Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 16 November 2017 (48th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 35)
2017-11-16
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
November 16, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 35
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to welcome to the public gallery today Joshua Jamieson. The Jamieson family
will be mentioned in a Ministerial Statement today.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome Joan
Crosbie Parker who will be the subject of a Member's statement today, along with
her children, Tim and Cynthia Crosbie.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear from the hon. Members for the Districts of Topsail –
Paradise, Exploits, Burin – Grand Bank, and Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today, and I wish to recognize Mr. Len Simms for his
contributions to Newfoundland and Labrador. The most recent was the prestigious
2017 Senior s of Distinction award presented on October 3.
Over his
career, Len has a list of accolades and accomplishments that include being
president of the Kinsmen Club of Grand Falls-Windsor, deputy governor of Kinsmen
Newfoundland and Labrador, governor of Kinsmen, Atlantic provinces and the first
Newfoundland Kinsmen to be elected national president of the Kinsmen Club of
Canada.
Len is
also involved with a number of other charitable organizations, which include the
Lions Max Simms Memorial Camp, chair of the Children's Wish Foundation Advisory
Board, and member of Stella's Circle Governance Board.
He is
also a well-known political figure in our province, Mr. Speaker, having served
as MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor, Speaker of this hon. House, Member of Cabinet,
Leader of the Official Opposition and, most recently, Mr. Simms served as the
CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and, as an affordable
housing advocate, he received the National Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation award for outstanding contributions in advancing affordable housing
solutions.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask you and all Members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Len Simms for all of his contributions to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to congratulate the Living Faith Pentecostal Church of
Point of Bay on their significant milestone celebration of 90 years.
The
church found its origin in special meetings called by Eli Burton and William
Gillette on July 1, 1927. Herman Jones gave leadership to the fledgling assembly
until the reigns were handed over to the first official pastor, Pastor Thomas
Mitchell.
The
congregation held its celebration of 90 years of bringing Christ's teachings, as
well as earthly and spiritual support and hope, to all who would hear on
November 5, 2017.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Living Faith Pentecostal
Church for their 90-year presence in the community.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
– Grand Bank.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Lee Masters of Winterland drives to Christ the King School almost every
day to carry out his duties as school principal. I said almost every day,
because on October 10 he left his car home, Mr. Speaker, and walked the 50-plus
kilometres to his school in Rushoon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
October 10 was World Mental
Health Day, and Mr. Masters felt this would be his way of bringing awareness to
the issue of mental health. In his view, physical health and mental health go
hand in hand, Mr. Speaker. The students and staff from Christ the King School
joined Mr. Masters for the last kilometre of a trek that started at 3:30 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development can attest after meeting with Mr. Masters, his enthusiasm is
infectious and he is quite willing to think outside the box on ideas to better
his school or help his students grow.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in saluting Lee Masters on this
initiative. He is certainly an educator who doesn't mind stepping up to teach by
example.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Virginia
Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize M s . Joan Crosbie Parker. Ms. Crosbie Parker was
the first president of the St. Clare's Mercy Hospital Auxiliary in 1967 and
remains an active member in the community.
The
auxiliary's main source of fundraising is through the hospital's gift shop,
which is operated completely by volunteers from the auxiliary. Recently, the
Honourable Frank Fagan, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, held a
reception honouring the auxiliary on their 50th anniversary. An address was
given by Ms. Parker Crosbie reminiscing about the group's humble beginnings.
The
first gift shop was operated by hosting a shower where individuals donated goods
to be sold. The women knit and sewed items to be sold along with making fudge,
which was a big hit. Ms. Crosbie Parker is quick to note that she could not have
been successful without the support of others volunteering and the nuns at St.
Clare's.
Along
with being the founding president of the auxiliary, Joan is a loving mother to
her four children, Alex, Robert, Tim and Cynthia, and a doting grandmother to
her eight grandchildren. Joan is an example of the type of woman you want to
know, always willing to put others before herself and an ever-positive presence.
Please
join me in thanking Joan Crosbie Parker and the St. Clare's Hospital Auxiliary
for their dedication.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in
this hon. House to announce more than $200,000 in scholarships for 201 recent
high school graduates as part of the Provincial Scholarship program. The
scholarship program recognizes high school graduates throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador for their hard work, dedication and academic achievements.
The
Junior Jubilee Scholarship, valued at $2,500, is awarded to the student with the
highest overall marks in the province. This year's recipient is Matthew Hiscock,
a graduate of O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
The Constable W. C. Moss
Scholarship, valued at $1,000, is awarded to the son or daughter of a member of
the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the
highest public exam marks. This year's recipient is Lindsey Feltham, a graduate
of Mount Pearl Senior High.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, 120 high school
graduates – three high school graduates in each electoral district – were
awarded an Electoral District Scholarship and 79 students have been awarded the
Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarship, each valued at $1,000. A
complete list of the provincial scholarship winners is available online.
I trust
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands is happy about that as well, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to
take this opportunity to also acknowledge the announcement of a scholarship fund
for Newfoundland and Labrador students founded by the Jamieson family. The
scholarship honours and commemorates the professional work and contributions of
Don, Colin and Basil Jamieson. The Jamieson Family Memorial Scholarship will
award $1,500 to a high school student who has been accepted into an accredited
Canadian university in an undergraduate program in communication, journalism or
political science.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the 201 high school
graduates receiving scholarships and to wish all of them the very best success
in their post-secondary education and future endeavours.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for a copy of his statement. This side of the House is extremely
proud to stand today and acknowledge all the recent high school graduates on
their accomplishments and achievements, specifically those who have been awarded
these scholarships.
The
Official Opposition congratulates Mr. Matthew Hiscock of O'Donel High on winning
the Junior Jubilee Scholarship, and we congratulate Ms. Lindsey Feltham of Mount
Pearl Senior High for being awarded the Constable W.C. Moss Scholarship. Matthew
and Lindsey's academic achievements are just a preview of how far they will go
in life.
This
side of the House also wishes to recognize the Jamieson family for founding the
new Jamieson Family Memorial Scholarship. The Jamieson's contribution to this
province is substantial and their award will have a positive contribution on
youth who will receive it in the many years to come.
closing, we congratulate the 201 students who have received these awards and
wish them every success in their future endeavours.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to be able to stand and join with the minister and my colleague in the
Official Opposition in congratulating all of those who received scholarships
this year. The Provincial Scholarship program is extremely important and so is
the presence of private scholarships, such as the wonderful one that has been
announced: the Jamieson Family Memorial Scholarship.
Such
private scholarships, along with the $200,000 that we put in provincially, are
extremely important for our high school graduates as they continue forward in
their life and in the professions they choose.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources,
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very, very pleased to rise and to celebrate with this House the Municipal
Habitat Stewardship Program, an extremely worthwhile initiative that is creating
valuable partnerships between the provincial government and municipalities
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
program is administered by the Wildlife Division of the Department of Fisheries
and Land Resources, and encourages municipalities and local residents throughout
the entire province to recognize the value of wildlife habitat located within
and near municipal planning boundaries. It also provides towns with access to
the expertise and the tools needed to take an active stewardship role in
maintaining their value and integrity.
Mr.
Speaker, several municipalities have successfully used support provided through
this program to protect habitat for a variety of waterfowl, shorebird, seabird
and songbird populations.
Mr.
