people. It's always been there and there have always been ways of looking at

solutions.

The

Minister of Education talked about courtesy busing, which was something the

former administration had worked with the school districts to try to provide. As

we have an explosion in certain areas of the population and we have a major

increase in traffic flows, and, unfortunately, the road networks in some of

these areas that were considered rural, in some cases remote, are limited on how

you can provide safety on our road network when you have students, and

particularly multiples of students that have quadrupled in the populous over the

last decade or so.

We've

been building new schools because the necessity was there. The growth had

dictated it was there. So it was very important that we look at a safety margin

here that would be conducive to including and ensuring that children, students,

particularly younger ones who may be distracted and not notice as much on the

road and because of the nature of the weather we have here, it would be very

important.

It falls

in line with the private Member's resolution that the Member for Baie Verte –

Green Bay presented last week about speeds in school zones. So, obviously,

there's an understanding and an agreement because that was unanimously passed

last week.

We all

support safety for our children and we all support ensuring that in school zones

kids can walk in a safe manner with as much due diligence as possible, but

understanding they're young people who may be distracted, can still walk around

and get to school in a safe manner. Also, that those drivers would not feel

apprehensive about being in a school zone, particularly if they're following the

speed limit and knowing the kids in that area are aware that they're going to be

in that immediate area.

This has

been a hot issue for a number of school councils, a number of parent

organizations, a number of interested associations around ensuring safety in our

areas. Again, it's nothing new. It's been a discussion that's gone on back six,

seven years ago.

I give

credit; it was actually in the Red Book for the Liberal administration, the

present government back in the 2015 election. To me it was well thought out. It

was fluent and it was extremely poignant and to an extreme benefit. We are going

to review the 1.6 kilometre busing policy within government with the intent of

rectifying, ensuring safety is addressed, and what are the mitigating factors or

processes we cou