PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

November 20, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 44

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Interesting – I was going to welcome some folks to the public gallery but I

don't see them.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER:

We have admitted strangers.

Well,

let me announce them so that when they show up we'll be sure to recognize them.

Hopefully, in the public gallery today, we will be welcoming Helen Sinclair,

Skye Taylor and Mojca Bas from the Association of Early Childhood Educators of

Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, we hope to see Valerie Collins and Jennifer

Newman from Family and Child Care Connections. They are all joining us today for

a Ministerial Statement.

So when

we get that Ministerial Statement, we'll have an extra round of applause.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Ferryland; Conception

Bay South; Fogo Island - Cape Freels; St. John's Centre; Baie Verte - Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It's great to be here.

Mr.

Speaker, on Saturday, November 17, I had the pleasure of attending the annual

dinner for the Trepassey Volunteer Fire Department and recognize their continued

commitment and volunteerism to the people of the region.

At this

event, I was honoured to present service awards to two outstanding volunteers.

Gerard Ryan has served for 30 years as a firefighter with the department and

giving unselfishly to his community and residents.

Ken

Molloy has served for an amazing 45 years with the fire department.

has volunteered his time and experience, and has given back to his community by

providing protection and securing the well-being of residents when called to do

so.

The hours that each firefighter volunteers gives peace

of mind to the residents of the region and ensures they have someone to rely on

in the event of a fire or of any type emergency. I want to also recognize the

partners, spouses and family members for all those that serve with the Trepassey

Volunteer Fire Department for their continued support.

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

in congratulating Gerard Ryan and Ken Molloy for their many years of service,

and all the members who have served in the past and serve today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay

South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past Saturday, I had a very enjoyable evening

attending the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 50, 48th anniversary Veterans Dinner

and Dance in Kelligrews.

On the heels of Remembrance Day, it was nice to attend

this celebration and recognize Legion Branch 50 and what they do to support

veterans and their families. The work they have done and continue to do in our

community in educating our youth and helping us all remember and respect the

sacrifices of those before us is immeasurable.

There were several awards presented on Saturday, and a

special recognition Lifetime Member Award was presented to Mr. Gerry Kelly. He

is 85 years young and was a member of the Queen's Own Rifles Military. He has

chaired the Poppy Campaign for Branch 50 this year and, as a matter of fact, for

many, many years prior. Mr. Kelly is also a Life Member of Hockey NL and, as a

matter of fact, attended this year's meeting in Gander.

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

congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 50, of Kelligrews on their 48th

anniversary and wish them all the best in their future efforts to assist the

veterans and people of Conception Bay South.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

BRAGG:

Mr.

Speaker,

I rise today to recognize over 400 dedicated volunteers who are on call

24/7, serving over 40 communities within my district.

This strong group of volunteers are our neighbours,

friends and our family members. Because of their efforts, we have 20 volunteer

fire departments stretching from Tilting all the way to Hare Bay. They give us

comfort on wicked windy nights when everyone else is tucked in.

I recognize the challenge of being a volunteer

firefighter in my rural district, where most emergency response calls involve

family members and friends. Our first responders are the backbone of our

communities. They go above and beyond to serve.

It's the time of the year where most departments host

their annual banquets. On Saturday, I attended the 40th anniversary of the

Seldom Fire Department.

I want to take this time to thank each and every

firefighter in my district of Fogo Island - Cape Freels. Thank you for the

service you provide and the comfort you bring to our communities. As a lady from

home once said, “On a wonderful bad night, I'm glad you guys are there.”

I ask all Members to join me in applauding these

dedicated volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How do

you sum up a person's life in one minute? Mary Gillingham, of Froude Avenue

community, died yesterday morning at the age of 96, a tiny feisty woman with a

huge presence, definitely the matriarch of the family. Mary lived with her

sisters Bertha, who passed away last year at 83 and her 91-year-old sister

Hannah for over 50 years.

The

sisters came from a hard-working family who moved to town from Whitbourne area,

then called the Moorlands. Not able to read and write, Mary left school early to

help the family. She did odd jobs in service, taking care of others, and made a

solemn promise to her mother on her deathbed that she would take care of her

sisters.

The

Gillingham sisters were a team so interdependent they finished each other's

sentences. Everyone in Froude Avenue knew them. Their lives mirrored a certain

time in the history of old St. John's that is gone. It has been a joy to have

known Mary. She will be missed by her community, her sister Hannah, her home

care team and cats Fluffy and Tippy.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, a simple

definition of leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act

towards achieving a common goal. He or she is the person in a group that

possesses the combination of personality and leadership skills that makes others

want to follow.

Anaconda

Mining Vice-President, Allan Cramm, a fourth generation miner, is a shining

example of what I just described. He is an innovative leader and an

out-of-the-box thinker who has been at the forefront of the growth and

development of Anaconda.

His

leadership has taken pioneering ideas such as selling the waste rock from the

gold mining operation as a construction aggregate product. It's these ideas that

have Allan's co-workers witnessing how one person's ingenuity can effect

positive change.

His

leadership has seen so many young workers return to the Baie Verte Peninsula and

has found ways of challenging them to grow the local economy. Mentors like Allan

Cramm are critical to advancing the mining industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Allan

was recently recognized as an honorary member in the organization of

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I invite

all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Allan Cramm on this

well-deserved recognition.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize November 18 to the 25 as Restorative Justice Week.

Tomorrow, with our community stakeholders, we will proclaim this week, showing

our continued support for this growing movement.

I am

also pleased to be bringing greetings tomorrow night at a panel discussion at 7

p.m. at The Lantern in St. John's. Organized by Relationships First: Restorative

Justice in Education Consortium, the panel will explore the role of restorative

justice in supporting healthy communities.

Mr.

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

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

opportunity for the parties directly affected – victim, offender and community –

to identify and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime. It is a

philosophy that believes in the necessity of maintaining relationships.

This

government strongly believes in restorative justice and recognizes that we need

to find innovative ways to address the number of people incarcerated. Just last

week at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial meetings of Justice and Public

Safety Ministers here in St. John's, my counterparts and I committed to increase

the use of restorative justice, acknowledging the critical role restorative

justice can play at all stages in the justice system.

The

Department of Justice and Public Safety is exploring initiatives like electronic

monitoring, bail supervision and adult diversion programs, as well as looking at

options to expand the Family Violence Intervention Court. And, we will soon have

very much more to say about the Drug Treatment Court.

Mr.

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

Week, and I look forward to continuing the efforts to address access issues and

improve interactions within the justice system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I applaud the minister's statement and thank him for an advance copy. I'm

pleased to hear the minister acknowledge the need to do more; to promote the

application of restorative justice principles, which do not diminish people's

responsibility for the crimes they commit, but address the needs of victims and

the community and rehabilitate those responsible so they can better integrate

back into the community when they have served their penalties.

When we

hear of crimes alleged committed by people who are known to the police or have

breached an undertaking, we realize more needs to be done to restore and

rehabilitate people before they return to the community, for their sakes and

public safety.

I hope

the minister's plans to do more for people who are incarcerated include action

on a new corrections facility, better care for mental health and addictions, and

a public inquiry into deaths at our correctional facilities. This has to include

real action on electronic monitoring, bail supervision, adult diversion,

expansion of the Family Violence Intervention Court and the long-awaited Drug

Treatment Court.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And

thank you to all those folks involved in the restorative justice movement who

have educated both government and the public about restorative justice and have

lobbied this government long and hard to incorporate restorative justice into

our justice system.

It is

interesting that government is now considering electronic monitoring, bail

supervision, adult diversion and expansion of the Family Violence Intervention

Court, all programs that were in effect years ago. It is time to relaunch them,

and bravo to all those involved.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the

minister, I would like to recognize five visitors in our public gallery. We have

joining us today for this Ministerial Statement, Ms. Helen Sinclair, Skye Taylor

and Mojca Bas from the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland

and Labrador, as well as Valerie Collins and Jennifer Newman from Family and

Chi l d Care Connections. They're all joining us for a statement.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize November 20 as National Child Day, a

celebration of children's rights.

The

Members of this House of Assembly are wearing blue ribbons today to recognize

National Child Day, which commemorates Canada's adoption of two documents

focused on children's right: the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the

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

National

Child Day demonstrates our commitment to ensuing all children are treated with

dignity and respect. This commitment includes the opportunity for children to

have a voice, to be protected from harm, to be provided with their basic needs,

and to have opportunity to reach their full potential.

Mr.

Speaker, this past Friday I had the opportunity to tour the new Pumpkin House

Child Care Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, scheduled to open in spring of

2019. With a contribution of more than $905,000, through the Child Care Capacity

Initiative, the new 93-space child care centre will mean greater child care

capacity in the community.

As a

government, we recognize that child care plays a vital role in the healthy

development of children and the well-being of families throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador. We remain committed to enhancing access to quality, affordable,

early learning and child care opportunities through

The Way Forward and the Education Action Plan.

December of 2017, our government and the federal government signed a three-year

bilateral agreement on early learning and child care that allocated just over

$22 million over three years to Newfoundland and Labrador for early learning and

child care investments. This funding is assisting the development and

implementation of innovative approaches to address early learning and child care

challenges through subsidies, grants, bursaries and professional learning

opportunities. In addition, as of April 2018, the additional 180 space target

for the Operating Grant Program was achieved.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask children, parents, early childhood educators, teachers and

Members to join with me in celebrating National Child Day. Working together, we

can ensure that we are acting in the best interests of the child while ensuring

that children have the right to primary consideration in all economic, social

and political decisions that impact upon them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. When Canada ratified the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, our country made a

commitment to ensure that all children are treated with dignity and respect.