Speaker, our government recognizes wildlife resources provide tremendous
recreational, social, spiritual and economic benefit to the people of this
province. Through this program, which is unique to Newfoundland and Labrador,
government has established already 39 formal Municipal Habitat Stewardship
Agreements with communities stretching from Forteau to Channel-Port aux Basques
to St. John's in a process that recognizes and incorporates stewardship and
conservation into the municipal planning process.
We also
plan, Mr. Speaker, to build upon the success of this program by entering into
two more Municipal Habitat Stewardship Program agreements in the coming days.
Now that, Mr. Speaker, is deserving of a very hearty bravo.
Mr.
Speaker, I extend congratulations to all participating communities for
demonstrating the foresight and commitment to being involved in the Municipal
Habitat Stewardship Program and I look forward to participation from many other
communities in the future.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we are
supportive of these initiatives. Municipal Habitat Stewardship Agreements
encourage municipalities and individuals to be good stewards of our natural
resources. Any opportunity to educate and encourage residents to use and protect
our natural habitat is a good thing.
A number
of municipalities in my area, Bauline, Torbay and Flatrock, already participate
in these agreements and next week Pouch Cove will be signing on. I look forward
to joining the minister at the event at Shoe Cove Pond Park on Monday.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Newfoundland and
Labrador is known for its natural beauty and it is essential that work be done
to preserve and protect wildlife in our province.
recognize the many people involved on the provincial and municipal levels in the
Municipal Habitat Stewardship Program. It is encouraging to hear the reported
success of this collaborative approach.
I hope
the minister will work to speed up – actually, I'm sure the minister will work
to speed up the Stewardship Agreement process so more municipalities can be part
of the program in the near future. I'm sure he won't let me down.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Hibernia and its partners, including
the Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. and its lead owner
ExxonMobil Canada, on 20 years since first oil, which will be celebrated
tomorrow, November 17.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
How quickly 20 years passes.
Employing over 1,500 highly skilled professionals in a variety of professions,
Hibernia continues to have a significant and positive impact on the industry and
on our economy. It was the reason that the Bull Arm site was built and remains a
world-class fabrication facility. Every year since, Hibernia has contributed
millions of dollars to the economy thought service contracts and sub-contract
employment.
From
research and development at Memorial, investment in the arts at the Newfoundland
Symphony Orchestra, to support for our natural history at the Hibernia
Interpretation Centre in Conception Bay South, Hibernia is not just an oil
producer but an iconic Newfoundland and Labrador institution.
Mr.
Speaker, it was almost a year ago that Hibernia marked the tremendous milestone
of having produced 1 billion barrels of oil from the field, with almost 700
million in reserve and possibly more.
Newfoundland and Labrador is considered one of the best frontier regions in the
world today with over 20 basins and over 350 leads and prospects defined. Hebron
is coming on stream and other developments are underway.
Congratulations to Hibernia and its partners, including the Hibernia and
Hibernia southern extension co-venturers, Chevron, Suncor, Statoil, Murphy,
Canada Hibernia Holding Company and Nalcor. We look forward to your continued
success.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We certainly join
the government in congratulating the Hibernia Project and all of its partners on
20 years of production.
The
Hibernia Project has helped transform this province and its economy, all while
providing hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians well-paying jobs.
The
Hibernia Project was truly the entrance of our province into the oil industry. I
would be remiss if I did not mention two of the greatest supporters of Hibernia,
but also architects of the Atlantic Accord: former Premier Brian Peckford and
former federal Minister John Crosbie. We thank them for their vision and their
support in the industry.
The
future of our oil and gas sector is bright, as long as we continue our research
projects, seismic programs and continue to offer a competitive business
environment right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Hibernia Project was
the beginning of our offshore oil industry, which has brought much-needed direct
and indirect employment and revenue to our province. We've seen much growth in
the industry since then. Today, Hebron is poised to start production and there
is, as the minister noted, great promise for the future.
Here's
hoping, on behalf of all the people of the province, we have many decades of
prosperity from our offshore oil industry as part of our growing economy.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
minister?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday here in Question Period we asked the Minister of Finance to
table a list of positions eliminated by attrition. The minister said he was
going to have a look for it and committed to provide the information.
I ask
the minister if he can table those positions eliminated through attrition here
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
be quite delighted to table those. In speaking with the officials in my
department today, Mr. Speaker, because of privacy concerns and some people that
are affected, we are combing through that to ensure that any privacy issues are
not a concern, and we will be tabling that as quickly as we can get it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the
minister can't provide details of positions, is he able to give us a number? How
many positions have been eliminated by attrition this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are 286 positions that were identified for elimination. There were 207 that were
in '16-'17 budget. There are 54 positions that are remaining. Some of those
people are positions that are individuals that have been identified as retiring
soon, and those positions will become redundant once that happens.
2017-18 it was 320 positions; 28 positions remain; and similarly, some of those
individuals are still working and, as they retire, we'll make those positions
redundant. Not all of those positions that I've just identified were attrition,
Mr. Speaker. Some of those were the reduction in the number of managers and
deputies, communications and so on.
Mr.
Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister mentioned two numbers for '16-'17, 286 and 287. Is that a combination
or is 286 the total number? Are you able to tell us how many positions were
actually eliminated through attrition?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
numbers that were true attrition were 267 positions, directly related to
attrition. There were a number of positions, Mr. Speaker, as well where we
allowed people salary continuance. They continued to work.
Those
are the numbers that there are some privacy concerns around. Those people
obviously may not wish to be identified. Those people are still working; the
position has been identified as becoming redundant. They're continuing to work
and receive a salary until that time is up, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister to provide us with the information as to what are government's
targets when it comes to attrition. How many positions will be refilled as
people leave?
The
government must have a target. What's your target, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, that number is a
floating number because it's not the same. If somebody at Her Majesty's
Penitentiary, for example, one of the correctional officers retires or quits,
whatever the case might be, I'm not exactly sure we can leave a position down
there vacant.
We can't
put a firm number on it across the board. Different departments, different
agencies will have different numbers, Mr. Speaker. That question is a question
that doesn't have a straightforward answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
understand departments and agencies may have different numbers within them but,
overall, government should have a target; if it's to replace an overall number,
if 10 leave, replace with eight or replace with seven or nine. There should be a
number. There should be a target.
Minister, is there an overall target for government wide?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
target for 2017-18, Mr. Speaker, was 320 positions. There are 28 of those
positions that we have not yet realized.
that's the target for 2017-18. Many of those positions were true attrition. Some
of those positions, Mr. Speaker, are under salary continuance and some of those
positions were as a result of resizing government and departments, and
eliminating manager or deputy minister positions, for example.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister.
appreciate the fact that you may not have information in front of you as to what
those varying attrition targets are for each department, but I'd ask you for
your department. You must know what the attrition target is for your own
department. What would that be?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I will get that
number for the individual. I'll provide that for my department, that individual.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, there are some privacy concerns here. I don't know if the Member
opposite is trying to create fear in the public service or create anxiety within
the public service, but the way we have dealt with this is very respectful to
the employees of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are
not targeting mass layoffs and we do not wish to create any concern, anxiety or
fear amongst the public service. We have dealt with attrition without mass
layoffs. We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to find efficiencies without affecting
people the way the Member opposite might like to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, not at all; we actually campaigned in 2015 on an attrition plan, which
we introduced some time before that to exactly do that, to avoid layoffs. The
Members opposite said they didn't need to do any of that and here they are doing
all kinds of that stuff that they promised not to do.
