Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 26 May 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 32)
2008-05-26
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May
26, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 32
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for
the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand
Falls-Windsor-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber
Valley.
The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Gymnastics
Team for their outstanding performance at the Atlantic Gymnastics Championships
recently held in Moncton, New Brunswick.
Athletes from Campia Gymnastics in Mount Pearl, who are members of the team,
brought home an impressive collection of medals which included five bronze, five
silver and ten gold. I would like to recognize all of the athletes and commend
them on a job well done. Their dedication to their sport is remarkable.
I would also like to recognize Campia Gymnastics for its role in assisting
this team and assuring their participation in the Atlantic Gymnastics
Championships in Moncton. The coaches, parents and chaperones should also be
acknowledged for their contribution and constant support of those athletes that
participated.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Provincial Gymnastics Team and Campia Gymnastics on a successful Atlantic
championship competition. We should all be very proud of these athletes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, earlier this session I informed members of this
House that Robert Slaney, a native of Upper Island Cove, was one of the
finalists for the Marcel-Robert Trophy, as the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League's
Scholastic Player of the Year.
In April of this year, I was pleased to announce that Robert won that award
and was now one of three players to be considered for the Canadian Major Hockey
League's Scholastic Player of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, Robert Slaney has won it all. On Saturday, at the CHL's Golden
Puck Awards gala in Kitchener, Ontario, he was honoured with the league's
Scholastic Player of the Year Award.
A member of the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, Robert ended the season with
twenty-six goals, twenty-nine assists for fifty-five points in sixty-four games,
good enough for fifth in the team scoring. There is no doubt that with these
statistics, coupled with his classroom accomplishments, Robert is headed for a
successful career in whatever field he chooses.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating yet another
local hero from the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand
Falls-Windsor-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted today to inform my hon. colleagues of a significant
achievement for Woodland Primary in Grand Falls-Windsor. It has just been
announced that Woodland Primary has received a grant in the amount of $122,000
from the Indigo Love of Reading Foundation.
This is a foundation designed to promote literacy and learning by offering
children access to new books and materials in their schools, regardless of their
social or economic status.
Darlene Sullivan, Principal at Woodland Primary, submitted an application to
Indigo Love of Reading Foundation on behalf of the school with the help of its
students and teachers.
When Ms Sullivan received the call from Heather Riesman of Indigo Books, she
was not expecting what came next. Ms Riesman told her that the application she
submitted for Woodland Primary was successful in being one of ten schools to
receive an Indigo Love of Reading Foundation grant, and the only school in
Newfoundland and Labrador to receive the grant this year. Ms Sullivan was
ecstatic, and she said, "This will help to make our dreams come true. The
library is the heart of our school and we want to make it an inspiring place for
our students. A lot of our books are old and need to be replaced."
For the next three years, the school will receive $40,500 to be spent on
purchasing new books and on literacy initiatives - $5,000 of that must be used
for a special school program or initiative to inspire and promote the love of
reading in its students. Literacy is so important and it is always encouraging
to see such commitment to literacy and learning in our schools.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer my congratulations to Ms
Sullivan and her staff, and best wishes to the students of Woodland Primary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this hon. House today to
pay tribute to Derrick Lovell, a Level III student at Main River Academy in
Pollard's Point. Main River Academy has a K-12 enrolment of 126 students.
Mr. Speaker, Derrick may be young but he has displayed an exceptional
commitment to environmental issues in his community. He co-founded a school
environmental group, Water, Air and Trees, to educate and empower his peers and
community, in part through shoreline cleanups, an adopt-a-beach program, and
events to discuss ocean-related topics.
Mr. Speaker, Derrick encouraged youth volunteerism as a treasurer and
co-president of Allied Youth, and serves on the National Youth Council of the
Primates World Relief and Development Fund, a national humanitarian
organization. He is a public speaker on issues he witnessed during a tour of
development projects in Mexico. Derrick is busy with the student council, school
breakfast program, volleyball, choir, and church activities.
Mr. Speaker, Derrick has recently been awarded the TD scholarship, $60,000,
was also a national Loran Award finalist, $3,000, and won the national
Millennium Excellence Award, $20,000.
Mr. Speaker, Derrick will be attending McGill University in the fall, and I
ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations and
best wishes to him for such outstanding accomplishments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of this government's
commitment to student summer employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
provincial government supports two major student summer employment programs.
These are the Student Work and Service Program, commonly referred to as SWASP,
and the Level I, II and III Student Employment Program. In Budget year
2008-2009, a total of $2.5 million is being invested in these programs.
A student summer job is often a young person's first exposure to the labour
market. It is a great way to establish good lifelong work habits and to
understand the value of earning a living.
The Level I, II and III Student Employment Program helps high school students
secure work with not-for-profit organizations, community agencies, and
municipalities in the areas of summer recreation, heritage and community
improvement projects. Projects provide for three to eight weeks of paid
employment at no direct cost to the organization. This year we anticipate that
the Level I, II and III Student Employment Program will support approximately
480 projects and employ over 600 high school students.
SWASP provides a sponsoring employer with a wage subsidy of $4 per hour. In
return, the employer is required to hire a student for a minimum of twenty-five
to a maximum of forty hours each week. Under the program, the student can work a
minimum of five to a maximum of fourteen weeks.
Mr. Speaker, SWASP assists individuals currently attending or who plan to go
to a post-secondary institution in the upcoming academic year. It is available
to both for-profit and not-for-profit employers. This year's program will
enable 1,200 post-secondary students to be matched to employers and to secure a
meaningful job.
In addition to the SWASP wage subsidy, the student also receives a $50 per
week tuition voucher. For example, if a student works a maximum of fourteen
weeks then a $700 voucher is provided to help reduce the overall cost of their
tuition. This is a great way to both gain work experience and save for school.
In Budget 2008, $1.38 million is being invested to develop a comprehensive
Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy to encourage young people to stay, live
and work in our Province. We are moving forward with this initiative as it will
complement other youth services such as the student summer employment programs,
the graduate employment program, the Community Youth Network, and grants to
youth serving agencies. Government is firmly committed to engaging and
supporting our young people because when they succeed everyone in this Province
benefits.
I encourage our students to be safe on the job this summer, to gain new
experiences, to learn new skills, and to make sure that they enjoy themselves.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say
I congratulate him as well for continuing with those two wonderful programs,
knowing full well that our federal government, I believe, this year has cut
funding for the summer employment programs.
I know full well how important this is, not only to the students themselves
but to the various groups and organizations in all of our districts, to know
that they can hire on young people and do some valuable work that will help them
to prepare themselves for the future.
Mr. Speaker, it also takes a burden off many families, knowing that a student
can go out and probably make $800 or $900 or $1,000 over the summer to assist
them when they are preparing to go back to school.
I do not have any complaints with the program but I guess, like us all, I
would like to see more money and be able to see that more students were hired in
the district; but it is a wonderful program, Mr. Speaker, and I want to wish all
the students the very best and hopefully they will all get employment through
those two programs. If not, maybe the can pick up work through the public
sector.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I am very glad to see the government continuing these two programs for
student employment in the summer. Both as an MHA, knowing constituents of mine
who have received these grants as well as a person who headed up a
not-for-profit organization, I fully know the benefit of this program and how
important it is, both for the organizations who do the hiring, as well as for
the students who get this really important employment experience. Besides the
fact, it also puts money in their pockets and it also helps them, especially in
the SWASP program, to look forward to their post-secondary education.
I would like to point out to the minister and to the government, that if we
are going to keep our young people here, we need more than these summer
employment programs. We need a plan for permanent job creation in this Province
so that our young people will have permanent, well-paying jobs that are going to
keep them here and not have them leave once they finish in the post-secondary
institutions where they will go on after having done these summer programs.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Natural Resources held a press
conference on the Lower Churchill. During that press conference she indicated
that the provincial government is considering suing both the federal government
and the Quebec government for redress on the Upper Churchill.
I ask the Premier today: When did government first decide that it would
consider this action?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition is correct. Earlier today I held a press
conference with Ed Martin, the President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro and of our energy corporation and during the course of the news conference
I was asked a question with regard to the Innu Nation and the fact that they are
looking for redress from the Upper Churchill. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what I
said, in a nutshell, was that if the Innu want redress for the Upper Churchill
then we, as a government, have to consider who received the bulk of the benefit
from the Upper Churchill, which is clearly the Province of Quebec and the
federal government. We are trying to understand, as a government, if there is an
action to seek redress for the Innu Nation through the parties who have
benefited the most and received the lion's share from this project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week in the House of Assembly, I questioned both the minister and the
Premier on this very issue regarding the Lower Churchill.