This commitment includes the opportunity for children to have a voice, be

protected from harm, be provided with their basic needs, and every opportunity

to reach their full potential.

National

Child Day is the celebration of children as active participants in their own

lives, in communities and as active citizens who can and should have meaningful

contribution in the decision-making process. Our children are our future.

Members of this hon. House, we have a duty to defend and protect our society,

not only for the present but for our children and their future. The Official

Opposition stands with the minister and the government in encouraging the public

to celebrate National Child Day.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. National Child Day

underscores Canada's adoption of the UN recognition of children's rights,

including the right for all children to achieve their potential.

It's

nice to hear the minister say government is committed to enhancing access to

quality, affordable child care, but this won't happen for every child without a

fully funded and regulated public child care system available to all children

who need it. It won't happen until quality child care is affordable for all

parents currently challenged by the cost of this essential service.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, when asked in

this House, following the breach of Husky's ice management plan, the minister

said there was a huge penalty to Husky by having to stop production.

Is the

Premier concerned that his minister's opinion, that no penalty was needed, may

bias the C-NLOPB in this current oil spill?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, I want to congratulate and thank the minister for the work that she's done

with her staff in the last few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what has

happened on Thursday of last week with this recent oil spill is certainly

something that is a priority and a concern for all of us to deal with.

Mr.

Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out the role of the chief safety

officer. There's been some confusion about the role that that person would play.

Coming in 29(b), the recommendation from Justice Wells back a few years ago,

that is an independent officer. The position and the statements, and the

position that officer takes is not influenced by the board and it's not

influenced by the conservation officer.

there's a fair amount of autonomy that's there independent, even though they

share the same office, its location, but his views and comments are independent

of that of the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, to the best of

my knowledge, the safety officer does not impose penalties, the board does.

C-NLOPB

regulates our offshore industry on behalf of the provincial and federal

governments. Given this, has the Premier reached out to his federal counterparts

to discuss the issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker,

there's an investigation that's ongoing. Coming from that investigation there

will be a number of recommendations, we would anticipate.

The

minister said quite clearly yesterday its position of this government. When the

recommendations are back we will do whatever it takes to make sure that offshore

safety, first and foremost, is a priority of this government.

At the

time of implementation of Recommendation 29(b), it was Justice Wells himself who

said that he was pleased and felt that 29(b), that recommendation, could

actually do the service that's required based on the recommendations that he had

made in the inquiry that he presided over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

To the Premier, when Husky

failed to follow its ice management plan the province lost revenue through oil

royalties. Now Husky's oil spill has caused all four fields to shut down

production and a further loss to our royalty revenue.

I ask

the Premier: Will you recommend to the C-NLOPB that Husky pay for its oil spill

and replace the lost revenue to the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the Leader of the Opposition, I'm really pleased with the fact that he's asking

questions about what happened on Thursday. Yesterday, that wasn't his approach.

Today, we're very pleased to be able to stand here, because it is a concern for

all of us. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the number one concern for this

government is not the loss of revenue, it's the safety of our workers offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I would also say

to the Leader of the Opposition, that the revenue is not lost at this point. The

oil is still there, Mr. Speaker, but we're going to focus on the investigation.

We're asking the C-NLOPB, which regulates on behalf of the province and the

federal government, to get the investigation started. Coming out of that will be

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and we will all learn from this recent spill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we on this side

operate as a closely-knit team, a concept maybe foreign to the other side.

Because

of the oil spill, all four facilities shut down.

I ask

the minister: What is the financial impact of the shutdowns of the four

facilities on the Treasury?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'm not going to let the Leader of the Opposition talk about a closely-knit

team. This is a government that's working on behalf of the province, working on

behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Speaking

of a closely-knit team, if he was so close, why did your president resign last

week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

Not everybody, Mr. Speaker,

is a team player.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

When that arises, action gets

taken.

When the

SeaRose was shut down because of failure to follow its ice management plan, the

minister would not tell us what the impact was on the Treasury. This province is

now losing revenue through no fault of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So I ask

the minister: Who will pay?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

can tell you one thing, before anyone pays we're going to make sure that safety

is a priority. That is our focus right now.

I'd like

to remind the Leader of the Opposition, that oil is not gone. That oil will be

there and pumped at a later date but only extracted from the ground at that

resource when it's safe to do so, Mr. Speaker. We have concerns about what

happened last week. That's the reason why the investigation will be done.

Speaking

of a close-knit team, you talked about how close you are, how come you weren't

in communications with your president? Because I was actually in my district

last week and he said that your administration or your caucus wasn't going in

the direction that he thought you would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, all four oil production facilities were shut down because of the oil

spill recently spoken to. Hebron has since returned to production, is our

understanding.

Can the

minister provide an update on Hibernia and the Terra Nova FPSO?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

will emphasize safety and environmental protection is the focus and the

paramount focus of this government. And I'll say that is what we've been focused

on the last number of days since last Wednesday when we knew the storm was

coming.

Mr.

Speaker, Hebron has resumed production. The other installations will resume

production when it's safe and when they are ready to do so.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder

if the minister could advise us: Have ROVs now examined all the subsea

infrastructure of both of the FPSO vessels?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you for the question.

The

remote operating vehicle spent yesterday looking at the flow line for the

SeaRose, the Husky FPSO. That was the priority, to look at the flow line to

ensure there was no further leak, and I can confirm that was what the remote

operating vehicle did find, was that it was what they call a batch spill, an

instantaneous spill that occurred because of a faulty – because of a weak link

on the flow line, which is there as a safety issue around ice management.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Recognizing the type of weather we had and the reference was it was some of the

worst weather on the planet at the time: Does the minister think it's

appropriate for the Terra Nova FPSO to be examined as well in regard to flow

lines to ensure that the safety, both from an environmental and worker

protection safety, should be completed and completed immediately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much for the

question.

I will

say this; there is a safety and environmental protection plan that must be

followed by all operators. There is a chief conservation officer, as well as a

chief safety officer, Mr. Speaker. They will make the determinations as to what

is required to ensure the safe and environmental protection of our environment.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of

questions in the last couple of days about an oil production facility and when

it's shut down because of an oil spill.

I ask

the minister: Can she inform the public today, what steps need to be taken to be

completed for production to resume after that shutdown?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

indicated yesterday, we do have a chief conservation officer, we do have a chief

safety officer with C-NLOPB that is there; very important positions to ensure

the safety and environmental protection.

They

monitor with the operators, obviously, the safe and environmental protection of

the offshore. There is a plan in place that is part of the operating licence of

the operator. So in order to be able to have a good operating licence, you have

to have this plan in place. The plan is the responsibility of the operator, in

conjunction with the C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I'll

ask the minister: The operating plan for the licensed operator, was that

followed in the last number of days?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is

indeed what is under investigation, whether the protocols in place were followed

and whether they're adequate for future. We will take the information that the

investigation is going to present to us, Mr. Speaker, and determine. If

protocols weren't followed, I'm sure there will be reaction by the C-NLOPB to

Husky. If they were followed – what more must we do to ensure the safe and

environmental protection of our offshore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand what the minister is saying from the long-term, to make sure there

are amendments made, but the concern now is the immediate and these wells

functioning out there today.

So any

activity that caused this spill, what immediate action is going to be taken

today to ensure it doesn't happen tomorrow, next week or next month when we have

similar weather conditions? What are you going to do to ensure the safety of the

workers and the environment today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

excellent question. We're going to, as this government has been doing, continue

to monitor what's been happening with C-NLOPB; ensure that the processes that

are in place for the safety and protection of our environment are there.

We're

going to make sure the chief safety officer continues to have paramountcy over

decisions that are made in our offshore. We're going to ensure that the chief

conservation officer is protecting our environment. We hold them to account.

They will continue to be held to account. We will make sure that if the

protocols were not followed, then they must be followed, and if the protocols

were followed, that better protocols are in place so this doesn't happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I agree fully with the

minister, Mr. Speaker, but if the protocols weren't followed, we need to act

today to make sure what happened in the past number of days doesn't happen

tomorrow, next week or next month.

The CEO

of the C-NLOPB says it is the responsibility of operators to shut in and restart

when it's safe to do so, and that permission is not needed from the C-NLOPB to

restart operations.

So I ask

the minister: Will she advocate through the province's representative to give

the C-NLOPB additional overnight so that companies will have to receive

permission in order to resume production in similar situations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, over the last

number of days the chief conservation officer or the chief safety officer, the

CEO of C-NLOPB, myself as minister, and I know federally, have been engaged. We

are making sure that everything that must be done in our offshore for safety and

environmental protection is being done.

I know

the chief conservation officer and the chief safety officer have been in

constant contact with operators around the world. Operators do have the safety

and environmental protection plans. If there's something new or better that we

can do to ensure that nothing happens in our offshore, we'll continue to do so,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the minister if she would indicate to find out if SeaRose had

a controlled or an emergency shut in.

Minister, have you determined what happened in regard to stop production,

whether it was immediate or whether it was planned?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here's

what I understand about the SeaRose. It was taken as a precautionary measure.

The shut in was taken as a precautionary measure following the safety and

protocols that are required. It was a precautionary measure that was taken based

on the sea state at the time.

I can

inform the House that the Terra Nova was already shut in because of a planned

maintenance. Hibernia didn't need to shut in based on its plan. It did shut in

on Friday because of an issue with something offshore on one of their lifeboats,

and that Hebron was shut in due to the weather.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to Husky, 11 oiled seabirds were found up until Monday evening.