As far
as numbers go, Mr. Speaker, there shouldn't be any privacy issues about
providing just raw numbers on how many people are impacted. There shouldn't be
any privacy issues around that.
So I
appreciate the minister going to give me the number for his department. Can you
tell me what the attrition targets are for Nalcor, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know
where the Member's black hat is, but I think he's on a witch hunt. We are not
going to allow fear and anxiety to be put into the public service.
What we
are doing, Mr. Speaker, is finding efficiencies. We've done that through
departments. We're asking agencies, boards and commissions to take on finding
efficiencies; we're not asking them for mass layoffs. Where somebody retires or
a position becomes redundant and if those positions don't need to be filled,
they won't be filled.
What I
will say to the Member opposite is that we're not targeting individuals and
we're not going to set out targets that are not realistic.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Attrition is exactly about not targeting individuals; it's about targeting
opportunities to reduce the cost to government. When it comes to agencies,
boards and commissions, which the minister said yesterday they're now going to
ask agencies, boards and commission to reduce through attrition, they've
actually budgeted this year $41.9 million in savings from government agencies
when actually there's been a spending increase of $18 million.
Can you
explain to me, Minister: When you targeted a reduction of $42 million, how is it
you have an increase in costs of $18 million?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Some of that number, Mr.
Speaker, was pensions.
But it
also outlines – I'll ask the Member: Are you supporting the legislation to
ensure that we find efficiencies within agencies, boards and commissions?
Because, Mr. Speaker, if he's not supporting it, I think the people of the
province should know that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, it becomes more
difficult at all times to receive information from this government.
This is
not our first time asking for those details. As a matter of fact, back on April
28 we had a meeting with officials in his department. We were promised to be
given a number of items and pieces of information which we've failed to receive.
It's the first time we're actually being able to get some information from the
department.
question for you, Minister, was you've announced in your fiscal update an
increase in spending by agencies, boards and commissions of $18 million, when
you've budgeted this year a reduction of $42 million. How did that happen,
Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll give him
the answer again: Much of that number was due to pensions.
We do
need, within our agencies, boards and commissions, to find efficiencies and
that's what we're looking for, the same way we found efficiencies within
government departments. We're looking for efficiencies. We're asking agencies,
boards and commissions to put in place an attrition plan, the same as we have
within government so that they don't have to lay off people in a way that's not
fair to the people that are working for them.
We're
asking for savings, we're asking for attrition, we are asking for efficiencies,
Mr. Speaker, and that's what we expect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I believe what
we have here is a difference between $42 million in savings versus an $18
million increase in spending by agencies, boards and commissions. That could be
a $60 million difference. Now, I'm not trying to assert that or suggest that,
I'm simply asking the Minister of Finance to explain that.
He did a
fiscal update this week and said there's an $18 million increase in spending.
They forecasted a decrease of $42 million. I'm asking the minister to explain
how that happened.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, if the Member
opposite would like me to write pensions on a piece of paper and have the Page
deliver it to him across the House, I'll do that.
I will
say again: Much of that number was pensions. Do you want me to spell out
pensions? Much of that number was pensions. I've identified it. It's the third
time I'm answering this question. Much of that number was pensions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
effort on the minister. He's not able to answer the questions so he's trying to
find something to use up his time, I assume.
We have
$42 million in savings. Is he saying $42 million in savings was supposed to be
pensions, but the increased $18 million is actually pensions? I've asked for an
explanation and he can't provide it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, after our
meeting on April 28 the department had promised to provide us with a number of
clarifications on items regarding the budget.
Minister, are you able to provide any update if we're going to receive that
information? We've asked for it.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I'm sorry, there was somebody
else speaking. I'll ask the Member to repeat his question so that I have it
clear. I apologize.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We met
with officials of his department on April 28 regarding
Budget 2017 . We actually followed up with a letter to the then
minister on May 5 listing a number of items that we were promised to receive
from officials. We've not received those clarifications, those items as
requested.
The
minister may not be able to answer it today; will he certainly try to ascertain
if this letter will be responded to?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly
seek out the letter. I'm not aware of the letter. I haven't read the letter.
I'll certainly seek out the letter and to the best of our ability we will answer
the questions or get the information that the Member has requested.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
meeting we had with officials from the department, there were a number of pieces
of information given to us regarding government agencies, boards and
commissions, or government agencies as it was the extent of agencies. One of
them was on the College of the North Atlantic, an estimated $5 million in
reductions in salary and benefits.
Are you
able to provide us an update on that, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite was in that meeting, I wasn't. He should know I wasn't there.
If he
wishes to present me with a list of the items that he had at that meeting, I
will endeavour to get the information. I wasn't at the meeting. I can't answer
the questions as to what you've asked or what the answers were coming out of
that meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Actually, it was included on
budget documents provided by the government, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't just a
verbal; it was actually in documents provided by the government on zero-based
budgeting, savings of $5 million for the College of the North Atlantic.
Actually, for the regional health authorities, accounting and standardizing
assumptions was an $11 million savings.
Maybe,
Minister, you can check on those for us as well. You probably don't have access
to them today, but would you look at those as well and provide us with an update
on those?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, absolutely. Any of those
issues that haven't yet been answered, the Member can put them on a piece of
paper, get them to me, I will certainly endeavour to get the information for
him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Health: In your proposed legislation to implement the
Prescription Monitoring Act ,
why are the minister's powers to administer, monitor, educate and report to
the regulatory authorities so great? Don't you think these responsibilities
would be better served to be handled not by politicians, but by an agency
outside of government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The act,
which begun yesterday in terms of second reading, is entirely consistent with at
least two, if not four, other jurisdictions in Canada, certainly in terms of the
powers and range that the Member opposite refer to.
As far
as the discussion of how the act will look after this House is finished debating
it, I look forward to comments from the Member opposite in Committee, and we'll
be happy to deal with questions like that at that time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might
want to note to the minister also that there are a number of other jurisdictions
that have a monitoring board that oversees that, particularly one of our sister
provinces in Nova Scotia that seems to be working very efficiently.
The
minister will have the ability to assign an inspector into medical clinics and
inspect personal medical files; is this correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question.
Our
legislation lines up nicely with PEI and Ontario, so there are a whole variety
of models – and we are actually the last, so we're learning from our sister
jurisdictions about missed steps they may have made.
In terms
of the enforcement powers under the act, those are under discussion. We have set
this act as primarily an education approach for the vast majority of compliant
physicians. There are, unfortunately, a small number of non-compliant ones and
it is for those that the Centre for Health Information will have some powers to
enforce compliance, Mr. Speaker, and that's necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So I ask the minister: Why
does the minister need this totalitarian authority over this program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it's rather an emotional adjective to apply to the powers of the minister. It
fits entirely with PEI, which I've not noticed is a totalitarian jurisdiction,
and also Ontario, which I hear is quite democratic also.
The
minister's power and oversight will be as part of a mechanism with an advisory
board, which will consist of physicians, pharmacists, social workers and a
variety of other stakeholders who will feed into that system, entirely as it is
done in other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
From the act that I read
yesterday and the responsibilities that are outlined by the minister, he has
total control over this.