I ask the Premier again today: When did you start to consider these actions
on suing both the federal and provincial government, how long has it been
ongoing, and why there was no disclosure last week?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Last week when the issue was raised about the Innu seeking redress for the
Upper Churchill, it was an issue that we decided to look at because, obviously,
as pointed out by my colleague, in determining whether or not redress is
appropriate, one must look at the profits.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will come as a surprise to no one that in 2006, up to
2006, the Quebec Government had a profit of $19 billion from the Upper Churchill
while the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has received $1 billion. It was
on this basis, Mr. Speaker, that we determined to look at this issue to
determine if there is viability to the claim of the Innu and then to look
specifically at the federal government and Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister where the figures came from that he just disclosed in the
House, and if he could provide us the documentation of it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would obviously have no problem providing the Leader of the Opposition with a
copy of the energy plan, which is very comprehensive and which contains the
figures outlined just then by myself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Just a couple of details, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicates that the Department of Justice was doing this review.
I ask the minister: How many lawyers, I guess, within the Department of
Justice are working on this court challenge and if government has hired or
retained external lawyers as well to do this work, or will be doing so in the
future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that currently, right now, the only
person looking at this is the deputy minister, who is one of the - if not the
top civil litigator in our department. We are looking at - and again, I must
emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that one has to distinguish between the issue of the
Innu seeking redress and the Province seeking redress for the Upper Churchill.
There has never been redress made for the Upper Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, if there was a thorn that sticks in the Newfoundland and
Labrador psyche, than I would suggest to you that the Upper Churchill is that
thorn. It is the biggest inequity that has taken place, and if there is anyway
of ever redressing the harm that has been done to this Province, Mr. Speaker,
then as a government we owe it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to do
that and we will do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know of course, in any legal
process that is followed, before you bring a case to court it involves giving
notice to the parties involved.
I ask if the provincial government, through his department or any other
department, have given notice to the federal government or the Quebec government
that there could be a lawsuit pending?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that before one gets to the point of
giving notice in a legal claim, you have to determine if a legal action exists.
At this point, the Innu Nation has raised an issue which we have undertaken to
determine if there is a viability or validity to that issue. The Innu Nation is
seeking redress for the Upper Churchill from the provincial government.
As stated by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, the redress
being sought should be proportionate to the profits, and the profits, Mr.
Speaker, as outlined earlier, are $19 billion for Quebec, $1 billion for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that inequity speaks for itself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is typical in any questions that you ask in this House, you get two
different responses from ministers.
This morning the Minister of Natural Resources said in a press conference
that government was looking at, as one of their options, suing the federal
government and the Quebec government. The Minister of Justice is now telling me
that he is not sure if a legal claim even exists here. So first of all, I say to
government, clarify your response please, in terms of what your course of action
is here.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition will say there are two answers given for every
question. Well there are usually two questions or three questions in every
question put forward, so I will try to deal with what I take it to be the
question.
We have not determined - the Province has not determined that there is an
action for redress, that the Innu Nation has an action for redress against
anyone. They came to the Province seeking redress. However, again, I must
distinguish between a claim by the Innu for redress and a claim for the Province
for redress. If there is to be an action in this case, Mr. Speaker, it would
have to be by the Innu Nation of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Again, Mr. Speaker, in the minister's response this morning
this had nothing to do with the Innu Nation. The Innu Nation is seeking redress
from the provincial government who was the chief negotiators on that contract.
So, I say to the minister: Which is it, is the redress on the Upper Churchill
and the lawsuits to the federal government and the Quebec government being
pursued in the interest of the Innu Nation or in the interest of the provincial
government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding, from discussions with my colleague, that today there
was a discussion of the Innu Nation seeking redress. They came to the Premier
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: - seeking redress for the Innu Nation.
We are dealing with that; however, I can say, in relation to the hon. member's
question, one of the issues that brought me into politics was the terrible
inequity that exists in the Upper Churchill. If there is ever any way that we
can rectify the problems, we will certainly do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Because the members opposite, in the number of years they
were in government
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: - I do not see any actions by the Liberal government, under
Premier Wells to Premier Grimes, having taken any steps to rectify that
intolerable situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Maybe the minister can tell me when the Innu Nation approached
you to look at a possible lawsuit against the federal government, or the Quebec
government, in terms of them getting redress on this project. Because my
understanding is that the Innu is looking from redress from your government.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Perhaps I am not making myself clear, perhaps my colleague
did not make herself clear, but it is quite simple. The Innu Nation said that
they would like to have redress from the provincial government before they will
continue negotiations on the Lower Churchill. They were talking about the Upper
Churchill. In order for the Province to determine whether or not there is any
validity to that claim, we have to look at the issue of Innu redress.
Again, I come back to the basics, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be redress, one
must look at those who have reaped most of the profits. In this case it is
clearly the Province of Quebec and certainly the federal government, because
these figures do not take into account that there would have been less
equalization paid to Quebec by the federal government. So both the federal
government and Quebec should be the primary targets of any action if one exists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to ask the minister how much profit Quebec Hydro would have
earned on the Lower Churchill project in 2007, knowing that 12 per cent of the
capacity they sell in power comes from the Lower Churchill Project, knowing
their total profit for the whole year was $2.9 billion - the Upper Churchill.
Maybe he can tell me what the actual number was in terms of dollar value on
profit on the Upper Churchill last year for Hydro-Quebec.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have those numbers with me immediately but I can certainly provide
them to the Leader of the Opposition - and happy to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we already know in our history in this Province
there have been two court challenges on the Upper Churchill. If the minister
claims it came to politics all over this issue, he will know all the history
about it as well. Both of those claims were dismissed: once under the recall
provisions, and the other under the cancellation of water rights.
I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: What part of the contract will be used
by your government in any potential court challenge this time that was not used
in previous challenges that were dismissed in the courts?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I have not said there is any court challenge pending in relation to
the Upper Churchill. What I have said is that we are dealing with here today, as
did my hon. colleague, with the issue of redress for the Innu for the Upper
Churchill.
Since the Liberal Leader seems to be steeped in history here today, one would
look back to around 1967-1969 and look at whether or not the federal government
and Quebec consulted the Innu or any other Aboriginal rights. Because it is my
understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I could be wrong on this, that Aboriginal rights
are not extinguished but there are no time limitations, and so the Innu are
certainly within their rights to seek redress on the Upper Churchill. What we
are trying to determine, Mr. Speaker: Is there a legal action which would call
into play any responsibility on the part of the provincial government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister might want to read Hansard and see
what his Premier had to say last week, because it was a very different response,
I say to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some professors at Memorial University who have
recently suggested - and I think only in the last two weeks - that government
would launch a court challenge on the Upper Churchill contract, based on the
renewal clause.
I ask the minister: Is this one of the options that the Department of Justice
is now considering for this particular challenge?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: I have reviewed that article, Mr. Speaker, and it makes for
very interesting reading, but unfortunately we do not look to university
professors in political science or elsewhere to determine if we have legal
actions.
What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, are any and all options that are
available to us, and I say to you again that here today we are looking at a
request by the Innu Nation for redress in relation to the Upper Churchill.
Again, I can only repeat myself so often, Mr. Speaker, but the issue of Innu
redress is separate and apart from any provincial claim for redress in relation
to the Upper Churchill. The Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill in relation
to Innu are not particularly related, other than they are seeking redress.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly would not expect the Minister of Justice to take advice from
anyone, including professors at Memorial University.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, should this go before the courts, it would take a number
of years, I am sure, to reach a decision, and it could also impact negotiations
with Ottawa and Quebec, and the timelines for any developments on the Lower
Churchill.
I ask the Premier today: What are the timelines that are now being considered
for any potential legal action, and what impact will that have on the overall
project, or an overall deal on the Lower Churchill development itself?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is just one of the many challenges that we face in terms of dealing with
the development of the Lower Churchill. We have overcome many challenges; we are
sure we will overcome this one as well. Because, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line
is, what has happened on the Upper Churchill and the development of the Lower
Churchill are not linked. So, while the negotiations with the Innu Nation are on
hold for the moment, we expect them to progress and our timelines have not
changed. We are looking forward to the beginning of construction in 2010, and
first power in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the Province had been hopeful of getting a loan guarantee from
the federal government, but I say to you, Minister, if you are to launch this
particular lawsuit, do you think that is going to have an impact upon you being
able to secure any kind of deal with the federal government in the future for
any funds to develop any part of the hydro development industry in this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The one thing that we have reiterated time and time and time again is that
this project will proceed, with or without the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous project one of the best left in North
America - and we will not be asking for a handout from anybody. Anybody who has
the opportunity to invest in this project will have a good deal, and it is in
the best interest of the federal government because not only is this good for
Newfoundland and Labrador but this is good for Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Last week, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier about
negotiations with Quebec, or the potential for transmission of power through
Quebec, he said that they would keep all their options open.
I ask you today, Minister: Launching a lawsuit against the Quebec Government,
is that keeping your options open for the transmission of power through that
part of the country?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said here in the House last week, because of the commercial arrangements
that Quebec has with the United States, there is a process called open access
transmission tariff, in which Quebec has to agree to allow other states or
provinces to wield power through Quebec, the same way that it wields power
through states.