I ask

the Minister of Environment: Can the minister provide an update on the impact to

sea life?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As we've

been saying over the last two days, immediately upon this oil spill, vessels

were dispatched with personnel onboard, mostly from Eastern Canada Response

Corporation. They have independent observers as well. The Coast Guard is

involved, Canadian Wildlife is involved, and Environment Canada is involved.

There have been 11 seabirds. I understand that several of them have been taken

for cleaning to the response centre here.

We'll

continue to monitor this, Mr. Speaker. We'll continue to do what we can to

ensure the protection of the environment and the protection of wildlife.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Environment: What action is your department taking to monitor

the impact of the spill? What interactions have you had with Environment Canada

and other involved federal agencies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

the Member should know, the offshore is the responsibility of the C-NLOPB and we

do the onshore environmental activities. Nevertheless, we are deeply involved in

this particular incident. We're certainly not neglecting our duties.

We are

monitoring it very closely with both the C-NLOPB and the Natural Resources

department, as well as Environment Canada, and we are taking precautions as

well. We are monitoring the effects that this may have on wildlife, and as the

Minister of Natural Resources already said, we are aware of 11 seabirds that

were affected by this and action is being taken to rectify the matter.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for that response, but what precisely – what federal agencies have

you spoken to? You say Environment Canada. What specific federal agencies have

you spoken to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And just

to add on to the previous question; we also have flown seven surveillance

flights around the area to make sure there is no other damage being done and

that the environment is under control. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are conversing

mostly with the C-NLOPB and being kept in the loop by Natural Resources, who are

dealing with Environment Canada and the other agencies. So we're taking our

direction from them, as the offshore is their responsibility, but we are there

anytime they need us to provide any information that they may require.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, have you directly had any involvement with the federal agency, the

federal department of environment? You, yourself, as minister.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said,

this matter is being directed from the Department of Natural Resources. I

myself, as minister, have not had any direct contact with the minister of

Environment Canada, but I'm sure that C-NLOPB and the Minister of Natural

Resources is doing that. It's their responsibility. But as I said, Mr. Speaker,

we are there if they need us and we will provide any assistance that may be

required of us.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Natural Resources has said that the oil sheen has dissipated, which

is impacted by the temperature, tides and other water conditions.

I ask

the Minister of Environment: How does dissipation of the oil impact the cleanup

efforts?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have

indicated that the sheen is no longer being seen as of yesterday's reports from

the flights that are going over. There are over six vessels in the area

considering and monitoring wildlife and sea life, Mr. Speaker.

If the

oil has dissipated and has evaporated, there will be no cleanup effort, except

for the wildlife, but we're continuing to monitor. We're continuing to send out

flights. Mr. Speaker, it's very important to us, environmental protection is,

and we want to make sure we're doing everything that can be done to ensure the

cleanup is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, how can oil be cleaned up if it cannot be seen? What percentage of oil

is expected to be cleaned up?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

I just answered that question, but let me try again.

Several

flights, over seven flights have been out there monitoring the sheen, the spill

itself; the 250 cubic metres that have been spilled. We have multiple vessels

patrolling offshore, looking for sea birds and other mammals, to ensure we're

doing everything we can as a province, as C-NLOPB, to ensure that we have the

safety and protection of our offshore. We'll continue to do that. Efforts are

continuing. Things are still happening today, Mr. Speaker. We are on this

situation, have been really since last week when the weather set in.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

offshore of our province provides for our oil industry as well as our fishing

industry.

I ask

the Minister of Environment. What does a spill like this mean to those who fish

on the Grand Banks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.

minister has indicated to this House on multiple occasions that the situation

continues to be monitored. What we do know is there is a very, very strong

scientific program that is in place by our offshore operators to ensure that the

integrity of the marine environment is checked and rechecked.

Part of

that integrity process includes sampling of fish, both benthic and sub-benthic.

So we'll find out the answers to that when those tests occur, but that is part

of the standard protocol that exists in our offshore and we're very, very

pleased that it does exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

What

effect will spills like these have on our offshore and inshore fish stocks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

I would suspect, Mr. Speaker,

the hon. Member alludes to a hypothetical question. Of course, until we find out

the exact scope and duration of the spill itself, we won't be able to answer

that question.

So for

the information of the House, I'm sure that in the coming days, weeks, if you

were to re-ask that question, we may have better information at that point in

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

heard from the 120 workers from Astaldi who have not received their payroll

payments and now feeling like, as they have said, feeling turned into pawns.

These workers advised us that Nalcor has all the information required to

complete the payroll.

I ask

the minister. How come these employees have not received their pay?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we

know, within recent days there was a court injunction that was put in place by

Astaldi. So this has really prevented the flow of money that would've happened

yesterday, as Nalcor filed to have this appeal of this court injunction

overturned. That did not happen.

So my

understanding now, as early as next Tuesday, there will be an arbitration that

would allow for some of the transfer of these funds. So we are working with

Nalcor, as the minister is.

We're

concerned about this as well, those 120 managers now that find themselves

waiting for the salaries and pay for the days that they have worked. But really,

this is caught up in the legal proceedings right now because of the court

injunction put in place by Astaldi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So my

understanding is the court injunction now freezes the bonds and securities that

would've allowed payment to these workers.

So I ask

the Premier or the minister: Why wasn't action taken prior to this to meet the

needs of the Astaldi employees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think,

as the Member opposite would know, there were some difficulties around getting

information, access to the information of those people that, obviously,

rightfully deserve to be paid for the work they have done. So this information

wasn't forthcoming. Then it got tied up in the legalities of what is happening

now with the injunction that was put in place and remains in place now.

Hopefully, next week, when the arbitration takes place – we want to get those

workers paid as well. They deserve to be paid for the hours they have worked,

Mr. Speaker, and I know the officials at Nalcor feel the same way. But right now

we're back and forth with this legal proceedings that are happening, and we'll

see what happens next Tuesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, our

understanding is Pennecon has now been brought into Muskrat Falls to mitigate

costs and

schedule risk in light of Astaldi's shutdown.

I ask

the minister: Have you asked Pennecon to give priority to individuals, unionized

and non-unionized, who lost their jobs because of the Astaldi shutdown?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a

very important question.

Pennecon

has been given a limited notice to proceed, really to re-engage and to determine

how to really re-engage in this project. Of course, all the requirements that

were in place prior to will remain with Pennecon; but, as I say, the contract

has not yet been let. It is a limited contract to proceed so that we can

mobilize workers.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, the minister indicated that the removal of Astaldi had no impact on the

project timeline because Astaldi's work was 95 per cent complete. Now Pennecon

is being brought in to access timelines and work to be completed for the

situation.

So I ask

the minister: Has anything changed from her previous answer last week to what

we're hearing today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So, last week the minister

said there was no interruption in the timeline, yet Pennecon is in assessing the

timeline.

So, is

Pennecon in doing work that doesn't need to be done, or why are they there if

there's no timeline to be reviewed or determination made?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

answered that question. Pennecon has been given a limited contract to proceed.

They're looking to mobilize. So there is work that has to be completed; 95 per

cent complete and there still is 5 per cent outstanding. The timelines have not

been affected; the flow of work continues. We still anticipate the end of 2019,

early into 2020, full power, and that is continuing.

We do

have other contractors on site, Mr. Speaker, doing their work. Pennecon has been

given that limited contract, that temporary contract, so that they can start

mobilizing workers so that we can complete the rest of the Astaldi work.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

C-NLOPB was created in 1986 – 30 years ago. Since then, the industry has

changed. There have been expansions, moving into deeper water and further

offshore, and climate change has meant more frequent and severe storms. We are

now much more experienced and knowledgeable in this industry.

I ask

the Premier: Will he commit to working with the federal government to revisit

and modernize the C-NLOPB to ensure it is given the proper legislative tools to

deal with the changing dynamic of our offshore oil industry?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First

and foremost, the safety of our offshore workers is always the top priority, as

the minister just mentioned so many times today.

I think

the Member opposite is going back to recommendation of the Wells inquiry back a

few years ago, 29b and, even then, Justice Wells said that he was actually

pleased with the decision. He felt that 29b could actually do what was required.

But we

understand, too, that things do change. We understand that, so there will be an

investigation that will be done now on the recent events, Mr. Speaker. And when

we get those recommendations, we will work with all the federal government and

the industry of course but, more importantly, our offshore workers and make sure

that that environment continues to be safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the minister said our province was a leader in the offshore oil

industry, and that safety and environmental protection are paramount. She also

said, today, that if there is anything new or better that could be done, that we

would do them.

I ask

the minister, once again: If she believes this, in the light of this serious

environmental incident that we've just experienced, will she work the federal

government to establish an independent offshore safety authority, similar to the

gold standards set by Norway and Australia?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, first and

foremost, probably once again just to remind them of the role that chief safety

officer does at C-NLOPB right now. That individual, that office right now has

the authority – any decisions that are made by that person, that person first

and foremost makes the final decision on the operational plans on our offshore.

The

C-NLOPB board themselves cannot overrule the decision of the chief safety

officer. The environmental officer has no impact, cannot overrule, so the chief

safety officer, as it exists right now, has the independent authority to make

the final decision on what is required.