I ask:
Why does the minister have full authority over who gets to see people's personal
medical files? You have total authority in that act that's being presented.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, reading further
down the act, the Member opposite will no doubt realize that the powers of the
minister will be delegated to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health
Information. It is they who will administer the program. The facts of the case
are this is entirely consistent with other jurisdictions and is meant initially
as an educational exercise, but also there is, unfortunately, a need for
enforcement.
We have
a problem with opioid prescription diversion on the streets. People are dying,
as a consequence of this, at an average in this province, unfortunately, of 16 a
year. This will deal with that crisis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
So the things the minister
talked about are things that he would like to do. It says he has authority, that
he shall, but in no case or no evidence here does he outline any of those in the
act.
The
question here is: Why are these things not outlined in the act, that the centre
will be the inspection agency and the agency that will assimilate all the
information? Why does he not outline exactly how the process will work? Why
won't you put that into your act right now?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, there is a
pressure to act and there is always a balance to be achieved between what goes
into
an act and what goes under regulation.
This is
not
an act as yet; this is a bill. There is ample opportunity for this
discussion in Committee rather than grandstanding in front of the House in
Question Period when 45 seconds is nowhere near enough time to explain those
nuances. I look forward to Committee, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
As we made perfectly clear
yesterday, this side of the House is very supportive of addressing opioid
misuse.
I ask
the question: Why are opioids not identified in this piece of legislation? This
is the intent of addressing that issue that we have in this province. Why is it
not identified?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
intent of this bill is around opioids. The regulations that will come out under
this act will stipulate that.
We are
talking about monitored drugs. There are other lethal drugs out there apart from
opioids. We have to do this in a bite-sized approach, but we need to deal with
the issue at the moment which is killing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That
is the diversion of prescription opioids and the uncertainty on the street as to
what they're actually doing.
Sixteen
people died in this province last year. No time for any more feet dragging, Mr.
Speaker – we need to get on with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
We totally agree that this
needs to be addressed, but the manner in which this piece of legislation is
outlined, where there are so many open-ended things, doesn't protect the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. Particularly, it doesn't go far enough to be able
to protect the individuals who are having these challenges.
The
other issue here is about why are other classes of drugs being open-ended so
that the minister has an ability to add, at a whim, any other drugs that he
wants to the Monitoring Program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I'm reminded by a comment
made by one of my learned colleagues yesterday. On the one hand, I'm
totalitarian, and on the other, I'm not being stern enough and strict enough.
I'm really not sure. Maybe that's an indication we're striking the right
balance.
The
facts of the case are that we have an issue with drugs at the moment. Next week,
next year, it could be W-18, it could be carfentanil.
The
minister, on the advice of his advisory committee – or her advisory committee, I
apologize – could well then introduce monitoring for those drugs. It allows
flexibility. Other jurisdictions have needed this and missed it when they didn't
have it. We're not falling into that pitfall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On this
side of the House, we don't find this issue very funny.
What I
do ask: Could you monitor antibiotics? Is that another drug that can be added to
the Monitoring Program?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the primary aim
of this act is educational. Monitoring of drugs will be left to a recommendation
between the advisory committee and the minister.
I see no
reason why, ultimately, every and any prescription in this province could not be
monitored. Why would you not? This is an educational tool, the like of which
could transform clinical practice for all prescribers. Why would you shut that
door?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree
with the minister's statement. Why don't you entrench that into the act? Why is
it so open-ended? What are you afraid of to have it in there so people would
know exactly what that act entails?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is an
issue of flexibility. If you entrench things, by definition you lose that
flexibility.
What we
need is the ability to respond to new public health crises in terms of urgency,
and what we need is the flexibility to approach our health care system and
prescribing through a thoughtful lens. You can't do that by going back to the
House every five minutes when you decide you want to put something else in.
This is
a balance between the totalitarianism he doesn't want and the lack of
enforcement that he complains of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
I just asked that the minister clarify exactly what this House would be voting
on and what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would expect would be
covered in a piece of legislation to protect them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
When questioned about
cancer patients who had been turned away from receiving treatment, the minister
blamed everybody but his government – policy, human resources and
communications.
I ask
the minister: Was a new full-time position put in place as a result of this
incident out in Central Newfoundland this past week?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
forgot, with the question at the end, the
preamble with which I would take some
issue. In terms of the specific question about the unfortunate communication
error in Central the other day, this was – and I have said that – a
communication error. These patients were wronged, in error, and that error was
rectified, Mr. Speaker.
Eastern
Health, that runs that clinic, has been tasked to find out how that occurred and
to make sure it doesn't happen again, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: At what point were you notified of this
incident in Central Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE: Mr.
Speaker, I found out about it the same time the media did. Apparently, somebody
called from the clinic in Grand Falls direct to NTV.
No manager, no nurse, no civil servant, no member of the
Department of Health was contacted directly about this. This all came about
through a direct phone call from a relative from the clinic to NTV. That's when
I found out, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island for a very quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL: I've
been told that repeated calls have been made to your office and to Eastern
Health with no response.
Will the minister respond to these patients who were
wrongfully let out of cancer treatment that they needed for life-saving
interventions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services for a quick response, please.
MR. HAGGIE: Mr.
Speaker, both patients were contacted. The urgent patient had their cancer
chemotherapy that day. The other was rescheduled at a mutually convenient point.
My department has had one phone call and is responding to
it as I speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS: Mr.
Speaker, this is a really hard time for women. Three women in our province were
murdered in six months and the #MeToo campaign shows sexual assault is still
rampant.
For decades and decades, women's organizations have
organized, written briefs, collaborated with government and police and given
training and awareness sessions. They've given input into a violence prevention
action plan, but the violence continues.
I ask the Premier: Will he do the right thing and strike an
emergency task force of specialists from the community to make specific
recommendations of what action must be
done immediately and in the long term by government departments and
community to eliminate this persistent violence against women and girls?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
Member opposite, it's been a very difficult time. I think this week has been
particularly challenging for women because of the deaths and violence that we're
seeing and experiencing.
Mr.
Speaker, our government, and I know all of us in this House, take this issue
extremely seriously. We do have a violence prevention plan. We went out to the
community last year and re-engaged and validated that plan.
increased funding for women's organizations for SHOP, for the transition houses
last year. We'll continue to do that; domestic violence court, for example. We
are working between departments to do the best we can with our community.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, we have the
highest domestic-violence rates in the country. Sexual assault is not going
away. But this is not just a Justice issue; we need all relevant departments
working together, including Status of Women, Education, AES, Health and CSSD.
Why will
the Premier not take immediate action and strike a task force so it can begin
this consultative work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. To echo my colleague, the
minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office, this is an issue which is
serious and on which serious action will be taken. One of the things that we are
doing is having a meeting in the very near future to discuss this very issue and
solid, concrete actions we can take.
I have
in front of me a list of the people and the groups that will be coming together
to meet. It involves Aboriginal and indigenous groups, MHAs from this House and
representation from all levels of government from multiple departments. It also
involves people who haven't been involved in organizations.
Survivors have reached out, people from the community. We will have everybody in
the same room to work together on this issue.
Thank
you.
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
Minister of Finance has stated in this House that he was not aware of his
government cutting any jobs or services since coming to power. Seniors were
negatively affected by cuts in 2016 and 2017. They lost the dental plan, they
lost home care hours that helped them remain in their homes and the wait lists
for affordable housing are still years long. Seniors are gravely concerned about
the prospect of future cuts.