We do not have to depend on goodwill, because goodwill from the federal
government has not gotten this place very far, Mr. Speaker. So we are dependent
on the rules and regulations that are in place, not from the federal government,
I am sad to say, but because of the commercial arrangements that Hydro-Quebec
has in the United States.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that a lawsuit against the Province of Quebec is
really ruling them out as an option, I say to you, Minister, so that brings me
to the question of looking at the Maritime access route which, as you know
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: - will include wielding power through two other provinces in
Canada and four states in the United States, all of which do not have
transmission capacity right now to be able to handle that power.
I ask you, Minister: What are your other options?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition get a lot more
informed before she starts raising those kinds of questions in the House.
Not only is the subsea route absolutely possible - and I can point to Europe
if you want examples as to how that works - but we have Nova Scotia hungry for
our power, we have New Brunswick hungry for our power, and we have the New
England states hungry for our power.
We have no problem in finding purchasers for renewable green energy that is
going to be available to customers for hundreds of years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister says they are hungry for power. Well, I ask you, Minister: Are
they hungry enough to build the transmission lines to access that power, or is
that part of the deal that this Province will have to look at as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we do not give our resources away. If there
is one thing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know, and something
that the Opposition should know by now, is that we do not give our resources
away.
When we develop a resource in this Province, whether it is the Lower
Churchill or any other project, you can be guaranteed, Sir, that there is going
to be a good return to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Minister, I don't put a lot of credence in many things your
government says. You talk about being open and accountable. Last week I asked
for six particular documents related to the Lower Churchill Development project
and none of them were tabled in this House. This morning you reiterated time and
time and time again the words you like to use, about openness and
accountability.
I ask you minister: Will you now table those reports that have been completed
on the Lower Churchill project in the House of Assembly so we can see the
information for ourselves?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: All I can say is, thank God, Mr. Speaker, that they are
over there and we are over here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Let's make all the information that we have on the Lower
Churchill available! Let's make it available to Hydro Quebec, our biggest
competitor! Let's make it available to people who are trying to undermine us!
Let's make it available to people who are trying to access our power! And, we
will be left here at the end of the day with no better deal than we got on the
Upper Churchill, thanks to the crowd opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was alright back in 2002 when your Premier was standing in this House
demanding information on the Lower Churchill and on the Voisey's Bay project.
He wanted everything available, everything out in the marketplace, Mr. Speaker,
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week Justice Cameron ruled against the government's
application to limit questioning at the Cameron Inquiry.
Today I ask the Premier: Now that this decision has been made, will you and
the Minister of Justice commit to no further interference in this Inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We sought clarification from the Commission, we have received that
clarification, and we are okay with the ruling.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Justice Cameron also requested additional resources and an extension to
February, 2009, to complete her work at the Inquiry.
I ask the Premier today if he will commit to provide for the time and the
resources, as was requested by Justice Cameron.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We received the letter, as previously outlined, from Commissioner Cameron. We
have sent a letter back requesting some information. As the Premier has
previously stated, and as I have stated, there will be an extension forthcoming.
The extension being sought by the commissioner at this point is to February 28,
2009. We will be replying in short order, but the commissioner will be granted
an extension.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
For the third successive week and for the fifth time I will ask again,
Minister: Will you table the names and the dates of appointments of the members
of the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question was put to me last week, not three weeks ago, and I am happy to
table the document today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So much for openness, once you pry it out of them like teeth.
My next question is for the Minister of Business.
The minister has a fund of $32 million in his department for business
start-up in the Province, and that fund has not yet provided any funding to
prospective companies.
As reported in The Telegram this weekend, Credential Consulting Inc.
was looking to this fund to help establish 150 jobs in Central Newfoundland. The
proposal was rejected and the company relocated to New Brunswick where they
received both funding from the New Brunswick Government and ACOA to the tune of
in excess of $1 million.
I ask the minister: What was missing in this proposal that prompted our
Department of Business to reject it, that you are aware of,
whereas the other
province and ACOA came to the plate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, because of confidentiality
issues, we will not be speaking to this particular company or what any company
would do in terms of what they are doing with the Department of Business.
It was very clear in The Telegram
article that they would not give any
comments on this particular file, and we certainly will not be doing anything as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the people of this Province deserve an answer as to why 150 potential
jobs are not in this Province and have gone to New Brunswick, next door. I think
you can certainly tell us that, Minister, without breaching any confidentiality.
Is there some particular reason - in a general, generic sense - that you can
tell us, that they did not pass the smell test according to yourself and your
department?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member across the way, this government
is not in the business of going out and revealing everything that is going on in
terms of companies that want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. If we start
going out and giving out information that is coming to our department on behalf
of companies that have stated clearly - stated clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker -
that they will not engage with The Telegram or any other paper or any
other form of media to give any information on this deal, if they do not want to
deal with the media then we certainly will not be doing that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear no discussion this morning of
the role of the environmental assessment review in the update on the Lower
Churchill, presented by the Minister of Natural Resources.
Based on recommendations of the two federally-responsible authorities, there
will be a joint panel to review the environmental impact statement that
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will have to prepare.
Mr. Speaker, I ask either the Minister of Environment or the Minister of
Natural Resources to give us some idea of how far along it will be in the
process before the joint review panel is struck.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of my news conference this morning was to share with the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador the expenditures that have been associated with the
development of the Lower Churchill to date.
At the present time the energy company is involved in studies that will
support the filing of their environmental impact statement, and that work is
ongoing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is right, this morning's announcement had to do with the
expenditures that have been made to date regarding the Lower Churchill
development, and the statement indicated that the company would not put any
money into Phase 3 of the development without the key deliverable of the Impacts
and Benefits Agreement with the Innu Nation. There are other major deliverables,
one of which is the role of the review panel.
I ask the minister pertinent exactly to what was talked about this
morning where do the recommendations of a review panel, which is not even
yet appointed, fit into the timeline and expenditure plans of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro that were presented this morning?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process for the Lower Churchill is
moving along. The process for the draft guidelines, that is near complete and
the next phase will be an MOU. That will go out for public comment in the very
near future, and that will address issues such as the panel, the number of
people on the panel, and so on.
Once that is complete and comes back to us, we will certainly be able to
provide more information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the Minister of Environment and Conservation could tell us: Who
is the MOU between?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That MOU would be between our Province and the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: I have to say, I am really disappointed and it is not
just with the provincial government that I am disappointed around this one
with both the federal and provincial authorities, that they did not follow a
similar process as was followed in Voisey's Bay, where the Aboriginal groups
were involved in the MOU. I wish that were the case here.
I will ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: Surely, you must
have some position with regard to when this panel will be put in place? When the
environmental impact statement is finished by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,
to whom will it be presented?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned, the MOU will go out for public comment in
the next couple of weeks, of which there is a thirty day process for public
input and comment. Following that process, my staff and myself will review what
comes out of that very public and open process. It will speak to how many people
will be on the panel and the make up of the panel. Certainly, we will be able to
give you more information once that process is complete.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The time for questions and answers has expired.
Before the Chair moves onto Presenting Reports by Standing and Select
Committees, the Chair would like to recognize a former member of this
Legislature, who sat here, I would think, from 1989 to 1996, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 26.5(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling
one Order in Counsel relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2009-2010 to
2012-2013 fiscal years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motions.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall
move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, and further I
give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that the House not adjourn
at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?
The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.
MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:
WHEREAS Members of the House of Assembly are provided with one paper copy of
documents tabled in the House; and
WHEREAS the transparency and accountability act has greatly increased the
number of documents that require tabling and distribution; and
WHEREAS these circumstances have necessitated an increased amount of paper to
meet these requirements; and
WHEREAS the Legislative Library is the only location where a complete set of
tabled documents for each Session can be viewed; and
WHEREAS the government has committed to sound recycling and reduction
policies;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly investigate, in a timely
manner, procedures which will reduce the use of paper for tabled documents to a
minimum.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Torbay,
Pouch Cove and all of that vicinity with regards to the Torbay Bypass Road. I
will say right from the outset, I know the minister or her officials have been
in consultation with the people and, hopefully, they are addressing some of the
concerns that the people do have.
Mr. Speaker, just to go over it again, they are concerned about the beginning
of the highway, which would be two kilometres and will be turned into a
five-lane highway travelling into the community of Torbay. What they are asking,
through their petition, through the minister, to ask government to reconsider
the beginning of the route, to start at the entrance just outside of St. John's.
I know there were a couple of issues that officials have concerns about and that
is with regards to the watershed area, as well as the possible extension to the
airport some time in the future, even though there is no request in.
Those people have grave concerns. There are quite a few liveyers who live in
that area and they are concerned about the problems that they will have with the
traffic there, not only during construction but even after the fact, once the
road is built.
It gives me great pleasure to stand and present this petition on behalf of
those residents and to ask the minister and to urge government to take a second
look at - they are not against the full highway, it is just the two kilometre
section leading into the Town of Torbay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion 2,
An Act To Amend The Energy
Corporation Act, Bill 35, be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35, and that the said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 35 and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act," carried. (Bill 35)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 35 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion 3,
An Act To Enable The Issuance
Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The
Lower Churchill River, Bill 36, be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland
And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River, Bill 36, and that the said bill be
now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 36 and that the bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of
Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River," carried. (Bill
36)
CLERK:
An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy
Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill
36)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call from the Order Paper,
Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to hear debate on Motion 4.