Justice

Wells had said that he felt that 29b was in place and could do the work that

needed to be done. But, Mr. Speaker, if there's any way that we need, based on

the recommendations, to strengthen the safety of our offshore, we are more than

willing to work on this. But let's get the investigation done first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

investigation of Husky's 2017 iceberg incident took 10 months, only then, at the

end of the investigation, did we learn the full story.

So, I

ask the Premier: Will he assure this House that he will push that the

investigation that's going to take place will have timely interim updates that

will provide answers along the way about this latest incident?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think that's a

fair question but we got to let the investigation – what's important is we get

it done right. But we'll always continue, as a government, to support and

reinforce that safety is paramount. We've said that time and time again and that

will continue.

I know

the minister, I know ourselves, our office have been working very closely with

C-NLOPB on this looking for answers. We, too, are concerned, as people all

across this province are concerned for the offshore safety, not just the

environment but, first and foremost, the safety of our workers, Mr. Speaker. We

will take whatever measures are required that can be done to make sure they are

protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

penalties levied on Husky by the C-NLOPB regarding its iceberg incident

apparently had no effect. Husky took another gamble and lost.

I ask

the Premier: What corrective measures is his government going to apply this

time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

investigation has to ensue. We do not know at this point what has occurred. We

do know that there was a problem with one

section of the flow line, Mr. Speaker,

that incurred here. So, there will be an investigation and if Husky has indeed

done something that is not part of their protocol, if there was something they

should have done and they did not do, we'll hold them to account, Mr. Speaker.

there's something that we as a government, or as the industry itself, C-NLOPB,

should have done, we'll hold that to account as well. I will say this to the

questions that are there. In the Advance

2030 it talks about reviewing and modernizing governance structures. We will

do so in the best interests of the people of this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for Oral Questions has

ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of mine related to

an application that was made for a Crown land grant for 46 hectares of property

off the Old Witless Bay Line just off Route 10 and extending to the water's edge

of the large body of water known in the region as Gull Pond.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately suspend a Crown land application for 46

hectares of land adjacent to the Old Witless Bay Line until the residents of the

region and concerned citizens have the ability to express any concern and have

questions answered related to the environment, watershed, Butter Pot to Witless

Bay environs, development and control regulations, deforestation, possible

flooding, private road management effects and destruction of hunting and

recreational land.

Mr.

Speaker, last Sunday afternoon, I had a meeting with about 40 residents and

concerned citizens from this area who just recently became aware that an

application had been in for a vast piece of property – 46 hectares. My

understanding is because it was under 50, there was no requirement for public

consultation or public notice.

So with

this information becoming available to the people in the area and the concerns

being expressed, this is the reason for the petition. To ask the department to

put the brakes on this so that people can have their questions answered, there

can be discussions about the process and there can certainly be public

engagement and discussion where all parties and persons with concerns can be

heard. There can be disclosure of full information for the intent for what this

would mean for this particular area, that for the most part over the past number

of years because of the environ regulations development has been frozen. There

are homes there that have been built in past years, but new development is not

allowed. So there are a lot of questions in regard to this actual application,

and we certainly ask the minister and government to take a look at this and to

hear from those concerns before any direction or any further consideration is

given to this application.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources for a response, please.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I do

sincerely appreciate the hon. Member bringing this petition forward for

discussion and for consideration by the House. He touches upon some key issues.

One, of course, is the promotion of agriculture is vitally important and

sensitive for our province. We as a province have directed that we will initiate

a program to double our food production in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As the

hon. Member is aware, we only produce 10 per cent of the food we consume. We

import 90 per cent of our food stocks. This is a situation that has to be dealt

with, and this government is taking action on that.

We also

recognize there are huge opportunities above and beyond providing food security.

There are opportunities of expanding our economy, doubling our employment in the

agrifoods sector, making sure that we are ready and able to meet the challenges

of the future. This government is taking agriculture very, very seriously.

The hon.

Member raises a point, however, that this has to be in balance with other

competing needs. I put this as a moment of notice by the Progressive

Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they are taking this with

great concern.

experienced just a few short weeks ago, a situation where a family farm on the

West Coast, the Aucoin family farm was met with almost universal support, near

universal support for that farm to continue. People understand the value of

farms.

What I

can assure the hon. Member, however, this is simply an application, and a review

is underway at this very moment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies, many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications.

Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek

numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities Board. Once the

Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to further

increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our

province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to

mitigate rates, they provided no detailed plan as to how they intend to do so.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all of the potential options

for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive detailed plan to deal with

current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to the

public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, I've presented this petition many times and I will continue to do so on

behalf of the people who ask that I do.

Today, I

have approximately 450 signatures. These are all coming from the Conception Bay

North area, Bay Roberts, Bareneed, Coley's Point, Upper Island Cove, Shearstown,

and Clarke's Beach and so on. Mr. Speaker, 450 concerned citizens as it relates

to where power rates are going in this province.

As is

indicated, as I've indicated numerous times, this is not about blaming anybody

about how we got here at this point in time. That's why we have a Muskrat Falls

Inquiry; but, at the end of the day, people are very, very concerned about – if

you ask the average person, what is your biggest concern? I would suggest that a

high percentage of those people would talk about the concern they have with

where power bills are going to go.

appreciate the fact that the minister and the Premier and the government has

said they're working on it. And I hope they are working on it, but, at the end

of the day, people are still concerned and they want to see some sort of a

detailed plan as to exactly how government intends to mitigate against rising

electricity rates.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

background to this petition is as follows:

WHEREAS

the Bay d'Espoir Highway and its branch roads, Routes 360, 361, 362, 363, 364,

365 have been overcome with very dangerous roadside alder growth; and

WHEREAS

the Coast of Bays region is a very busy area with a high volume of industrial

traffic for aquaculture, the fishery and hydroelectricity; and

WHEREAS

the region has a transient workforce that requires workers to travel the highway

at early morning hours and late at night, often in foggy, dangerous weather

conditions with no cell coverage; and

WHEREAS

there have been weekly incidents of moose accidents in the region this year,

some very serious, and daily near misses; and

WHEREAS

all residents are very concerned and worried to drive the highway due to a fear

of a moose accident; and

WHEREAS

every effort should and must be made to protect the safety of residents and

reduce unnecessary road hazards for travellers.

Mr.

Speaker, today's petition is 10 pages long from the community of

Hermitage-Sandyville. There is a clear message that every community in the Coast

of Bays region is sending to the Liberal government through these petitions that

they're feeling very neglected when it comes to brush clearing.

The area

has not seen any significant investment in the last three years in this regard,

and it's our lives that are at stake. So we're going to continue to raise this

petition, and hopefully one day the minister will stand to respond and tell us

that brush clearing is forthcoming.

I read

an

article within the last day or two talking about how the department is open

to more fencing across the Island. I would say that brush clearing would be far

cheaper, and lives are at stake. This needs to be done before a fatality occurs,

Mr. Speaker.

So I

present to you this 10-page petition. I have many more to come until such time

as we receive word that there will be brush clearing funding coming forward for

the people of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and that our lives do matter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, every life of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian matters.

Mr.

Speaker, this year we were able to do 367 hectares of brush cutting. Obviously,

that doesn't get us near the 10,000 kilometres of road in this province.

It's

interesting that the Member opposite gets up, and last week her leader was

asking questions about moose fencing, something that's in my mandate letter and

something that we're seriously looking at. But, I guess, Mr. Speaker, her

tightly knit team is not that tight, because last week the leader of her party

was asking for more moose fencing. Now, today, she's saying we don't want more

moose fencing. So, Mr. Speaker, maybe they should get on the same page.

Mr.

Speaker, the reality here is over the years there's been about $2 million each

year provided for brush cutting. We are seeing a trend in the right direction on

our province's highways when it comes to moose-vehicle accidents. In doing work

with groups like SOPAC, it's very important. We provided a grant last year to

SOPAC and we'll continue to do so in the future for awareness.

And, the

hon. Member is correct; brush is one of the main areas I think that we can focus

on, but the reality is there are 10,000 kilometres of highways in our province.

It's very challenging. Driver awareness and driver abilities around this is very

important, but we will continue to go forward with our brush-cutting program.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents of school aged children throughout the province who live

inside the Eastern School Districts 1.6 kilometre zone, and therefore do not

qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS

policy cannot override the safety of our children;

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

of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6 km policy for all elementary

schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where safety is a

primary concern.

And as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, as I've said many times, this is a petition that I will be presenting

as often as I can. It's a very important issue to parents in my district, and I

know parents in the districts surrounding me, and all sides of this House, Mr.

Speaker. The safety of our children is a huge issue and it's something that

can't be ignored.

As a

matter of fact, there's a group – they originated in my district, constituents

of mine, but they broadly reached out to whoever, right across the province,

it's called against the 1.6 kilometre policy. It's a Facebook group, and they're

doing 30 days of change. They're doing videos every day, interviewing parents

and addressing their concerns, fears and issues.

Every

individual issue, even though it's similar and may be safety oriented, every

individual's concern is different and brings a different level. So I want to

just give them a plug because this group of parents need to be commended,

because they're doing it for the right reasons. It's not political. It's truly

for the safety of their children. Any Member in the House, if you can't support

that – I mean really, that's what it's all about. It's for the safety of their

children.

I just

want to highlight something. I think the last time I got up and done a petition

the Minister of Education went back in time again in the past. You can do that

every time on every issue, Mr. Speaker. I live in the present. I was elected in

2015. I've advocated since my election and I'll continue to advocate, and that's

the way I think we all should portray it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

And even if you were in the

past, he wants to go back further than that. People change, things change and

society changes. It's never a bad thing to change your mind and look at

something for the right reasons.