I ask
the minister: What more is he planning to cut that will affect the lives of
seniors?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Housing
lists have been long for years. I do have to point out, Mr. Speaker, I find it a
little bit disturbing that the Member would fear monger. We announced that we
were bringing in legislation to ask agencies, boards and commissions to find
efficiencies and she tried to link that to the elimination or the cutting of
social assistance benefits.
Mr.
Speaker, we found efficiencies in the department that delivers social assistance
benefits, but we didn't reduce those benefits. In fact, I think they may have
been increased.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
fiscal update, the minister talked about – and did it again now – the cuts to
agencies, boards and commissions as if they were disconnected from previous cuts
made by government. But we know that future cuts to services and future
electricity rate hikes will be stacked on top of cuts already made to services,
as well as increases in fees and long wait times. The cumulative effect of all
of these cuts is more hardship for people.
I ask
the minister: How much more of a burden is he going to put on the backs of
seniors, working families and young people in this province with these
cumulative cuts to services? I can't believe the denial that he's in.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development, please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to say to the hon. Member across the way that this government is committed to
supporting initiatives. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the budget is now $250
million for poverty reduction – more than 100 poverty reduction initiatives. Two
hundred and fifty million dollars in budget '17, up from $190 million in budget
'16 – that's an increase from the budget in 2015.
I say to
the hon. Member: We are doing a lot for low-income seniors – the Income
Supplement, $122 million. We're hearing from people every day, Mr. Speaker. They
appreciate that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
George's – Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to present the report of the Privileges and Elections Committee on a point
of privilege of the Government House Leader, respecting the publication via
this House back in May.
Having
reviewed and discussed the point of privilege raised by the Government House
Leader, the commentaries of other Members and the parliamentary authorities, the
Committee concurs with the Speaker's prima facie opinion that the actions of the
Member for Mount Pearl North amounted to contempt of the House. The penalties
which can be imposed, if contempt is found, range from a reprimand to a
suspension from services of the House for a period of time with a salary
deduction for the duration of the suspension.
Given
that before the Committee had finished their deliberations on this question of
privilege, the Member for Mount Pearl North had resigned his seat to take up a
position in the private sector, the Committee does not recommend that any action
be taken by the House in this instance.
however caution Members that if a similar fact situation were to reoccur with
respect to a sitting Member, another committee might well exercise its options
to impose penalties.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank all Members who served on the Committee, the
vice-chair, the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port, the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Harbour
Grace – Port de Grave.
I would
also like to thank the Table Officers for their work, their knowledge and their
wisdom as they provided advice to the Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further reports by standing
and select committees?
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant
section 5(2)(
a) of the Supply Act ,
2017, I am tabling one Order in Council relating to the usage of the contingency
reserve for the '17-18 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
accordance with
section 19(5)(
a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby
table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission held on May 17,
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 27.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland
and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education
because of the lack of appropriate full time resources; and
WHEREAS
from 1964-2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a full time
quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf and hard of
hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only a fraction
of the school day with the teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of
hearing children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate, complete and thorough
assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a
committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of
deaf and hard of hearing education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker cannot hear what the Member is saying. I'd ask for the co-operation,
please, of the House.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
it's fairly ironic this is happening while I'm reading this petition. I have
already said in this House that I am hard of hearing and wear hearing aids –
MR. SPEAKER:
Agreed.
MS. MICHAEL: –
and the noise from outside
affects my hearing.
In duty
bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I will
not read the end of that. I have read it many times now. I'll read it when I
stand again.
I want
to take up on, though, the last part of the petition because it calls on the
need for access to sign language. The proof is there that sign language, number
one, is the language of people who are deaf, and many hard of hearing people
also use sign language who aren't completely deaf.
The
language is part of their life; it's a culture. One researcher has said the
language areas of the brain have no preference for language input. In other
words, language happens whether one speaks the language in an oral way or one
uses one's hands, it's still a language. Oral or manual doesn't matter in
acquiring a language base.
For
people who are deaf, the way in which they acquire that is through sign
language. It is their language. It is the way they speak, and our children right
now are being denied that in the schools where they are in the inclusion model
that we now have in this province. I beg the minister to listen to the people
who are petitioning, that things are made better for the deaf and hard of
hearing children in our schools.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
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
nurses are indispensable for delivery of high-quality health care;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to protect nurses' jobs when responding to
revenue shortfalls.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, there's nobody in this House who would argue about the quality and the
importance of nurses in our health care situation. The delivery of the services,
they're second to none. Their responsibility is at the highest level in the
health care profession.
We do
understand now when there's an aging population, a bigger demand on the health
care system itself, nurses play a very vital role there, very important. We've
heard stories about nurses having to work double shifts, nurses not getting a
day off in two weeks, nurses being stressed out over work, physical injuries
because of the workload and their inability to take time off to let those
injuries heal. We do realize the impact it's having.
We've
heard conversations here from the Minister of Finance about going out to
agencies, boards and commissions, finding ways to cut and generate or do more
with less. We realize nurses are so important to our health care profession
here. There has to be some security for these nurses. These nurses are going
above and beyond their call of duty to ensure that there's always somebody on
duty.
Again,
we hear about how many of them come back, double shifts, triple shifts
sometimes. We hear about the fact that they might make, on paper, a substantial
wage, a very lucrative wage, but if you add in how many extra hours they're
working – you're adding that they're doubling back, you're adding that they're
working every weekend through – the amount of income is only in line with any
other professional qualified area in this field that people get paid for.
What
we're talking about here is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can't afford
for there to be any cuts when it comes to the number of nurses that are
providing health care. As a matter of fact, the discussion has been around how
we increase the number of nurses so that we offer better quality of health care,
that we also ensure less nurses are off with ailments because they're not
overworked or they're stressed out, or their injuries haven't had the proper
time to heal.
There's
a continuum here that if we invest more money, we guarantee that the nurses that
are there get to stay and they know that there's security. If we also look at
better ways of investing in nurses so that they can take on other areas of the
health profession and support those avenues there, that also they can be a
support mechanism for what goes on.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again about the importance of
nurses in providing health care.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to stand today and present a petition on behalf of some of
the residents of my district.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
a piece of transportation infrastructure, the Witless Bay Line off Route 10, is
a significant piece of infrastructure; and
WHEREAS
it is a main highway and it plays a major role in the commercial and residential
growth of the region;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to perform brush cutting on the Witless Bay Line
for traffic safety reasons due to the volume of vehicles travelling this highway
daily.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue that's certainly come to light in regard to the safety
and driving experience for commercial reasons, residential and those that take
this highway from the Trans-Canada Highway to Route 10 on the Southern Shore – a
busy stretch of highway; over 20 kilometres, at this point in time, with
vegetation growth over the past number of months and, over the last year,
significant restricts in regard to sight lines, accessing that piece of
infrastructure.
Just
recently I went over that piece of highway, there is large vegetation close to
the highway and then especially late at night with the darkness as well and with
the tree line so close to the highway, sometimes even leaning right over the
shoulder of the road and restricting visibility.
We have
made the request to Transportation and Works to look at that this fall, or at
the latest the spring, to get some work done and to get this piece of
infrastructure in regard to maintenance related to cut back of vegetation along
the highway for the safety of the residents of the region.
We know
the Southern Avalon in regard to tourism, how important it is. As well,
industrial activity in regard to the fishery, other fabrication facilities on
the Southern Shore and the connection that has from the Trans-Canada Highway to
Route 10 on the Southern Shore is extremely important.