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House would know, and certainly many people in
the general public, I suspect, coming out of some of the affairs of the House of
Assembly as it related to constituency matters a couple of years ago, Chief
Justice Green was appointed to do a review of the House of Assembly affairs and
constituency matters and what have you, and provided a report. The report, which
was entitled Rebuilding Confidence, was received by the House back - about this
time last year, I guess it was, and we adopted legislation at that time to begin
the implementation of Chief Justice Green's report.
Mr. Speaker, one of the key components of Chief Justice Green's report was
the assertion that the House of Assembly, as he said, must have a role in
debating and defining in a public way the standards of public behaviour that
they should apply to themselves. Mr. Speaker, that was to be in the form of a
Code of Conduct; a Code of Conduct for members and a Code of Conduct for
Officers of the House of Assembly, I guess, for lack of a better way of putting
it.
The Code of Conduct for employees of the House of Assembly was established
some time ago. The Code of Conduct for members, Mr. Speaker, the development of
that required and entailed the establishment of a committee, Standing Committee
of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections. That committee was
comprised of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for Baie
Verte, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame,
the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Port de Grave, and the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past while this committee has met on a
couple of occasions, and they, in consultation with Officers of the House of
Assembly, have reviewed Codes of Conduct from across Canada and throughout the
British Commonwealth, and their findings have been presented to the House. That
is what I am here to speak to, right now.
They found, through the course of their deliberations, that there were
essentially two models when it came to the establishment of Codes of Conduct
throughout the Commonwealth. One was a very comprehensive one, which is
essentially the British model, the Code of Conduct for Great Britain. The other
one, Mr. Speaker, on the other end of the spectrum is a fairly simplified model,
which is, in my understanding, used in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, after deliberations it was determined by the committee that the
most appropriate one for our Legislature was the more simplified form, due in
large part because of a couple of acts, the House Of Assembly Act, and the House
Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, what
they decided, what they recommended to us here in the House, is that we simply -
as opposed to in a very repetitious way, articulating much of the stuff that you
see in a bit more comprehensive act, that we just affirm the principles of the
acts that govern our Legislature and the people in it.
So, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, the Code of Conduct is before us. I
just want to speak very briefly in support of it. We need to have - most
professions and most organizations have Codes of Conduct. We see the need, not
only in our own Legislature with the happenings of late, but if you look around
the corporate community, if you look around any number of organizations and
sectors throughout our society and economy, you see many instances where the
conduct of people was unbecoming of the offices that they hold. Mr. Speaker,
that speaks to the need for us to have this Code of Conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I am supposed to do here right now, because I
am speaking to a motion as opposed to a bill. That is something I am not used to
speaking to, unless it is a private member's resolution.
I just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I am certain that all
members will support this motion today. I look forward to unanimous passing of
it when we get around to voting on it, and I, for one, certainly support the
code.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to stand and take a few moments to speak on behalf of Motion 2, and to
say that I was a part of the committee. I did apologize in private but I will
apologize in public now, because I did miss a couple of meetings when some of
the discussion took place.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today fully in support of this motion and I guess
just to add a few comments to it.
No doubt about it, each and every one of us, when we come to this hon. House,
come here with the responsibility laid upon our shoulders that we are, to the
best of our ability, to serve the people who have put faith in us and selected
us to come here to this hon. House of Assembly.
I know when I got elected first in 2001, in a by-election, I believe that I
came here with that in mind at that time. To me that has not changed, and I am
sure each and every individual here feels the same way.
We know that many of the issues revolve around other acts and our Standing
Orders and so on, and I guess each and every one of us, now that we have our
Code of Conduct, will discipline ourselves not only how we perceive to be acting
to the public but, more so now with our television coverage, even how we
interact with each other and how we respond to each other in the House of
Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I guess, like my hon. colleague mentioned in his opening
remarks, this all came about through the Green report and was one of the
recommendations. We are supposed to do everything above board, as legal as
possible, but one of the biggest things that I see since the new rules and
regulations came in - and I think a lot of people in the general public still do
not understand what we have been asked to do.
I just want to touch on one issue, and that is with regard to the issue of
donations. This year, I have received twenty letters from people in my district
who are requesting donations. They are not just from someone on the street who
does not understand it. I receive them from schools, I receive them from various
organizations and individuals, and it seems like when I tell them I am sorry, I
cannot give you a donation this year, they think that the donation I gave them
previously was okay but I must have given something to someone else that was not
right.
That is why we are doing it, because we are told now that we have to watch
the public purse, and one of the things that came in was that we cannot give
donations. Hopefully, if nothing else comes from the few words that I am about
to say today, the general public who are listening will understand that each and
every one of us cannot give donations. We have been advised even to be very
careful if you give a little personal donation at the door. You have to say that
it is not coming from you as the MHA, even though that is hard to distinguish to
the individual who comes to your door because they know whose door they are at.
That is one of the issues that I still find difficult to explain to people, and
I am sure, through our Code of Conduct, we are going to do everything we have
to, to live by that.
The other thing we talk about, conflict of interest, the public interest, and
keeping the public informed - and they have a good understanding of what we are
doing here. Like I said, it all came through the Green Report and through, I
guess, the work of the Auditor General previous to that.
Another one I really like here, and I think each and every one of us do this
anyway, is the relationship between us, as members, and the people in the
various departments, the civil service. I have to say, prior to being elected, I
worked in the Department of Social Services at the time, I worked in the
Department of Transportation and Works, and I also worked in the Department of
Fisheries as an executive assistant. I say, back in those days, from 1989 right
up until 2001, I enjoyed every moment of working with those individuals on a
one-on-one basis. They are wonderful people, and that relationship will not
change because I am in an official position now as an elected representative,
because we have to work hand in hand with those people. I think we see the
co-operation that is extended to us when we have our Estimates and the ministers
come in with all of their officials and we sit down and go over the Estimates,
and work jointly with those people.
Mr. Speaker, one thing, I guess, in conclusion, we have to, as members,
promote ourselves and support the principles by our leadership and examples that
we set. I think each and every one of us here - and not only the ones that are
here now but there are many people who have gone through the doors of the House
of Assembly over a number of years. No doubt about it, from time to time things
may go wrong, but I believe each and every individual comes here to do what is
best for the people they represent, and to do it in an honest manner.
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in standing and supporting this piece of
legislation, this motion, and I am sure each and every member will support it to
the fullest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent today to read into the record the Code of
Conduct so the public will be aware and be familiar with what exactly it is we
are talking about here. It is rather lengthy, but we feel it might be necessary
to do that.
Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of INTRD I
can never remember the words of that particular department, Mr. Speaker, so you
will have to accept that when he stated that this code comes out of an
analysis of a number of different codes that we looked at from different areas
of parliamentary jurisdiction within the Commonwealth, and it is prefaced on the
legislation, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration
Act, and the House of Assembly Act.
Because we have these two acts already in existence, these, in and of
themselves, lay out most of the provisions necessary to govern conflict of
interest situations regarding members. So, there was no need to reinvent the
wheel when we did a new Code of Conduct, Mr. Speaker, since most of the
provisions were covered in these acts.
Furthermore, the enforcement aspect of this Code is also included in the Act,
with the provision of the Commissioner who has practically unlimited authority
to act on violations of the Code.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will just introduce the Code for the record.
The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly.
Commitments:
Members of this House recognize that we are responsible to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and will responsibly execute our official duties in
order to promote the human, environmental and economic welfare of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the institution of the
Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public trust placed in us
and integrity.
The Principles of the Code, Mr. Speaker, are as follows:
1. Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in
accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of
Assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration
Act, the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the
House of Assembly Act and this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that their
conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the House of Assembly
into disrepute.
2. It is a fundamental objective of their holding public office that members
serve their fellow citizens with integrity in order to improve the economic and
social conditions of the people of the Province.
3. Members reject political corruption and refuse to participate in unethical
political practices which tend to undermine the democratic traditions of our
Province and its institutions.
4. Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest
public scrutiny. Neither the law nor this code is designed to be exhaustive and
there will be occasions on which Members will find it necessary to adopt more
stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to
enhance public confidence and trust.
5. Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private
reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to
their offices.
6. Members will carry out their official duties and arrange their private
financial affairs in a manner that protects the public interest and enhances
public confidence and trust in government and in high standards of ethical
conduct in public office.
7. Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest.
They are individually responsible for preventing conflicts of interest and will
endeavor to prevent them from arising. Members will take all reasonable steps to
resolve any such conflict quickly and in a manner which is in the best interests
of the public.
8. In performing their official duties, members will apply public resources
prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.
9. Members will not use official information which is not in the public
domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their official
duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others.
10. Relationships between members and government employees should be
professional and based on mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of
these employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.
11. Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and
example.
12. This Code of Conduct has a continuing effect except as amended or
rescinded by Resolution of the House of Assembly,
Mr. Speaker, this constitutes the commitments and the principles of the code.