These

parents are advocating for the right reasons. I know I am, and I know my

colleagues are, supporting these parents and doing what's right, and we call

upon government to seriously consider this petition. It's a very serious safety

issue and it's something that should be addressed now, Mr. Speaker. It's not

about playing politics, it's doing what's right for the children of our

province.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

contend that it is politics. Again, I'd like to know – I asked a question the

other day to the hon. Members opposite. What do you want to do, remove the 1.6

kilometres? Does that mean for every 50 feet you pick up a student? Is that what

you mean?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. HAWKINS:

If you remove 1.6, what does

removing 1.6 mean? What does it mean? Does it mean every child that's in this

province has to be picked up at their driveway? Does it mean that every child in

this province has to be picked up 50 feet away from school?

If not,

Mr. Speaker, if we're removing 1.6, we're saying to a certain area of the

province, well, your safety, your child is important, but out to another

district, well, it's not important for you, so you shouldn't have – you need to

have 1.6 out there.

So, Mr.

Speaker, there's a whole series of issues that need to be discussed, and that's

why this government put in a courtesy stop. We are reviewing the courtesy stop.

We're seeing how effective it is. It's a review of that.

We have

not closed the door to anything; however, Mr. Speaker, to get up and play

politics with this is somewhat unfair because the safety of our children is so

important to the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll

call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call

from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend

The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency

Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,

third reading of Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 38,

An Act

Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies, be now read a third

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Reporting Requirements Of Public Bodies,”

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

38)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6,

second reading of Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise in this House to open the debate on Bill 37,

An Act Respecting

The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health.

I would

like to move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 37,

An Act

Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health, be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 37,

An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of Public Health, be now

read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection And Promotion Of

Public Health.” (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

am tripping over myself in my enthusiasm for this piece of legislation.

I have

been accused by some of my colleagues of using superlatives and hyperbole when

we come to discussing this bill, but it is simply a landmark piece of

legislation. It will replace outdated legislation and it's going to build a

framework for the future of public health in this province.

There

will be plenty of meat to go through in the clauses, clause by clause during

Committee. Basically, the bill was developed by taking best approaches, concepts

and language from other more recent public health legislation across Canada and

around the world.

I would

argue that by presenting this bill and adopting it, we have moved from the back

of the pack in Canada to leapfrogging over everyone else to having a piece of

legislation that will stand out as a beacon from the East Coast of what public

health can be. We've also done it with evidence informed through best literature

and public health, and also by listening to folk in our communities at home.

The bill

is designed, essentially, to modernize public health legislation across the

province. This fulfills a commitment from the Speech from the Throne to

introduce a legislative foundation, which we would then use to drive

improvements across public health programs. The aim of that, in turn, would be

to improve the health of our communities and the health of our population.

The bill

effectively will repeal the communicable diseases, which was originally passed

in its current form in 1970. So it's nigh half a century old. It will also

repeal certain sections of the Health and

Community Services Act . The reason for that is that latter act contains

instruction and regulation relating to issues and program areas that are outside

the scope of public health. So we've left that act intact. It deals with things

like development in restricted areas, long-term care services and the

information sharing agreements we have between health and the Centre for Health

Information.

Public

health, actually, for the benefit of the House, is distinct from clinical

services but it's a very important, I would argue, foundational part of the

overall health system. It focuses on the health of population. It's designed to

prevent disease, promote wellness and protect the health of the population.

The

essential day-to-day work of public health professionals essentially goes

unnoticed, as many potential issues are actually contained or averted. It's

things that never make it to the public gaze. Public health only becomes visible

when something really goes wrong, and that's when preventative measures are not

sufficient or we have an outbreak of a communicable disease.

Everyone's familiar with the emergence of SARS some years ago, everyone's also

familiar with Ebola, which has cycled round again because of the persecution,

basically, in the Congo of public health workers. And that really has the

potential for a worldwide health emergency. A Canadian example that everyone

will recall was the enteric disease outbreak in Walkerton which resulted in some

deaths.

At home,

we have and are continuing to deal with an outbreak of tuberculosis and we share

jurisdiction for managing that with the Nunatsiavut Government and the federal

province as we speak.

A strong

public health system has a significant impact on our economy. It supports a

healthy workforce. It helps ensure continued capacity in our acute care services

by so doing. It then builds on that to improve the overall health of the

population and, thus, ultimately reduces the need for health care, either

directly or by mitigating the effects of diseases in the long term.

In our

province, public health is a share responsibility. We share it between the

federal government and the provincial governments, Health Canada, the Public

Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency all work

together to produce a series of programs that look at public health research and

surveillance, develop programs on pan-Canadian disease, because while we are an

island, we have a mainland component, and these diseases are not respecters of

lines on a map.

It also

talks at the federal and provincial level about controlling the entry of disease

into the country. The federal Quarantine

Act has a role here and it coordinates the roles in those areas where there

is an outbreak that crosses provincial boundaries. It also deals, as people

here, I'm sure, are well aware, with the issue of food product recalls.

Public

health is also a shared issue at the provincial level. The Department of Health

and Community Services is responsible for the development of the legislation,

hence I'm standing here as minister responsible. It's also responsible for

policy and programs, it coordinates public health emergency responses, it

manages our provincial vaccine supply and it collects and monitors communicable

disease level data at the provincial level.

However,

our department works very closely with the Department of Children, Seniors and

Social Development and Service NL. CSSD is responsible for the development and

implementation of healthy active living programs and initiatives, while Service

NL deals with public health inspection and enforcement through its environmental

health officers.

addition, the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources is responsible for

controlling diseases of animal origin which can have an impact on human health.

The chief veterinarians are responsible for both aquaculture and animal health.

They maintain close working relationship with our chief medical officer of

health in that regard.

If we

think even more broadly about the health of our population – and we have been

doing – we could say that every provincial department has an impact and shares

in the responsibility for public health. This is why I'm particularly pleased

with the piece in this bill which addresses the social determinants of health

through a Health-in-All-Policies approach.

I'm

going to go into a little bit more about the nuances of the case behind this

bill, the reasons for its existence and I'm just going to provide a little bit

of history, because I'm that kind of guy. Firstly, the first board of health was

appointed in Newfoundland and Labrador – we have a long history, it goes back to

1832, to deal with public health in Newfoundland –

MR. CROCKER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Minister

Crocker.

AN HON. MEMBER:

No names.

MR. HAGGIE:

No names.

And in

1833, we had our first Public Health Act .

I consider myself reprimanded.

The

first smallpox vaccine in North America was actually given in this province in

Trinity in 1877 and, three years later, smallpox vaccination was compulsory in

Newfoundland. We had a diphtheria outbreak in 1893 and it was the first time

diphtheria antitoxin was ever used in the province.

We had

our first medical officer of health in 1892. The Cottage Hospital system, when

it was established in the 1930s, also had a responsibility for public health. It

was one, at the time, of the finest examples of government funding hospital and

medical care plans in North America.

Over the

years in public health, we've seen many significant successes. We've had a

significant reduction in smoking rates, for example, and exposure to second-hand

smoke with legislation that came out in the late 1990s.

We have

doubled, over recent years, breastfeeding initiation rates in this province. We

have reduced significantly motor vehicle-related injuries by using public health

measures such as seat belts, car seats and booster seats. We have the lowest

reported rates of food-borne illness and we actually lead the country in

childhood vaccination rates.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's all them home-grown

vegetables.

MR. HAGGIE:

Yes, that's right.

However,

much of our public health legislation is based on the

Communicable Diseases Act and the

Health and Community Services Act . They address, primarily, issues

around communicable diseases, sanitation and hygiene, but they don't talk about

what has now become part of public health's core mandate, which is the delivery

of public health programs essential to what are now regarded as the five pillars

of public health. It was very much an issue around communicable diseases.

One of

the things that happened really was that because of that kind of sidelining of

communicable diseases – and it happened because of other developments,

vaccination and antibiotics – everybody tended to sideline communicable diseases

thinking, well, that issue is dealt with. Public health, as a discipline in this

country, suffered because of that, and it suffered grievously. And we came into

office, having inherited a system that had basically decayed to the point where

public health consisted of environmental health officers in Service NL, and a

random scattering of part-time medical officers of health who had very little

authority and very little place in the health system.

But the

national Advisory Committee on Population Health recommended that public health

be viewed through a different lens, and it talked about five core functions. It

talked about health surveillance, so that looks at disease monitoring and trends

and injury, and using that information in a meaningful way. It talked about

population health assessment, and that increases our understanding of health of

populations, what factors underlie the health of populations and create risk. So

that leads to better services and better planning and healthy public policies.

It talks

about disease and injury prevention, those actions aimed at eradicating,

eliminating or minimizing disease or disability. Or if none of these are

feasible, slowing down and mitigating the disease. So we look at things like

vaccinations for preventable childhood illnesses, to reduce morbidity and

mortality from measles, rubella, diphtheria. Without giving my age away, I saw

the effects of polio first-hand in children who had been born and succumbed to

the illness shortly before the introduction of the vaccine in 1954.

We've

introduced screening for blood-bone infections, and that has produced

significant improvements in this area. The association also spoke to health

promotion, which is a function focusing on enabling and encouraging people to

increase control over their own health. We've talked in this House before about

how health care has to be a partnership, it has to be everybody accepting they

had responsibility for certain areas within health, and accepting that people

had a degree of autonomy, and with that went a degree of responsibility for

their own health.

healthy eating, smoking cessation, exercise, using sensible measures like

wearing a bicycle helmet, like using seat belts, and even by extension, not

drinking and driving. I was fortunate enough to participate in what one could

regard as an unfortunately necessary event, which was MADDs provincial campaign

launched last week in Gander.