So we
certainly call on government to have this dealt with and dealt with immediately
to assist the general public in travelling that piece of infrastructure.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
school-aged children are walking to school in areas with no sidewalks, no
traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and
WHEREAS this puts the safety of children at risk;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure the safety of all children by removing
the 1.6-kiliometre busing policy where safety is an ongoing concern.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we had a private Member's motion by the Member for Baie Verte
– Green Bay – I think that's right – and we all agreed in this House of Assembly
about the safety of children. Yesterday, it was about school zones and the speed
limit in school zones.
things have changed in a lot of our districts, especially in my district, in
Torbay, we have 17,000 cars a day travelling down Torbay Road. Traffic is bumper
to bumper in the mornings and in the evenings. The safety – and that's what we
talked about yesterday. The whole issue with the PMR yesterday was about the
safety of children. I believe that the 1.6-kilometre busing issue should be
addressed and it should be looked at in areas. I know it's a cost factor for
government, but we should never put a cost on the safety of our children.
It's
important that government realize that. I know parents are very, very concerned
in my area, as in other areas, about the busing issue. So I ask and call upon
the Minister of Education who has the authority to change this policy to do so.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper again for debate, Order 7, second reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed
it's a pleasure to stand on my feet in the Legislature to add my voice of
support to Bill 25, the Prescription
Monitoring Act . I thank my colleague the Minister of Health and the
parliamentary secretary for Health and Community Services for speaking to this
yesterday and ensuring that it made it to the floor of the House.
Prescription drug abuse is an issue that affects every corner of this province,
Mr. Speaker, and every province in Canada. People are dying from drug overdose
and it is a heartbreaking reality facing individuals, families and communities.
As my
colleagues have pointed out, in this province there were 57 hospital admissions
last year involving opioid poisoning, and 16 apparent opioid-related deaths.
Prescription drug abuse is a real problem and, today, our government is taking
measures to help combat this problem.
believe that a Prescription Monitoring Program is a crucial tool in addressing
prescription drug abuse and inappropriate prescribing. The approach being taken
here today in Newfoundland and Labrador focuses on the inappropriate dispensing
of at-risk drugs that has also been taken by other provinces. Every province,
except Quebec, has some form of prescription monitoring.
Bill 25,
the Prescription Monitoring Act , sets
out the legal framework for a Prescription Monitoring Program and it will come
into effect on January 1. It will help detect questionable prescribing or
dispensing patterns and will include reporting mechanisms to address potential
issues of abuse.
Prescription Monitoring Program supports the work already underway as part of
the provincial Opioid Action Plan and builds in other measures we have taken to
address the opioid crisis.
Earlier
this year, our government launched the safe prescribing course. I am proud to
say that Newfoundland and Labrador is the first province to do so. Similar to
that course, there is an important educational component for health care
professionals with respect to the Prescription Monitoring Program.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program will alert pharmacists to questionable activity
when a prescription is filled. If an individual has visited multiple physicians
or pharmacies to get more drugs they will be flagged. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this
is happening.
Pharmacists will have a stronger ability to identify the excessive and often
inappropriate use of a number of serious drugs. Physicians will also be able to
get a clearer picture of their prescribing practices and determine where there
are opportunities to improve or make changes to their respective practices as
needed. As part of this legislation, as of June 30, physicians and other
prescribers will have to review a person's complete medication history using
HEALTHe NL – the electronic database – before writing a prescription for an
opioid.
Prescribers and dispensers will have access to up-to-date, accurate patient
medical information. That will help inform their clinical decision-making
practices and support a patient's health care needs. It will certainly help
lower potential adverse drug interactions.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program has been developed in extensive consultation,
Mr. Speaker, and in close partnership with the advisory committee consisting of
provincial health care, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, community
groups and government officials. Government has also consulted with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Pharmacists' Association
of Newfoundland and Labrador. I join my colleagues in thanking these individuals
and agencies for their participation and input into the program and its
supporting legislation.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program is another step in our government's Opioid
Action Plan. A Prescription Monitoring Program complements work already underway
as part of this action plan and builds on other measures taken by our government
to address the opioid crisis including: a new mandatory safe prescribing course
for health professionals, developed in partnership with the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador and Memorial University's
faculty of medicine; the passage of Bill 55, which I was very proud to support
as well,
An Act Respecting Secure Withdrawal Management for Young Persons; a
public awareness and education program on opioids; and a naloxone take-home kit
program to increase capacity for opioid overdose.
Naloxone
pop-up tents were also available at various locations and festivals this past
summer and fall. These kits and the education on how to use them provided drug
users and their family with valuable information on overdose prevention.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program also builds upon the success of the provincial
Pharmacy Network, which gives health care professionals access to a person's
medication file. When a prescription gets filled at a pharmacy, the Pharmacy
Network stores information about a person's medication history, making it easier
for prescribers and dispensers to make more informed decisions about care and
helping prevent harmful drug interactions.
Data
from the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information shows that
benefits from the Pharmacy Network are already being realized. There has been a
decrease in adverse drug events, there has been a decrease in prescription
errors and there are reduced duplicate prescriptions, Mr. Speaker.
There is
also a public safety component of this legislation. The Prescription Monitoring
Program will help to protect the public by reducing the amount of controlled
drugs available illegally. It will allow the proactive sharing of information
with law enforcement for investigative purposes where illegal activity related
to controlled drugs is suspected. It will also allow the proactive sharing of
information with regulatory bodies for investigative purposes by
health-profession regulators where there may be professional misconduct on the
part of prescribers or dispensers.
In the
event of questionable activity, there are a number of options the Department of
Justice and Public Safety and the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health
Information will pursue including: educational activities or information sharing
with prescribers or dispensers; the prescriber or dispenser may be required to
explain the prescriptions in question; information on the prescriber or
dispenser may be provided to the appropriate regulatory body; or information on
the prescriber or dispenser may be provided to law enforcement.
The
electronic database for the Prescription Monitoring Program will reside with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. This is important
because the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information already
manages the province's electronic health record, including the Pharmacy Network.
The
object of this bill is to provide education, assistance and support. The
expectation, Mr. Speaker, is that prescribers and dispensers will respond to
requests for information. It will allow for the sharing of information with
enforcement agencies for investigative purposes and assist health care
professionals.
Mr.
Speaker, the misuse and abuse of opioids is a real problem facing our province.
That is why I am pleased to support a bill that will allow us to take action and
protect our families, our neighbours, our community and our youth. I ask all
hon. Members of this hon. House to do their part and support Bill 25.
Mr.
Speaker, I also wish to make mention of a group in my district: Stand Against
Drugs on the Burin Peninsula. It's been a group formed for a number of years.
The Member for Burin – Grand Bank and I have met with them a number of times and
attended a number of public sessions they have hosted.
There is
no doubt there is real concern and angst in the community out there, Mr.
Speaker, on the rampant nature of drugs in our community. That's why I was so
pleased that two of the main tenets of what the group on the Burin Peninsula had
been advocating for – one was secure withdrawal legislation for youth, Bill 55,
last year which we accomplished. I'm very pleased to say that we've done that.
Of course now, Bill 25, prescription drug monitoring, was the other major issue.
They put a lot of advocacy into this.