I would like at this time, as Chairman of the Committee, to extend my thanks and
appreciation to the other members of the Committee: the Member for St. John's
East; the Member for Port de Grave, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee; the hon.
the Opposition House Leader; the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the
hon. the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for The Isles
of Notre Dame. I think that is the complete Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to have a few moments to speak to this motion. I, too, was a member
of the committee that worked on the code of ethics. I am very proud to have been
part of that group who worked on this. I am also proud to be part of a
Legislature that is passing this code because not every legislature has one,
which was significant when we, as a group, were looking at a code of ethics for
the Members of the House of Assembly and we looked around the country, we saw
where codes existed and where they did not. We even went further afield. We went
to codes of ethics outside of the country as well. We went to places like
Australia to see what they had. I think we went to Wales, also.
We are not somebody who is in the forefront because it has been done before,
but we certainly are one of a few when it comes to having a code of ethics. I
know that we did it as a direct result of the report of Chief Justice Green and
so, in a sense, we were pushed to do it, but we have done it.
I want to speak a bit about that, being pushed to do it. There is no
secret that there were many issues that came up in the Green report that maybe
enlightened the eyes certainly of the public and maybe enlightened the eyes of
even people in the House of Assembly with regard to how things worked in the
House of Assembly. One of the things that Chief Justice Green pointed out is
that here, in the House of Assembly, we have a responsibility to the public and
we are not above that public or beyond that public, we are part of it. We do not
have the right to special treatment. We have a responsibility to be open, to be
accountable and to be transparent, which of course is the name of the act that
resulted from his report.
I think it is really important that we recognize that there was a culture
that was operating from generations in the House of Assembly, that there was a
notion of privilege. I think what this code of ethics does is to say that we
recognize that that notion of privilege, because of who we are, is not what we
are claiming. When one reads the code of ethics, as my colleague just read, who
had been the chair of the committee, we recognize through this code of ethics
that we do not recognize privilege; we recognize responsibility, because we are
the ones who are dealing with the public purse. We are the ones who are using
the money of the public and we need to be sure that every time we spend that
money, that we are spending it responsibly and for the good of the public. If
the money does go to some work that we do, that if I receive money because of
travel and I have expended money because of travel, that I have to be sure, and
the House would expect me to be sure and the public would expect me to be sure,
that that travel was for the good of my constituents or, in my case as the
leader of a party, good for the people of the Province, so that they can be
assured that their money is not being wasted, that their money is not going to
something frivolous, that it is going to something that is adding to the good of
the public.
That is our responsibility, and that is what we say in this code of ethics.
Even though we say upfront in the first principle that we shall conduct
ourselves "in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing
Orders of the House of Assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity
and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the
Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act" and we do not repeat
everything that is in those acts, we did make a very deliberate decision as a
committee to put in a couple of things that people will say: Well, that is a
repetition. We felt that some repetitions, even though you can find them in
those acts that I have referred to, that some of these repetitions are important
so that we ourselves know and the public knows how seriously we view a couple of
the things that we have clearly repeated.
One of those, for example, has to do with carrying out our official duties
and arranging our private financial affairs in a manner that protects the public
interest and enhances public confidence and trust in government and in high
standards of ethical conduct and public office. Certainly, under the acts that I
have quoted, we already - especially under the Elections Act - hold ourselves
accountable to make sure that our private financial affairs are in order and
that our private financial affairs are arranged in such a way that protects the
public interest. We felt, because of history and because of people being let
down in the Province by the system, that we want to recognize this very
particularly as something that we are committed to. So we repeated it, even
though it does exist clearly in some of the other acts that are referred to in
principle one.
Another thing that we repeated is principle number nine, and principle number
nine says: "Members will not use official information which is not in the
public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their
official duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others."
Again, we believed, as a committee, that it was really important to repeat
that principle even though it is found in some of the acts that are quoted in
principle one. We believe it is important that we did that to show people how
important we think this understanding is, and that we understand clearly what we
are committing ourselves to as MHAs when we pass this motion, because, in
effect, when we pass the motion that is our assent to the code of ethics.
When we pass the motion, it will be as if we each stand in the Hose and read
that code of ethics. While I do not imagine we will do that physically, that is
everybody stand separately and read it, with the passing of the motion that in
and of itself is the commitment. I would imagine - we have not talked about this
as a committee but it is something that perhaps will have to considered, that
down the road when one becomes an MHA, how do we recognize, in a formal way, our
commitment to our own Code of Ethics?
Having a Code of Ethics is not something bizarre, it is not something
strange. I do not think there is one professional group in our society that
would not have a code of ethics. I think what this does is recognize that we are
a professional group of people, that we have a very particular profession, a
profession that has a lot of demands and carries a lot of responsibilities, so
our Code of Ethics is doing that. Our Code of Ethics is recognizing that, though
we have demands, we have responsibilities that go with those demands, and we
recognize them and we take them on as individuals and as a group.
Once again, I think it is very important that we are doing this and I am
proud that I am part of a Legislature that is one of some but not of all in our
country who now has a Code of Ethics, or will have when we pass this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Government House Leader for allowing me a couple of
minutes. There was something I was going to make in my comments when I was up a
few minutes ago. I can assure you, it is not new news to all of the members here
in this hon. House, but I think it is worth saying, seeing it is one part of the
Code of Ethics for the general public, and that is item number six, where it
says: Members will carry out their official duties and arrange their private
financial affairs in a manner to protect their own integrity and that of the
position they hold.
We all know what we have to go through here in this House. A lot of people do
not understand, I think, that we do have, each and every year, to do a Conflict
of Interest. It goes into the Chief Electoral Office, to the gentleman, Mr.
Reynolds, where we all have to file it. I think that is very important, that the
public know that. We are under scrutiny here, not only in the House, the way we
conduct ourselves, but the way we carry out our own financial affairs as well.
In conclusion, I just want to say that I guess a lot of people look at us, as
politicians, that we are very low on the totem pole, but I can tell you, we all
come here from various, I guess, fields when we go to the people and ask them to
elect us to this House. I have to say, I think it is one of the most honourable
positions that anyone can be in. Each and every one of us, when we stand, or
when we represent our people, that is the way we feel.
I just want to thank you for that opportunity to state what I wanted to say
on item number six.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development,
and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, speaks now he will close debate.
The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I think it is important to reiterate, as
both of my colleagues across the floor just did, how because I believe the
Member for Signal HillQuidi Vidi also spoke to the same point that the Member
for Port de Grave just spoke to how each and every one of us, when we come
in here, before we can take office, have to, within thirty days, I think it is,
or however many days it is of taking office, we have to file our disclosure
statement to the Commissioner of Members' Interests, disclosing what our
property is, our assets and our liabilities and what have you, and certainly,
for anybody who is in Cabinet, you have to distance yourself from any private
sector interests and ensure that you do not involve yourself in any business
affairs. As a matter of fact, when we walk out of this place, I do not know the
exact time period associated with it now, but, of course, as a minister or as a
premier you are prohibited from engaging in relations and business dealings with
any company or organization that you would have had direct connection with as
part of your portfolio.
There are fairly onerous rules upon us and, Mr. Speaker, while some days we
get discouraged, and the public gets discouraged with us and we get discouraged
with ourselves, I think that by and large the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador do value the job that their Members of the House of Assembly do. I know
when you walk down the street sometimes, if you pay attention to everything
that you hear on Open Line or some of the stuff that you hear in various media
outlets, some days you get pretty discouraged. I think that we all, from time to
time, need to reflect on - when we show up at a meeting. While people might
disagree with you, by and large, after the meeting is over, people will say to
you: Well, I might not agree with you but at least you tell it the way it is.
I think that, while we get discouraged sometimes, there is an underlying
level of respect there for this House in the populace of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The importance of this Code of Conduct and some of the legislation
that we have adopted over the course of the past couple of years will only serve
to reinforce that and protect I think what we are doing here is bringing in
legislation or, in this case, a motion and a Code of Conduct to protect
ourselves from ourselves, because some days it is easy enough to slip up.
Sometimes people do it inadvertently, sometimes it is purposely.
That, as I said in my earlier statement, is not the people in this House
are very much a reflection of society as a whole. As the Member for Port de
Grave said, if you look at the diversity of backgrounds that sit in this House
I came from the fishing industry. There are people here who are teachers and
came out of the social work field, and we know the Premier's background. There
is a fairly diverse group of people who sit around here, and when it comes to
our actions we very much reflect, I think, in our thinking, what the general
population is.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this motion, I would like to thank
the Committee members for their work, to thank the Officers of the House of
Assembly for their research in bringing together this Code of Conduct.
I am sure I do not have to ask it, but I look forward to the vote and
unanimous adoption of this Code of Conduct.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, please say aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please say nay'.
In my opinion, the ayes' have it.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 8, second reading of a
bill,
An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information. (Bill
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection
Of Personal Health Information. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to make some comments about Bill 7,
An Act To Provide
For The Protection Of Personal Health Information.