It also

talks about health protection. That's the assurance of safe food and water, a

regulatory approach around commutable and infectious diseases, environmental

threats and emergency preparedness. It would provide advice to regulators,

restaurant inspections, child care facility inspections, water treatment and

monitoring. So you can see that this spans a whole range of government

departments, not just Health and Community Services.

Our

current legislation has been static. It really hasn't kept pace with our

population health approach. The last revisions to the 1970 act were made in the

mid-1990s. So that's why the bill formally recognizes and enshrines these core

public health functions and creates a foundation to build on each.

Public

health approaches consider actions that can improve the health of a population

as a whole rather than focusing on individuals. I think that's worth

emphasizing, because it is the difference between the responsibility of an

individual practitioner, say, a GP or a specialist, who has a responsibility to

do the best for the individual in front of them at that time;

whereas public

health looks at the population or groups of the population as a whole. It

describes coordinated approaches to health inequities.

We're

seeing public health impacts already with things like climate change. We're

seeing movement of diseases that we haven't previously seen here, either

Vector-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, Zika, West Nile and Zoonotic

diseases, as diseases like rabies that occur in animals and could be passed to

humans, may actually start to migrate into areas where they hadn't traditionally

been seen as the climate adapts.

mentioned Lyme disease; it's a tick-borne disease, so it doesn't go from human

to human. It needs a little insect to do that for you. It sucks blood from an

infected host and then basically poops the virus out onto your skin. So when you

scratch it you infect yourself. It's spread very rapidly. It spreads very

rapidly and it's coming up in the Maritimes and the East Coast. It is something

that has not been encountered here in numbers and now we need to educate

physicians about it.

We are

living in a world with SARS and Ebola. You are one plane flight away from a

significant public health problem, and we need legislation that can adapt to and

deal with that. We saw the challenges around getting a coordinated response. The

Ebola crisis, when I was on kind of the other side of the fence as chief of

staff in Gander, where we are the major alternate for transatlantic flights.

Again,

more recently and more sadly, since 9-11 we've seen bioterrorism. The white

powder that comes in the mail could be anything, and it has been Anthrax in

certain jurisdictions. So we need a system that is cognizant of that and can

react to it.

We also

should remember that the diseases that we regard as managed problems, the old

diseases are coming back. We've seen tuberculous come round yet again. We have

seen syphilis spike in the Avalon, and we have issues with gonorrhea and

drug-resistant gonorrhea across the province coming back in numbers which we

have not seen in recent years. They require new approaches and health promotion

approaches to help deal with them. There is no single, magic bullet but there

are coordinated approaches through legislation and a framework like this that

can be used.

We have

a significant IV drug use problem. So we're going to see an upsurge in hepatitis

C and we're going to see potential increase in HIV. That's the intercept there

on mental health and addictions with traditional public health.

Our

public health system was established to deal with communicable diseases, but one

of the biggest health challenges globally on a public health scale are actually

what are now called non-NCDs, non-communicable diseases. I would suggest that

our biggest problem from a public health point of view falls in that category,

particularly with type 1 diabetes; 11 per cent of our population are recognized

as having some form of diabetes currently.

Heart

disease and cancer can be viewed in that same light. And, indeed, public health

approach with smoking has seen dramatic reductions over time. We, in this

province, are unfortunate in that we have some of the highest prevalence rates

of these illnesses in Canada, and it's a major public health issue which is left

completely unaddressed. We have tools in our toolbox that we are not using. This

bill addresses that.

To be

effective and responsive, though, this kind of legislation needs to clearly

identify who has authority for what and who is responsible to whom. Unlike other

jurisdictions, our current legislation doesn't clearly establish powers, duties

and functions for anybody, basically. It doesn't clearly identify who has the

power to issue orders and how to manage emerging communicable diseases threat.

The

current act does provide authority to order individuals to be detained or

investigated, or even to be quarantined. The problem with that is they were

written in the '70s and you could – essentially, the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

does not permit those measures to be used. These are autocratic, they belong to

a different era and they predate the patriation of the Constitution. So we're

actually at risk currently, significant legal risk as a provincial government

from a challenge to any one of these orders that would try to be used to curtail

or deal with a public health issue.

Modern

public health legislation should establish authority to address and control

hazards which would affect the general public. The

Health And Community Services Act and the old

Communicable Diseases Act do not define health hazards. They are for

limited authority for public health officials to even consider them, unless it's

specifically related to specified areas of jurisdiction. So, for example,

communicable diseases, sanitation and public pools. We don't have anyone in the

province who has the authority to declare a location, an event or activity a

health hazard outside a food premises or a personal service establishment. We've

no ability to control that, not at all.

So, in

summary, those are the problems. Those are the lack of structure which leaves us

exposed. So what have we done about it? How have we ended up here today? Well,

the end of last year and the beginning of this year, a lot of work had already

been done through internal officials and consultations at an early stage with

the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Health Association, but in 2018 we started

going out face to face with internal and external stakeholders in a more formal

way. We had a public forum with the RHAs and other partners and then we had

several public engagement sessions. In the background, as it were, but

concurrent with that, we had an online survey with EngageNL.

So we

looked for issues that people would identify and also potential solutions. We

have taken all of that, and particularly the dialogue with the Public Health

Association, and we fed it into the bill.

So what

is the bill, in broad-brush terms? Basically, it fills all those gaps, but it

does it in a thought-out, rigorous framework, which highlights the five core

principles of public health I've alluded to. They are laid out in

Part I, which

lays out the purpose of the act, and highlights those five key areas: health

promotion; protection of individuals; healthy environment; measures for

monitoring and surveillance – the goal is to improve the health of the

population and vulnerable groups – and it also addresses health equity.

It's

very similar to legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions. As I say, we've

used those, shamelessly, and I believe we've leapfrogged over them. It also

lines up with commitments that we made in

The Way Forward , and that were in my mandate letters, both in 2015 and

subsequent revision. And I just take a highlight and delve down to illustrate,

from

section 6, which talks about our Health-in-All-Policies approach.

This is

a really modern, cutting-edge public health tool, and it has gained recognition

because of the fact that it recognizes things, outside of traditional health,

that determine health – the so-called social determinates of health. It looks at

the obligation of government, as a whole, to have a mechanism to look at things

like health through the lens of education, and vice versa, or employment and

housing through the lens of health impact.

solidifies this commitment and makes it a part of that. The Department of Health

has to have a role in it. It doesn't necessarily have to own it. It could live

with any other government department, or even with the Executive Council. But

there's an obligation there for Health and its minister to have sight into it.

We are

only the second province in Canada, after Quebec, that's put this out there.

This is an example, however, that does come from other jurisdictions. The

Antipodes of New Zealand, particularly, has this enshrined in legislation, and I

think some of the Australian states do, too.

It also,

Part II, clearly outlines who's responsible for what. So the powers and

responsibility of the minister are outlined. The chief medical officer of health

is outlined, the RMOH, who are the regional officers of health, and the

environmental health officers, insofar, as their duties are impacted by this

act. Those environmental health officers live with, as it were, and are employed

by Service NL.

In line

with other provinces the minister, with the advice of the CMOH, actually has to

prepare, every five years, a public health plan that lays out the goals and

objectives to be met during that period. It requires the chief medical officer

to actually monitor those things and report back for a report for the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council every five years saying how we got on with the

minister's plan. So, there's accountability.

These

three areas, in addition to the ministerial powers to establish standards for

core programs, actually then start to focus very much on public health and

coordinating things towards a common goal.

The

minister can also, with advice from the experts, establish standards and

qualifications for public health personnel. It would include a wide variety of

personnel; obviously the medical officers of health. It would also refer to

public health nurses, health promotion consultants, parent and child health

co-ordinators, communicable diseases control nurse, EHOs in as far as it relates

to health and public health managers.

So, we

look to training, education and competency and that ability is enshrined in the

act and will be fleshed out in regulations. It also looks at public health

laboratories and to give direction as to the nature and extent of their

services.

For

those who may not be aware, our Newfoundland and Labrador public health and

microbiology lab is located within Eastern Health. It's a province-wide resource

and it looks at diagnostics, support and surveillance, and is very active, for

example, in the coming flu season.

Because,

however, we have this lab, it has a record for doing rapid detection very well.

It's another of those little things that we, as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, are very bad at, which is telling everybody else what we actually

do quite well. So, E. coli outbreak that was related to romaine lettuce was

first detected here and we triggered the national process with a recall.

This

bill recognizes the role and also enshrines a relationship, a responsibility,

authority and accountability between the minister's office and the lab.

recognizes also then that the chief medical officer has to perform his or her

duties with a degree of independence and impartiality to protect and promote the

health. We've seen too recently and too often, unfortunately, a sad scenario,

the most vivid one in my mind was the public abuse by then mayor of Toronto, Mr.

Ford, of the medical officer of health for Toronto; totally unwarranted, totally

bulled and harassed. That should not and cannot be accepted as a reasonable way

of doing business because public health decision making has to have more to do

with scientific evidence than political pressure.

That is

why the role and responsibilities of the CMOH are boxed in to some extent and

protected from interference on the whim of whichever minister might have

indigestion that day. It does not excuse the minister, however, from making

public health decisions. It anticipates that a sensible minister would actually

have to listen to a qualified chief medical officer of health.