Ruby
Hoskins, who is their chairperson, has worked very hard on this. The whole
community came together, Mr. Speaker. I believe as legislators, as Members of
this House, that's what it's all about. It's when people can come together,
participate in the legislative process, not only as 40 of us, but as the
community engaging with us on the legislation that we bring in.
We have
to address the mental health and addictions issues that are out there, Mr.
Speaker. I'm very pleased with the All-Party Committee report on mental health
that I know the minister and the department now are implementing. There has been
a lot of work done.
As the
minister said just last week, the time for studies, analysis and review has
passed, Mr. Speaker. We've long gone past that. People are dying. That is the
reality. So to hear Members of the Opposition today in Question Period trying to
delay and further delay this – people are dying. That's why we're taking action.
We're taking decisive action to address the opioid crisis in this province and
try and save some of our youth. That's very important to us.
interesting statistic – as I was doing some reading on this, Mr. Speaker – for
every dollar that is spent on opioids, $1.32 is spent on opioid treatment. So
we're putting out in one hand and we're giving out in the other hand as well.
It has
major financial implications to the Treasury that need to be addressed, but that
is secondary to the issue of addressing the life-and-death situation that many
face, Mr. Speaker, some often through no fault of their own. They need our help
and our health care professionals need our help to ensure that there is a
framework in place to ensure that this exists so that prescriptions for
prescribers, for dispensers and for patients can be tracked.
Everyone
in that chain has a responsibility to be responsible stewards of what they're
doing, and that includes the patient, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes people find
themselves in a situation where they can't help themselves. They need
assistance. I certainly hope and I sincerely hope that the actions we are taking
as a government in bringing forth Bill 25 for prescription drug monitoring, Mr.
Speaker – I sincerely hope that it leads to saving lives and I sincerely believe
that it will.
When you
look at the number of bills that come before us here in this Legislature – and
each one of us often gets up to speak on many of them – there are some that you
can call game changers, Mr. Speaker. There are some that are just monumental. I
would put this in that category. Just as I did for prescriptive cancer coverage
for firefighters, both volunteer and career; as I did for Bill 55. There are a
number of things just in my short time here that I can say were very important
and votes that I remember taking.
I'm very
proud to say that we're going to move on this. I hope that all Members of the
Legislature, no matter of party, will concur. We need to address this crisis,
Mr. Speaker, with every tool that we can offer because any opportunity that we
can have to save even one life – just one life – that's worth the battle.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have the opportunity now as well to speak to this bill,
An Act Respecting the
Monitoring of Prescriptions in the Province.
Mr.
Speaker, as has been said – but I think it's important to say – there's nobody
in this House of Assembly, I don't believe, that does not support the principle
of what the government is trying to achieve with this legislation. Any
suggestion, I would say, that anybody on this side is trying to somehow delay
this or prevent this from happening – I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure I
speak for all Members over here – that's absolutely not true.
Part of
the legislative process, part of the democratic process and part of the role you
have on this side of the House of Assembly is to question legislation, to ask
questions, to provide suggestions, to seek out any weaknesses that might be
there so that hopefully we could strengthen those weaknesses. So as we go
through this process, Mr. Speaker, here in second reading, as we go to
Committee, I'm hopeful that perhaps there may be some amendments that could
possibly come forward.
Now,
unfortunately, if we look at the record of how things work in the House of
Assembly – and that's not tied to this government, it's just the system in
general – quite often it's very difficult to see amendments go through because
it's very hard, if not impossible, to change the intent. It's very hard, if you
change the intent of a particular clause in any way, it's usually ruled
unparliamentary.
So the
only way really that we could get some meaningful amendments, would be for the
government side to bring forward some amendments to its own legislation. We have
time and the ability to do just that. If government were to decide to listen to
some of the suggestions being made, not just by Members on this side of the
House, but by professionals and so on, whether it be the NLMA or other groups
that have concerns. I'll leave that up to them whether they will or not.
I will
say that I will be supporting this bill, regardless as to whether they make
amendments or they don't, because I believe we have a crisis situation in our
province as it relates to drug use, both illegal drugs as well as prescription
drugs. Now this bill is dealing with prescription drugs, but drugs in general
are a major, major issue in this province. Not just in the inner city and not
just in the urban centres, but throughout the province. We know a lot of that is
related to illegal drugs.
If we
think back years ago, we all know back 20 or 30 years ago you often heard of
marijuana. I guess it has been around forever. That will be legalized soon. You
would hear from time to time, perhaps very rarely, but sometimes you would hear
about cocaine. My goodness, now – I went to a session, I don't know if it was
last year or the year before, at O'Donel High School that the RNC had put off in
the school with the students. We were told they are after shutting down meth
labs, if you can believe it.
Here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, they're shutting down meth labs. There's every kind
of illicit drug you can think of, that you hear about in the media. It's no
longer on the Mainland. It's no longer in the United States. It's no longer in
South America. It's all here. It's here in our province. It's here in our
community. Everything is here, there's no doubt about it.
It is a
concern, but part of the problem, which I didn't realize to be quite honest,
really came to light for me in the last couple of years in particular. I had
heard there were issues with prescription drugs, of course. You hear it, but I
didn't fully appreciate, I don't think, the seriousness of the prescription drug
issue until the last few years. Primarily, through people who have come to me.
Constituents and people in the region and so on, people in the province who have
come to me looking for help.
One of
the big issues around opioids is getting a doctor, and I was shocked. I'm sure
other Members have experienced this, where they've had people come to them that
were not what we would call drug users, but people who may have had a workplace
injury, people that may have had a surgery perhaps of some kind and went to
their physician and were prescribed an opioid, OxyContin or – what's the other
one? OxyNEO, I think is the newest one, which is not supposed be as addictive I
don't think – and other prescription drugs and got addicted to them, and kept
going back to the physician and kept getting refills and got more and more
addicted.
I've had
people who have come to my office seeking help. I've had people who have had
physicians who have dropped them as patients. I have people who have come to me
who have addictions. They cannot get a doctor. They said: I've called every
doctor in town, I cannot – the question they'll ask: Do you have a prescription
for opioids? If the answer is yes: I'm sorry, I won't take you as a patient.
That is
a big problem. That is a big issue. I don't know if other Members have
experienced it. I'm sure you have. I have. I couldn't believe it when I first
heard it. I actually called a few doctor's offices, asked the question: Are you
taking new patients?
Well,
the first thing you do is find one that will take new patients because it's hard
to get a doctor. I actually called a couple of offices where I said: Are you
taking new patients? The answer is yes. I said, okay, by the way, this
individual has a prescription for opioids. I'm sorry; we're not taking patients
if they have a prescription for opioids. So we have a big problem as it relates
to opioids and in getting the help that people need.
We know
there are things that we need to do to address it. I have to say that I was very
glad when government implemented the naloxone kits to save lives, because that's
exactly what it's going to do and probably has done already – save lives. There
are people dying from this, but there's much more we need to do.
We need
to address this issue of getting physicians for people with opioid addictions.
That needs to be addressed. We also need to create – legislatively,
resource-wise and otherwise – methods to help people with their addictions and
to prevent more people from getting addicted to prevent error, to prevent abuse
and so on.
This
piece of legislation is another tool in that tool box. It's not going to be the
be-all and end-all. Without a doubt, it's not. It's not going to prevent people
from taking opioids, it's not going to cure people who have an addiction, but it
is another tool in the tool box in the fight against opioid addictions.