Mr. Speaker, as most people in this House and most people in Newfoundland and
Labrador would probably acknowledge, personal health information is probably
among that which is most important in our lives. It requires a tremendous amount
of protection. Also, some of the most sensitive information may be collected
upon us as it profiles our particular health status. Information that we provide
to our family doctors, information we provide to physicians and other health
professionals who are treating us while we are in hospital, the pharmacists we
may see, any number of people would be in a position to collect personal health
information.
What this piece of legislation does, Mr. Speaker it is a new piece of
legislation that we are introducing this piece of legislation establishes
the rules that govern the collection and the use and dissemination and
disclosure of personal health information.
It will also, very specifically and I will speak to some of the details
of the act in a moment but just to give you a broad sense of overview, the
legislation now starts to identify the manner in which health information can be
collected, who can collect it, how it can be used, what organizations can have
it, and how it must be stored. It also deals with how information should be
protected when it has been stored by individuals.
The legislation also goes about clarifying an appropriate balance between
protecting the individual's right to privacy while using personal health
information for very legitimate means, such as the treatment of the individual,
and/or areas of research.
The legislation, also, Mr. Speaker, goes about identifying: who are the
custodians of the information, who should have the information and how should it
be used, and outlines their responsibilities.
The legislation also talks about the whole issue of consent; how a person
will provide consent to have access to the information, dictating how that
information might be used. One of the uniqueness of this particular piece of
legislation, consistent with that concept of consent, there is what is commonly
referred to as a lockbox provision. Many of us, as we see our family physicians,
for example, will provide information about our history, our background, our
experiences; any number of things that would impact our health. It might be
information about our family history, any health issues within our family. That
information is privileged information, it is private information. Family
physicians would use that to treat you, and members of your family potentially,
but also they would use that to share with other practitioners who may be
involved in treating you.
What this legislation does, by example, it provides a provision here for
individuals, individual patients, to make decisions about what information they
will protect from being shared. So in other words, if I share information with
my family physician and I do not want it to go any further, I would rather my
family physician kept that information private and confidential, regardless of
who else might be treating me, regardless of what other person I might see, what
other health practitioner I might see, I may choose to have that information
protected and privileged. In this particular piece of legislation I have an
option, if I want, to declare and to advise my family physician, that it is not
my intent, it is not my interest, I do not want them to share that information
with anybody else. In this particular legislation it provides that opportunity.
One of the other things I say, Mr. Speaker, about the process here in
developing this piece of legislation. This was done as a result of some very
extensive consultation. There were a lot of stakeholders consulted in this
process, through input by way of submissions, public forums to be able to
solicit input and commentary. There was advice sought from several experts, like
the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Ontario, and obviously, here in
Newfoundland and Labrador as well, people who are experts in the field, people
who have some background and knowledge on this issue, people who have been
involved in shaping legislation and regulation in other jurisdictions in and
around this issue.
One of the things that I am very pleased to say, that as a result of that
extensive consultation, as a result of that very exhaustive process we went
through, we now have a bill before this House. It is a fairly extensive bill,
and I will take some time to go over some pieces of it in a moment, but it is a
very extensive piece of legislation for the protection of personal health
information that has come about as a result of some extensive consultations. We
have every single stakeholder, I say, Mr. Speaker, every person that we
consulted with provided some comment. As a result of that, we are introducing in
the House today, in second reading, a bill that has the unanimous support of all
the stakeholders that we provided an opportunity to consult with. They
themselves have provided some input and some comment. So I think this bill here
before the House today reflects that collective view of all those individuals
that we have had some consultation with and reflects the collective wisdom of
so-called experts in the field throughout Canada and throughout other major
jurisdictions where such legislation has been introduced.
I just want to walk through a couple of very significant pieces, I want to
say, Mr. Speaker. When we get into committee stage we will have a chance to talk
about it in some detail but I just want to read into the record. This bill is
intended to establish a set of comprehensive, privacy protection rules
applicable to the collection, to the use, disclosure, disposition, of personal
health information by the public private sector components of the health system.
Mr. Speaker, there is other legislation in the Province that has helped guide
this particular drafting. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is a piece of legislation that
pertains to all public bodies; all public bodies, I say, Mr. Speaker, but it
does not pertain to the private sector. What we have tried to do here is, this
particular legislation was used as a guide to help shape some of the
legislation, the drafting of this particular bill.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in the federal jurisdiction we have Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documentation Act, commonly referred to as
PIPEDA; those pieces of legislation, one provincial, one federal, when they were
drafted initially, they looked at and they were guided by ten privacy
principles. I say, Mr. Speaker, we, too, in drafting this legislation, were
guided by these ten principles.
I will just read them into the record. Number one, accountability. Number
two, identifying a purpose. Number three, issues around consent have been
addressed. Number four, limiting the collection of information, limiting its
use, its disclosure and access and retention. Also, the accuracy and the
integrity were considered. The other principle: the safeguards to ensure that it
is protected and secure. The other one was openness - again, built into this
particular piece of legislation - individual access, challenges and compliance.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this particular bill here was built on some of the
same principles of current legislation, both nationally and provincially. Those
twelve principles have guided the building of these two previous pieces of
legislation and have also influenced this particular bill that we are speaking
to here today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, just comment on some of the
highlights of this particular bill. As bills are constructed, it lays out an
explanation of why it exists, what it is we are intending it to do. I want to do
this in some of the critical pieces of this here.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, is to establish
rules, define how information is collected, how it is stored, who shares it, how
it gets shared, and who controls it. The other thing it does: it lays out, it
provides for, a mechanism for access to information, individual access to the
information itself. It also provides - which is a very significant piece, I say,
Mr. Speaker - for an independent review of decisions. If individuals are not
happy with decisions that have been made about their personal health information
- either there wasn't compliance with the legislation and their information
was not protected, or they have tried to have access to the information and they
have been denied or restricted in some fashion - there is a mechanism to appeal
to the privacy commissioner, I say, Mr. Speaker. If you are not happy with that
decision, there is a mechanism to appeal that decision through the courts. It
also defines the terminology of who is called a custodian. It defines who
actually is covered by this legislation, and who is considered to have custody
of information.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the current legislation, a typical
legislation in the Province, deals with public bodies. This is an all-inclusive
piece of legislation. This is intended to cover every single group and
organization that will collect personal health information. It covers the
regional health authorities; it covers family physician offices; it covers the
Department of Health and Community Services; it will cover pharmacies; it will
cover ambulance operations; anyone who has personal health information and
collects it for purposes of sharing, purposes of providing treatment, purposes
of providing a diagnostic service to a particular individual, whether it is lab
services or public health labs; it covers and deals with the Centre for Health
Information, identifies them a custodian of the information - the Centre for
Nursing Studies. The list, I say, Mr. Speaker, is extensive. Fundamentally,
anybody or any person or organization, a body that captures information is
considered a custodian of that information.
Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that this particular legislation
acknowledges is a distinction between what is written, documented, information,
information that may be handwritten in a chart, information that may be
handwritten in a note, or information that may be stored electronically in a
database, but also, Mr. Speaker, it deals with oral information. I may be a
treating physician of a particular patient; I have information with respect to
that patient, and I am now having a consult with another physician or another
health practitioner who may also be involved in the treatment of that particular
patient, and we are exchanging information orally. This legislation, Mr.
Speaker, covers that circumstance as well. Very important differences, I say,
Mr. Speaker.
The other part of this, in terms of the kind of protection it provides, this
legislation is drafted and constructed in a fashion that protects the
confidentiality of that information. It restricts access to the information to
only those individuals who need it in the care and treatment of that particular
person. It protects the confidentiality.
It also deals with storage, and how information should be stored, how it
should be shared, and how it should be protected. It puts an onus on all those
individuals that I have just alluded to and spoke to as being identified in the
legislation as being custodians. It puts an onus on them to provide for an
appropriate storage of that information. It puts an onus on them to ensure that
the information that they maintain in their records is protected against any
kind of breach of confidentiality.
One of the other things it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts an onus on those
individuals who are using that information. I may be employed with a particular
organization; I may have access to that information. As a part of my employment
arrangement, I have to take an oath of affirmation or confidentiality. Once
again, this legislation puts an onus on individual organizations to ensure that
their employees, people who they do business with, have taken an oath of
affirmation, and protects the confidential nature of the information.
If organizations such as the Department of Health and Community Services, or
one of our health authorities, or a private practice physician, engages an
outside agency providing information management supports, like an organization
such as the Department of Health and Community Services, as an example, has
a contract with xwave, to provide supports for our Prescription Drug Program. We
would need to have a contractual arrangement that binds them to that same
responsibility that we have under this legislation, so contractors who do
business with any custodian are bound by this legislation, as well, to protect
the privacy of the individuals whose information is being stored, Mr. Speaker.
One of the other things that happens in this particular legislation is the
whole issue of a disclosure. One of the things that will happen in this
particular legislation here is, if there is any kind of breach, if there has
been a breach of any kind of information, some individual or some groups have
gained access to someone's private information, personal health information,
there is an onus in this legislation to provide a disclosure to that individual.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, since we have tabled this legislation in the House and
read it into the record in First Reading, some new changes have emerged. When we
get into Committee Stage, I will be proposing a couple of amendments to this
legislation to reflect those changes.