Of the

53 pages or whatever of this act, slightly more than 20 deals with one essential

principle, and that's the balance between the individual's rights and freedoms

under the Charter and the duty to protect the population health by building in

some appropriate procedures.

A person

with a communicable disease who is spreading the infection and who will not

follow medical advice is a significant public health risk. That has to be

managed. So these 20, 22 pages go into some considerable detail to take the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the constitutional law, as we understand it

through justice and through our counsel, and to provide those protections for an

individual who may be subject to one of these orders.

So while

in an emergency, a medical officer of health can issue an order for compliance

with recommendations and if that's ignored, then that can be taken as far as the

Supreme Court. There are checks and balances so there are appeal matters. Our

current public health legislation is actually silent on what those checks and

balances are and simply because of that will not pass constitutional muster.

Talking

of balances again, our current public health legislation is silent on the

collection and use of personal health information. I mean, in 1970 the idea of

an Electronic Health Record was something from Mr. Spock and

Star Trek with his little scanner.

Part III

of the bill goes into some considerable detail under which circumstances

information can be gathered and shared and the responsibility of who gets to do

what with this. Conscious of those sensitivities, OIPC, the Office of the

Privacy Commissioner, was engaged in the drafting and it was agreed with his

office that this bill will further support the

Personal Health Information Act .

So the

way around that in the short term is for the CMOH to be designated as a

custodian under that act and have all the duties and responsibilities that would

accrue to an individual like that. It will, as part of the quinquennial review

of PHIA – which I think is on the legislative agenda for our next mandate in

2019 – after the election we will come back and we will amend PHIA and we will

put in there specific provisions about CMOH.

Part IV

talks about non-communicable diseases, and I referenced that in my

preamble.

Essentially, in discussions with the CMOH, an NCD can be designated under the

act in regulation. This

section actually has potential for doing some really

significant transformative things around our Chronic Disease Management

Strategy. We have had considerable discussion around this and it will formally

recognize non-communicable diseases as a public health issue rather than simply

an acute or community care issue.

It also

speaks of a code of practice in relation to issues around non-communicable

diseases or a health hazard. This is a term that's more often used in

occupational health and safety circles, but has moved into the public health

arena and relates to a guidance document on how health and hazard issues can be

mitigated through this act. It may relate to an industry, it could relate to a

community, it could relate to residents, and would be used to reduce or mitigate

occurrence of non-communicable diseases.

So we

could use this provision to tackle issues around trans fats, if that was felt to

be appropriate, lead paint, playground safety. What would happen to make this

operational is that during the crafting of regulations industry would be

consulted about a consultation mechanism that would then be embedded in the code

of practice regulations. So not only would the code of practice have an

obligation for the department or for government to consult with affected

individuals, how that should be looked at and how that would look would also be

addressed as part of the consultation in drafting the code regulations

themselves.

Part V

goes back to public health surveillance. This is around the authority of a

regional medical officer of health or a designate to an inspector, to do the

older style communicable disease stuff in terms of investigating the occurrences

of injury or illness that are a risk and reportable events. It states a duty to

report by health care professionals and environmental health officers where they

become aware of an occurrence or a suspected occurrence of a disease.

enshrines an onus of reportability. We've done that with a whole variety of

things, or it has been done in the past with certain categories of injury. For

example, gunshot wounds have to be reported, knife injuries have to be reported,

this kind of thing. And this duty to report further bolsters the role of public

health officials and public health physicians in advising government how to

proceed; will, under regulation, identify those who have a duty to report health

hazards or zoonotic diseases, those that we could get from animals. So that

would be a discussion to be had with FLR, with chief vets for aquaculture, and

for the province.

I think

we recently remembered in this House, during the commemoration and honouring of

those who served in the First World War, what gets forgotten is in the immediate

aftermath of all those soldiers coming home, the Spanish Flu of 1918 and '19

infected half a billion people worldwide; 500 million people. At the time, the

population of the planet was maybe a fifth of what it is today. It had an

appalling effect on our population, and it wiped out Indigenous communities in

Okak and Hebron, up in the Big Land.

large-scale, public pandemics, health emergencies still need to be recognized,

and

Part VI of the bill does this. It talks about public health emergencies, and

these are situations where extraordinary or unusual measures are required. It's

time limited, it's subject to legislative mandatory review. There is an

extension period possible, and these powers really give the chief medical

officer of health considerable scope in acting promptly to protect populations.

We can,

under this legislation, under the regulations, we could authorize voluntary mass

immunization programs as a priority. We can divert resources to do that. We

could establish lists of individuals, or classes of individuals, to be given

priority for immunization. For example, health care providers, or for drugs or

medical supplies and equipment. We could make orders restricting travel. We can

do some of this already under older legislation, but, again, it's not done in a

way that's constitutionally sound.

So the

bill recognizes that link between public health and the

Emergency Services Act . So where there is a conflict between the

powers under the Public Health Act and

the Emergency Services Act , the

Emergency Services Act will take

paramount. It will take priority.

Part VII

looks at emerging challenges. It establishes duties and responsibilities for

orders where really prompt, almost compulsory action is necessary, and there may

be little time to debate some issues. We can, through a regional medical officer

of health, make a communicable disease order where there's a risk of an

outbreak. We could isolate areas or groups of individuals. We can, under the

act, require an individual to submit to an examination. These are not new, but

the terms of safeguards around there and the ability to appeal to the Supreme

Court are enshrined in a way that is constitutionally responsible; unlike the

existing legislation, which actually predates the Charter anyway.

Environmental health officers or regional medical officers of health can also

now deal with health hazards. So if they're made aware of some issue – I refer

to the bioterrorism white package – they can make on-the-spot orders to have it

seized, dealt with in a certain way, disinfected. They can close the premises

until it's managed and they can specify monitoring processes.

Part VII

also is this big chunk which has a lot of words around how to protect the

individual's rights. I'm sure at some point someone will pick a hypothesis where

one end or the other of the spectrum is approached. At some point there is

always going to be a soft and grey area in the middle to balance safety of the

people, in general, against rights of the individual in particular. That is the

beauty of the Canadian system in that there is a legal route where the courts

can hone that down and find it, and it lays out processes for the protection of

the public while these individuals still have rights to go to court, if need be,

to maintain their rights.

someone would be subjected to an order by an EHO or a medical officer of health,

they can appeal that within 30 days. The chief medical officer would be required

to review and respond within 30 days, so there are time limits. The more severe

curtailment of freedom, apprehension or treatment orders would be issued under

the authority of the Supreme Court. There's a

section in there about

telewarrants, but it's also the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. So, it's

not without its checks and balances.

We've

modernized the powers of inspectors in Parts VIII and IX, including maintaining

the primacy of a private dwelling as someone's castle. You can't just walk in

there unless you have a warrant from a judge, and that requires just cause. So,

you just can't go barging into people's houses.

Part IX

establishes authority for LGIC and the Minister of Health to make regulations in

a number of areas around the five core functions. That authority does run out

into all five core functions, but it is done in a consistent and cohesive way so

it makes for a framework.

Finally,

like all good legislation, the bill establishes a mandatory review of the new

act and the regulations in five years. It also recognizes now that we have

precedents from the Labrador Inuit Land

Claims Agreement Act where there may be inconsistencies because Nunatsiavut

has the right to make its own legislation in this area and where this conflicts

with LILCA, LILCA prevails.

So just

to wrap it up – I'm sorry I can't take my full hour; I've been told that maybe

that wouldn't be wise. I get a bit evangelical about this. I have to say, I have

been fortunate to have some excellent input on this and I think this is a huge

step forward, taking us from the bottom of the pile in public health from a

legislative framework to putting us right at the top where we should be.

As a bit

of i-dotting and t-crossing, I'm pleased to also inform the House that Dr.

Claudia Sarbu, who has been our interim medical officer of health, is now our

permanent chief medical officer of health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

She is almost ecstatic when

she looks at this bill. The grin on her face since the Government House Leader

went through first reading with this has to be seen to be believed. It's long

overdue. It really is long overdue, but it's a further evidence of my

commitment, our commitment, to the health of the people of this province. And I

would really ask for support of all Members of the House and I look forward to

the Committee stage on this.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

I recognize the hon. the

Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

indeed an honour to stand in this House again and have a discussion and debate

and speak to a very important piece of legislation. It's very intense by its

nature. It's very intense by the size itself. It's very intense in what we're

hoping will be achieved here when it comes to health safety in our society. I

will start off, as I normally do, noting how I'm going to end, and that's going

to be that I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

But I say that with some

reservation, because I still will have a number of questions in Committee,

relevant to some of the issues around the regulatory process and some of the

operational policies that'll be part and parcel of it.

I do,

and I have to get it out in front, with no disrespect to the minister or his

staff, but particularly no disrespect to his staff, the size of this bill, for

it to be given to us in such short notice to really get to the crux of what it's

all about – and that's no disrespect to the minister's ability to be able to

explain what it means. Particularly, we had a great briefing yesterday, went

double what would normally be the time frames for it, by very competent staff,

which included the now permanent chief medical officer who outlined exactly what

the intent would be of this.

Very

easily, I was bought into how we see this as a benefit and a necessity of

modernizing exactly the pieces of legislation that we've had over the last

number of decades to ensure that we, on a go-forward basis, have a better system

in play, have legislation that protects both the citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador and anywhere, anybody who comes here, or Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who travel abroad and on their return from a safe point of view;

but also those who may find themselves, unfortunately, inflicted by a certain

particular disease or an ailment that is seen or acknowledged or diagnosed as

being something that has to be dealt with differently than you would in your

normal process of going to your GP and waiting for your interventions.