Something new has evolved with the federal legislation. I said earlier, that
we were guided by what is happened with PIPEDA and with ATIPPA, PIPEDA being a
federal piece of legislation. They now are amending their legislation to ensure
that when there is a breach not only does the individual get advised but the
Privacy Commissioner gets advised.
When we get to Committee Stage, I advise members opposite that I will be
introducing a couple of amendments. One of them deals with this particular
section here that I am talking about now with respect to the breach, so that in
future if there is a breach of confidentiality, then the amendment to this bill
that I will introduce a little later on will require not only the custodian to
advise the individual that there has been a breach and someone may have accessed
their information, but it puts an onus on the custodian of the information to
advise the Privacy Commission as well, that such a breach has occurred.
It is a fairly comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, trying to
provide full and adequate protection of personal health information.
Some of the other provisions in here, Mr. Speaker, deal with the area of
consent. Individuals, as I said a moment ago, may provide information to their
family physician or other health practitioner who may be treating them, may
provide information to someone in the admissions department in a hospital about
their health status, personal information, private information. This legislation
deals with what we mean by consent.
Obviously, if you are admitted to a hospital tomorrow and there is the
admissions person to take information from you your family physician may
have provided some information about your health background and your history.
Your treating physician may be involved directly in providing this service to
you, but there are many other people in that circle of care who will need access
to that information to provide some treatment. This legislation deals with the
whole issue of assumed consent as a result of that circle of care, but also
deals very explicitly with what options you have in providing consent to
restrict access to the information, when consent is explicit and when it is
implied.
Mr. Speaker, one of the other significant provisions of this particular piece
of legislation, it deals with access. It maps out here how individuals can gain
access to their personal health information, what rights and privileges they
have to access their information, but more importantly, I say, Mr. Speaker, more
importantly, individuals have a right built into this legislation to have access
to their private health information, their personal health information. They
have a right not just to access it, but if they disagree with something, if they
read their chart, read the file and they find that there is a disagreement, the
individual may either challenge something that has been written by a health
provider, or may not agree with the way in which it is phrased and, in fact,
provides a misleading profile of that individual, they have an ability, through
this legislation - it maps out clearly the process to be completed by that
individual. It maps out a process so that individual can have the appropriate
changes made in their health information to ensure that it more accurately
reflects what they believe to be the reality. The legislation goes through a
mechanism that lays out how that would be done, how you would access it, under
what conditions you could make changes, and how those changes will be recorded
in your file.
The other thing it does, it maps out in here for you a clear recourse in the
event that you do not - for example, if you want to have access to your health
record and for some reason that access has been unreasonably denied, there is a
mechanism in here to appeal that to the Privacy Commissioner; or if, in fact,
you want to have some changes made in your personal health information and for
some reason that has been denied. Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, there is a
mechanism in here that lays out your rights, your privileges and the process
that you would need to follow to have that information changed and appeal that
decision to the Privacy Commissioner.
If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, you felt that there was a breach, someone may have
accessed your information inappropriately and you want to complain. There is a
mechanism here - and the custodians have not provided due diligence and they
have not appropriately managed and are not appropriately protecting your
personal information, there is a mechanism in this legislation for you to,
through a complaints process to the Privacy Commission, levy a complaint. If
that Commission's decision is not to your satisfaction, there is a second
mechanism. There is another mechanism through the court that you can appeal the
decision of the Commissioner.
The entire piece of legislation is intended to provide the maximum possible
protection of personal health information to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It does it in a number of fashions. It clearly defines who should
store information, who should have information, and it is identified in here as
the custodian of that information. It lays out how that custodian should manage
that information. Then it speaks very clearly to the kind of privileges you have
in ensuring you have access to that information. Not only does it lay out your
privileges and your right to access but through the consent mechanism it
provides a very clear direction as to what restrictions you may choose to place
on who would have access to that information, and that is through that lockbox
concept that I talked about earlier.
I say, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is intended to be a comprehensive
piece of legislation to protect the integrity of your personal health
information, protect the privacy and the sensitivity of the information through
laying out, in a step-by-step mechanism, the whole process of storing and
releasing and how personal health information gets used. It has been constructed
on the basis of a wide consultation process. I say, Mr. Speaker, it reflects the
principles as outlined in both the federal legislation that currently exists, as
well as provincial legislation that currently exists with respect to this.
I said a moment ago, as well, that there was an amendment that I would be
introducing when we get into committee stage as a result of some changes at the
federal level that have surfaced in recent weeks since we have tabled the
legislation. That is on the advice of the Privacy Commissioner himself and has
provided some detailed direction for us.
Secondly, there are several other pieces of legislation that will be repealed
as a result of this particular bill being introduced. One that is not included
in the list here, but will be a part of the amendment that I will introduce a
little later on, is the Regional Health Authorities Act. There is a piece of
section 6 of the current Regional Health Authorities Act, which was just
recently proclaimed actually, that
section of that legislation will be repealed
by the amendments that I will be introducing at committee to this particular
bill.
With those more recent amendments coming out as a result of some recent
learnings that we have had, obviously reflect what is current day thinking,
current day practice, both at a federal stage and provides some consistency with
other legislation that we have on the books of our Province.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I would move at second reading this bill, and I invite any
comments with respect to it.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill just read by the
minister and spoken to by the minister, be read a second time.
I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly want to thank the minister for a very good explanation of Bill 7.
I think it is important for the public to understand how this bill works because
it pertains directly to them and directly to their personal health information.
I guess every single one of us have personal information that has been
documented within the health care system in this Province for one reason or
another.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly lengthy bill. It outlines the entire process
that will be taken and certainly what practices that will put into play as it
relates to the protection of people's health records and their information;
how they can access it; how those who deal with their information are supposed
to conduct themselves; processes that will be used; how adjustments can be made;
how reviews will be conducted and so on. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into
a lot of lengthy comments here but there are a couple of things that I wanted to
go through and provide just a little bit of information as it relates to it and
a couple of questions that I do have around the bill, that I guess the minister
will have an opportunity to address once it goes into the committee stages.
First of all, this bill is to ensure confidentiality of information and
privacy of that information. Basically, what that means is that when we go to a
hospital or we go to any part of our health care system - we have tests done, we
have blood work done, we have diagnoses, we have biopsies, we have surgeries, we
have treatments - everything is recorded. Every, single piece of information is
recorded on us. Then we need to ensure that there are confidentiality agreements
in place so that those people who manage that information on our behalf are
ensuring the safe and secure protection of it for us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they also talk about providing individuals with the right
to access their own information. We have all heard stories about how people have
gone to doctors or gone to hospitals and tried to obtain their information,
especially in situations where family members or loved ones, or even them,
themselves, would have been treated with some kind of critical illnesses or
diagnosed with some kinds of problem, and for one reason or another they wanted
access to that information.
We have in the Province right now an ongoing inquiry into faulty estrogen and
progesterone testing of women in this Province. As a result of that faulty
testing, and lab results being misread, treatments being misprescribed, and also
cases of where data collection was insufficient and unable to be matched, in
some cases, with the actual patient, all of this has triggered an inquiry into
that particular issue within the Province. As a result of that inquiry, people
had to go to their doctors or their oncologists or whatever the case may be to
obtain their personal information and their personal files, because they had to
provide it to the legal counsel that they were retaining to be able to do this
on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, we have had calls recently from people in our office who are
being charged for obtaining that personal information. One of the questions, I
guess, that I would have for the minister around this legislation is that, in
addition to allowing for a process by which patients can access health
information, their own personal health records, what will be the fee? Is there
going to be a fee for that, or will it be freely provided?
We had a call, actually, just last week from an individual who says they just
paid something like over $300 to access their personal health information within
the health care sector. I see a problem with that, because oftentimes they are
looking for the information for a very valid reason, and by imposing a fee on
accessing that information it often, in cases, limits some individuals from
getting the access they need and I do not think that should be the case. So,
when the bill moves into Committee, I will be asking the minister to certainly
clarify that information in the bill.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is here, is the opportunity to correct or
amend personal health information. That is the right of an individual, to be
able to do that. I have heard many cases of this as well, Mr. Speaker. I have
heard cases where people have been going back and forth to a physician or a
doctor or a clinic or a hospital in the Province, trying to seek some remedy for
what their problem was, or some diagnosis of what their problem was, and I know
of one case in particular where this individual suffering from back problems and
other problems, pain related, Mr. Speaker, in that way, and they kept going back
and forth to a physician and they kept thinking that this person was actually
depressed or suffering from some form of mental illness, that their problem was
more psychotic than it was actual physical, and there was a tremendous amount of
stress placed upon this patient. Their reports were indicating that they were
suffering from some psychiatric problems, that it was all a mental disorder and
not an actual physical pain disorder, trying to make the individual believe that
there was something wrong with the way they were thinking, and that they were
not really experiencing the excruciating pain that they were telling the doctor
they were having.