So the

piece of legislation I wholeheartedly support that we've moved it to the next

level, that we've modernized it, that there's been a fairly intense review of it

by very competent people within the department and, my understanding, within the

regional health authorities – and we'll get a better understanding later on of

any other entities that may have been engaged here.

It's a

unique piece of legislation when you talk about dealing with health because

people just see health in isolation to what we do from the delivery of the

service and that. But this also looks at legal issues here, and it looks at the

bigger, broader picture here because you're dealing with freedoms on both sides.

You're dealing with the freedoms of our society in a general context, in a

larger context, their safety, their health and their well-being; but you're

also, at the same time, having to be cognizant of particular individuals whose

rights, privileges and freedoms may be infringed because of something that has

to be done.

you're talking about a balance. You have to find that balance to ensure that

society is protected at the forefront but, at the same time, individuals are not

wrongfully put in a situation that may be harmful to them physically, mentally,

socially; while, at the same time, also being cognizant of how you would deal

with those who find themselves in a particular situation from a health point of

view that may warrant actions that may be taken under this new act.

I'm just

going to quote on the press release that the minister put out today. “The new

Act introduced today will modernize public health in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It will make our legislation among the best in the country. We will be only the

second province in Canada to include a Health-in-All-Policies approach in public

health legislation, putting us at the forefront of public health innovation.

Legislation supporting the health and well-being of our population will

positively impact the province's economic potential and sustainability, and make

an important contribution overall to economic progress.”

I think

it's a great sentence. I think it's obtainable. I think this piece of

legislation is a step in the right direction to get to where we're going, and it

does outline the fact about protection and the delivery of a health mechanism

that ensures that we can move forward in every aspect of our life.

Sustainability is around economic viability, it's about social viability and

being able to have those safeguards to do that.

I will

caution that the discussion will have to be around particular regulations

because the old cliché in life, the devil is in the details, is important here.

We need to be able to know that the time frames outlined here – and I say the

time frames based on the parts. Normally, I would call them sections, but there

are 65 parts to this piece of legislation, which is not the norm in any piece of

legislation we have. But I can see why, because it's such an important piece of

legislation that we need to make sure that we cover off every section, or every

part of the legislation that will have an impact on people's lives and be ready

for the unknown.

What I'm

hoping when the regulations come out, it's not only that we're dealing with

situations that we've seen ourselves face in the past or at the present, but

things that we could foresee in the future. There are going to be diseases,

there are going to be situations, there are going to be scenarios where society

may be put in harm's way that things we haven't planned for but we need to be

able to have a mechanism that the response time and the resources and the

mechanisms are at our fingertips; there's no delay, there's no second guessing.

There's no questioning whether or not who has the authority to do what.

So I

think it's very important that we get to this point, and that's what I liked

about this piece of legislation. Again, I'll reiterate this for the last time. I

would have liked to have had, and I think my colleagues also from the Third

Party and the independents, would have liked to have had more time to really go

through it to get a better understanding of

definitions, what that entails,

particularly when we get to Committee so we could get clarification.

It's not

that we're setting out in any way, shape or form discredit what's being done,

but we would like to know in a bit more detail, an opportunity to talk to some

other stakeholders and to talk to those in the field who have had a particular

experience in this or have been included in it. Anyway, I put that out there

only because if the people of the audience are watching when we get into

Committee, if there's a multitude of questions that haven't already been

answered through our debate, then obviously that'll be dragged out, and it's not

dragged out for the sake of playing politics. It will be because for

clarification, and I'm hopeful we'll get that as we go through that process.

I do

want to note again, this piece of legislation will take us to the next level. I

do like the fact that we're no longer trying to catch up with other provinces.

We've done that over the times, but what we've done is move beyond that. I know

the minister noted this, and so did the officials, that we've looked at other

jurisdictions in Canada but sometimes you want to be a trendsetter and you want

to lead. And because we're a unique entity, we're an Island to ourselves with a

vast population, an Island that's separated. Then we have Labrador in itself,

and we have some other unique situations there with the Aboriginal communities

that we're dealing with. We need to be cognizant of how we provide the proper

services there.

The fact

that I know officials looked to other jurisdictions outside of North America,

and I know some of them they looked at they thought would mimic how we do things

here. The geographic and the social and some of the health concerns or issues

we've had over the years has been South Australia. I could take that because

it's a modern country. There's a kinship there between countries like us, coming

from Commonwealth backgrounds, that there would be a similarity in how we would

approach stuff.

So I

give credit that they based that on data and information, and policy and

practices that have already been tried and tested and successful as part of

that. So we look at that and we look at the importance of what we're going to be

doing as we modernize this whole process, but I also want to note, for people

who may be listening here, that while we're modernizing a new health approach

here under legislation, the key components here are what the act is all about.

I'm just

going to take people through them again in case they weren't listening when the

minister talked about most of those. “Promote the health and well-being of

individuals and communities.” I mean, that's a fairly standard thing.

I think

any health professional sets out, as their main objective in life, to be able to

do that. We as a society, and I know we as Members of the House of Assembly, we

set that out. We don't do it in a way where – or we don't, as I say, get on the

front lines and do that, but that's what this act does here. It gives a little

bit more meat to roles and responsibilities, particularly around this piece of

legislation, so that the well-being of individuals and communities, particularly

in extreme, adverse situations. And that's what we're talking about here when it

comes to this.

Adverse

situations; when there's a situation, be it an outbreak of a disease or

potential outbreak. If there's a situation that may be adverse to a particular

group or a part of our society or geographic area, that the bill itself outlines

in a very explicit way, in a very structured way and a very time-effective way

on how that can be addressed.

that's what part of that whole thing about having, as one of the key components

of the act, health and well-being of individuals and communities, because in

some cases it may be a whole community. The community here may represent all of

Newfoundland and Labrador. From an individual point of view, it could be a

particular situation that an individual finds themselves in with a particular

diagnosis of a disease, or a particular situation they found themselves in

because of travel or something they had come in contact with.

On the

other side of it, it's also talking about when issues like that come to the

forefront and it's been determined or assessed that somebody may be at risk, you

want to also protect their rights, because maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a

misdiagnosis. Maybe it's eight of nine criteria meet that person, but the ninth

one is not there and the other eight were relevant to something else in that

person's life. So you don't want them to be, for example, quarantined if that

became one of the issues. You don't want a certain intervention with that

individual if it's not known that's exactly what needs to be done.

there's a structure outlined in here that gives the health authorities,

particularly at different levels, if it's going to be the chief medical officer

or one of the regional medical officers or one of the health inspectors,

depending on when they assess what needs to be done, who has the authority to

make those decisions and what that includes. What other health professionals are

included in that process.

So there

are a number of things outlined there that before this afternoon, I'll go

through some of them to explain, clarify or put my version on it. Then,

hopefully, if it's not exactly accurate, then in Committee we can get a better

clarification to exactly what is intended in the act itself.

Again, I

want to note, and the minister did note this, too. Some of it will be flushed

out over the next number of months when we come around outlining the regulatory

process. This will be enacted, I believe it is July 1. So we've got seven months

to really get this right. I think we've got the proper legislation right, in a

sense of the headings, the parts, the structure and the information.

The

regulatory process and the integral part of the implementation of that policy

and those practices are – something is going to have to be flushed out. And

that's better done when you deal with the multitude of thousands of health

professionals and other agencies and individuals who will be part and parcel of

ensuring that the piece of legislation we're putting forward is going to meet

the needs of the individuals in our province and the province as a whole, and

address the particular issue here that we're talking about.

“Protect

individuals and communities from risks to the health of the population.” Again,

we're talking on a global issue and a global perspective in Newfoundland and

Labrador to be able to react in a very expedient manner to protect our society

before it gets to a point where there's an outbreak of something that's

devastating, and we've known we've had it.

The

minister mentioned about SARS and the impact it had on people. We've heard about

what happened in Walkerton, but we don't have to go too far. We know what

happened with our Aboriginal colleagues in Labrador only a number of decades ago

and the devastating effect that had on them with the Spanish flu. So we need to

have a mechanism at play that includes all players, from geographic backgrounds,

to cultural backgrounds, to the importance of how we deliver services and these

type of things.

there's an importance here to ensure we get it right. We have one opportunity to

do this now, because we have the legislation that outlines the particular

processes. We need to make sure the right groups are contacted so at the end of

the day we can actually put the regulatory process in place that efficiently

addresses their particular needs.

“Prevent

disease, injury and disability.” Because it's not just specifically noted on a

disease. That's the bigger picture here on preventing long-term effects or death

to people from a disease point of view, but it's also about injury and

disabilities. There are a number of other particular situations we may find

ourselves in. It could be exposure to toxins, for example. It could be living in

an environment where there's an asbestos issue that hasn't been addressed. It

could be in an area where, from a hygiene point of view, there are animal issues

that are causing potential health risks for people. So, there are all kinds of

mechanisms here to ensure that we're taking care of the individuals or the

community itself.

“Provide

a healthy environment for individuals and communities.” Through the legislation

that's here, there are proactive approaches to ensure that you look at things

before they happen. If somebody is building a new building or somebody is

tearing down an old building, or somebody is putting something in play or

changing something that exists, that the community itself would have the ability

to have input and, through this process here, the health professionals would

have an ability to say no, stop, we need to move back; we need to engage these

other agencies. It's not isolated to the Department of Health. They have the

ultimate authority, the