Of course, that was all documented in that individual's chart; so, in
future years, any other physician who would have picked up that chart, when they
went in with other problems relative to pain, might have looked at it and said:
Well, in the past, this is what other people thought - and probably draw the
same conclusions.
People would have the opportunity, the individual would have the right, to
require that a correction or amendment be made in that health information once
it was proven that the problem was actually different from that which was
written and diagnosed at the time.
I think it is very important for people to have the ability to do that,
because it gives much clearer, much more concise, directions that need to be
taken with regard to the health needs of these individuals afterwards, when
other problems occur.
Also, it allows for the established mechanisms to ensure the accountability
of persons having custody or control of personal health information. This is
very important, Mr. Speaker, the accountability of those custodians who have our
health information, whether that be your pharmacist where you go and pick up
your medication, whether it be the nurse that you see when you walk into a
clinic, whether it be the lab technician who documents your blood work or your
X-ray technician who documents those tests, whether it be your general
physician, your surgeon, all of these people are custodians of our health
information and therefore they have to be accountable in some way, shape or
form, to ensure that information is managed properly and that it is protected
for the best interest of that individual.
Now, we will be looking to see what kind of accountability measures will be
put in place for custodians. I do not think it is outlined specifically in the
bill right now, but I understand from the minister's comments that there will
be accountability mechanisms put in place so that any doctor or any pharmacist,
any nurse, any custodian that would manage health information of a patient in
this Province, will know very clearly what the accountability measures expected
of them will be, and therefore they will be able to carry out their work
according to that process.
We support having those kinds of mechanisms in place, and I guess at a time
in which they are established we will be able to pass some comments as to
whether we feel it goes far enough or is thorough enough in meeting that
particular need.
The other
section here is to provide for an independent review of decisions
and resolutions of complaint. This is important, as well, because people need to
have a process whereby if they do not like the way a decision is made, or how
something is being resolved, then they have an opportunity to go further with
it. That is very important within our health care sector and it is important
that, when they do go further and they do ask for this review, they are doing so
knowing that they are dealing with an independent body to be able to lodge that
complaint with, and to ask for a resolution on it.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know at this stage how the independent review will be
set up, if it will be one person or three people, or a board of people. We do
not know if the review process will be an in-person process or written process.
We do not know if there will be time restraints around the review process in
terms of the amount of time that you can file a complaint to have it resolved,
from the time that you received a response that you are not happy with, or
whatever the case, so we will need to look at what the time factors are, and how
realistic they are, but again those are details that are not contained in the
bill at the present time. Maybe, when the minister speaks in Committee, he might
be able to give me a better understanding of when we could see the independent
review process established, and what that process would actually look like in
terms of how people access it, what would be required, how complaints will be
lodged, and how they will be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, this is a very necessary
piece to this legislation as well, but one, I guess, in which the details around
it will come at a later date.
Mr. Speaker, this act, as you know, will be presided over by a privacy
commissioner and it gives this privacy commissioner, in my opinion, an enormous
amount of power when it comes to being able to access a person's health
information, because this individual will be able to access that information
without a warrant. As I understand, they would be given the same powers as
basically an inquiry would be given, and that is the power to subpoena or to
call witnesses, to hold inquisitions, to request whatever information is
required be tabled and so on.
Mr. Speaker, that individual will have an enormous amount of power when it
comes to accessing the personal health information of people in this Province. I
can only assume that with that enormous amount of power the Privacy
Commissioners themselves would have to have rules and regulations to follow in
terms of how they disclose and how they access information and protect it once
it is in their possession. That is going to be very important to people.
Mr. Speaker, the minister already outlined that this bill is no doubt a
follow-up to federal legislation that was passed back some time ago. It dealt
with the federal piece of legislation that was called the Personal Information
Protection And Electronic Documents Act. That was important, Mr. Speaker, to be
done right across the country. As a Province, I guess we are adopting policies
that would fall in line with that legislation. I understand that the development
of this Act has been in progress for quite a number of years, I guess, going
back seven or eight years. It is not a piece of legislation that would have just
been done overnight, but rather something that has been looked at and cultured
over a longer period of time to ensure that it is meeting the needs of all of
the aspects as it was intended to do.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt we think this is a very important bill, and we think it
is important not only to the individuals or to the patients in terms of ensuring
their protection and how they can access information and make changes and so on,
but it is also very important for those who deal with us as patients, for the
health care providers. It is very important for those individuals as well,
because it gives them very guided, firm processes and principles upon which they
can carry out their work as well. We think that is definitely important and
important enough that it should be outlined within legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity within this legislation as well for
people to restrict the information that has passed on within the health care
sector from physician to physician or doctor to doctor or nurse to nurse, and so
on.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I am an individual who has medical treatments in
Labrador at a clinic there. I am an individual who has a family doctor in St.
John's, who I use on a regular basis when I am here. Mr. Speaker, I have been
in a number of hospitals in this Province and outside of this Province and if
there was information that I did not want to have transferred, say from a doctor
in Labrador to a physician I am seeing in St. John's because it is very
unrelated problems, historically now it has no significance to me on a
go-forward basis, I could ask that the information be locked and that it not be
transferred or disclosed on a public basis to individuals.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people who deal with certain diseases,
for example, like people that might be HIV positive. You know, they might not
consent to have that information available throughout the health care system and
therefore they can restrict the access to that information or restrict it being
contained within the charts of that one doctor or one physician they are seeing,
who is actually treating them for this particular illness.
Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, we hear of people who have procedures done that they
do not want to have disclosed publicly. Maybe it is an abortion, for example.
They would have the right to be able to restrict the access of that information
on their chart so that it is not passed around through the health care sector
and to each doctor they will see over the course of their lifetime or each nurse
or specialist and so on. Often you can have that kind of information restricted
on your chart so that you are not giving consent to everyone within the sector
to have access to that information.
The same rules, Mr. Speaker, would also apply, as I understand, to any
information being sent out of the Province. Oftentimes we have patients who go
out of the Province for procedures. Actually, almost every day someone in this
Province is seeking medical care somewhere else in the country because they
cannot access it here, whether that be transplants of one kind or another, very
complicated surgeries that we do not specialize in, very specialized treatments
that we are not able to offer and so on. We know everyday people in this
Province are being sent elsewhere for those treatments. In fact, I have dealt
with many of these patients and I know that there is a large amount of patient
file information that is often couriered back and forth between these hospitals,
especially in Toronto, Mr. Speaker. Toronto hospital is one that we use fairly
often. It is couriered back and forth, so it is very important that when you are
sharing this information with other facilities in the country, other hospitals
in particular, and other medical staff outside the Province, that they also be
restricted and have to comply with the regulations as they are outlined in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly would support that. I think it is very
important that it happens.
Mr. Speaker, also this Act contains, under
section 89 - as you know, it is a
very lengthy act. It is not overly complicated, but it is lengthy. It has
something like ninety-six clauses that are outlined in it. In
section 89 they
talk about whistleblower protection. I think that this is very important. In
fact, I think that all our legislation that we bring in should have those kinds
of protections in it. What that means is - and I will just give you an example.
If you have a secretary who is working in a doctor's office and that person
may see that information is not being handled properly in that office, well then
they can report this to the Commissioner. There is no problem with that and they
can do it without repercussions and that is the way that it should be.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about one of the issues around the ER-PR with
regard to data collection and with regard to being able to match certain numbers
of patient files with numbers of tests that were coming back from Mount Sinai at
the time. There was some confusion identifying some of these people. I do not
remember the numbers now, but there were probably close to a dozen people in
which they had some problems in matching information. Well those kinds of things
should not be happening in any aspect of our health care sector, and proper data
collection and ensuring that information is documented and recorded
appropriately is very important.
Mr. Speaker, any person working in the health care sector who sees that these
records are not being kept properly, information is not being documented
properly, consent was not given for the transfer of information yet it is being
done, things of this nature, they have an obligation to report that to the
Privacy Commissioner to have it dealt with.
Under the legislation, under
section 89, they can do so without any
repercussions. So even if their employer is a private sector person they can
still report it and not be penalized in their job or fired for reporting it,
because under the Act that is the accountability measure that is allowed for,
for these individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the Act is also linked to
the Ethics Act, and we passed the Health Research Ethics Act in the House of
Assembly back in the spring session. I am sure when the Leader of the NDP
speaks, she will touch on this and talk about it in much more detail than I can.
She was one of the people who championed some amendments to that Act last time
around, and to find some different aspects of the Ethics Act that needed to be
done. This particular bill that we are dealing with today, under the Personal
Health Information Act, also is linked to that Ethics Act. It is linked in terms
of looking at whether the health research being done meets the ethical
standards, as outlined in previous legislation in the House of Assembly. That is
very important, because any time that you bring in bills here, you need to
ensure that they jive with other legislation that is already on the books, and
that there are connections being made.
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering about one aspect here, because under the Ethics
Act back in the spring, a lot of it dealt with research on individuals, Mr.
Speaker, in the Province, both living and deceased, and the documenting and
handling of that kind of research and t