For that
reason and the seriousness of it – and as has been said, people are dying here
in this province each and every year; too many lives lost because of opioid
addictions. It's because of that that I will certainly, as I said, be supporting
this piece of legislation. I certainly commend the government on this one for
taking action.
I've
heard that said over there that we are taking action. Action has to be taken and
it has to be taken now. I do agree. I agree with the government on that one. But
just because we're taking action, which needs to be taken, that doesn't mean we
just simply all stand up and say: Great job, guys. Let's have the vote now. We
won't even bother to speak to it anymore. We'll just go on through the motions,
have the vote, all those in favour, everyone is in support. Pretend that
everything is perfect and that there are no concerns and no issues. We would not
be doing justice to the process or to the piece of legislation if we didn't
raise concerns that we had.
I'm sure
a number of the comments that I will make have been raised, certainly, by the
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island and other Members. There are things
that, hopefully, we can get some answers from the minister when we get to
Committee of the Whole, and I'm sure we will. I would like to see a few
amendments, but if that – as I said, I hope it would happen. I'll put it on the
record. If it doesn't happen, well, it doesn't happen, but we still need to do
it anyway. We still need to do it.
The
concern I have with it, that has been raised, relates to the duties of the
minister. That's part of it. If you go through the legislation here under
section 4: the minister shall administer the program; the minister shall monitor
the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs; the minister shall evaluate
the effectiveness of the program; the minister shall provide information,
professional consultation and assistance to the regulatory authorities relating
to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs; he shall monitor the use
of monitored drugs; and he shall educate prescribers and dispensers.
There's
a whole list of other things: to educate prescribers and dispensers regarding
the appropriate prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs; educating
individuals on the appropriate use of monitored drugs; report to regulatory
authorities on new and emerging prescribing patterns for monitored drugs. There
are a whole bunch of things here that the minister is responsible for and there
are a whole lot of powers that the minister has here, including being able to
investigate and being able to go into a physician's office, investigate and look
at personal health records and everything else.
Now, the
minister said there were a couple of provinces – I think he said PEI and one of
the other provinces where that's the way they do it. That's fine. There are a
number of other provinces that have an actual board, if you will, of
professionals, independent of the government, that do that work. So, I guess,
one of the concerns or one of the suggestions that I think would be best: that
would be the model that we would use, that we would have the independent board
that would do that work.
Granted,
the minister – and in particular, the minister we have now – is a surgeon. You
can't question the man's credentials at all. He knows all about this stuff.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Absolutely, a very competent
man. That's not the issue.
The
point is that he may not be in that chair tomorrow. It could be somebody else.
Two years from now, five years from now it could be somebody else; who knows who
might be there.
It's not
questioning this particular minister's understanding and ability to do all these
things, but we have to remember that anybody could be sitting in that chair at
any given time. I think to have that independent committee with professionals in
place would be the way to go.
It does
say here in the legislation that the minister could have advisory committees. It
says the minister may – may – it doesn't say shall. That's an important
distinction. It says: “The minister may, in accordance with the regulations,
establish one or more committees to provide advice and recommendations on
matters relating to the administration and enforcement of this Act that are
referred to them by the minister.” In other words, a lot of these duties,
responsibilities and powers that the minister has in the legislation, he may
delegate to a committee. He may, but it doesn't say he shall.
It's my
understanding, in the briefing I had, that the intent is that there would be two
committees, Mr. Speaker. One committee is going to be an operational or steering
committee. This particular committee would look at specific concerns with
specific cases, whether it be with a patient, whether it be with a prescriber or
whether it be with the pharmacist. There's a term there. I forget the term
they're using, but the pharmacist, anyways.
Basically, as I understand it, the intent here would be that there would be a
person – there would be a body that would be kind of overseeing this, the Centre
for Health Information. As they're monitoring the information, if they see a red
flag, an obvious red flag, around a prescriber or a pharmacist, pharmacy, if
they have concerning information and it's obvious to them, they could directly
report that to the governing body, whether that be the College of Physicians, in
the case of a physician, or to the panel for the pharmacists – I think that's
the body. The body that would oversee and govern pharmacists in the province as
an example, or to the authorities if they had solid information there was
something that would be criminal in nature would go to the authorities.
But if
they were kind of unsure, then they would have this other committee, this
steering committee, made up of a pharmacist and a prescriber – would have to be
on this committee – that they could refer that specific case to and they could
do further investigation and determine as to whether or not they had to make a
report to a governing body over the physicians or the pharmacists, or whether it
should be referred to the police and so on.
That's
one committee. The other committee, as I understand it through the briefing, is
an advisory committee. This advisory committee would be made up of professionals
and stakeholders. Their role would not be to deal with a specific case or to be
called together when there's a specific case or concern; theirs is more of an
advisory role to look at the program overall, how it's working, is it effective,
should there be things tweaked and so on, to make recommendations to the
minister to make changes perhaps to the legislation or to the regulations and so
on.
That is
the intent, according to the briefing we received from the minister's staff and
so on; that's what this minister wants to do. It is what this minister has the
ability to do under the legislation, but it says he may do it. Another minister
may come in and say I'm going to scrap all of that; he may not do it. We
wouldn't know if he did it or he didn't do it, really, because once this is
passed and the regulations are written – and yes, it provides flexibility,
there's no doubt, but it also provides an opportunity or so on where things
could be changed. Perhaps things changed that Members of the House of Assembly,
if we were to discuss it, wouldn't agree with or the public wouldn't agree with
it or the governing bodies wouldn't agree with, but they can do it anyway
because it's all in the regulations.
That is
a concern that I think a lot of people have now. Now I have heard some
physicians – I listened to a media clip and I think it was the president of the
NLMA. He was talking about the fact that he didn't like the idea of this
inspector. He said that before you just send an inspector in, going to a
physician with the big stick, there should be other ways to deal with it.
I do
understand that through the process – and, again, I think through the
regulations the intent here would be that requests would be made to the
physician, requests would be made to the pharmacist looking for information, and
only when they don't get it they would take that approach. But again, it's in
their regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to speaking to this again. I see I'm out of time. I will
speak again in Committee.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I'd like
to adjourn debate on Bill 25.
At this
time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Minister of Natural
Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, Status Of The Artist Act,
Bill 22, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, Status Of The Artist Act, Bill 22, and that the said bill be now read
a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation to introduce
a bill, “Status Of The Artist Act,” carried. (Bill 22)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, Status Of The Artist
Act. (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 24, Serious Incident
Response Team Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 24 entitled, Serious Incident Response Team Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “Serious Incident Response Team Act.” (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
extremely proud to stand here today in the House and begin second reading on
Bill 24, the Serious Incident Response
Team Act . It's something that's been talked about, both within government
and within the public, for some years now. So to be able to stand here today, to
be able to begin the substantive part of debate on this bill and to look forward
to the Committee stage, third reading and then passage of this bill, which will
ultimately lead to the establishment of a SIRT in Newfoundland and Labrador,
something that the public has asked for, the public has in fact demanded and we
will be delivering on that now.
Mr.
Speaker, there's so much I could talk about this and so much I could say. It's
something that – there are so many reasons why we are here today to talk about
it. One of the things I wanted to reference – and I usually don't speak without
notes, but I have a few points here that I've made because I think they're
important to this and I don't want to forget them as I get caught up in this
time that I have for the debate.
We're
very lucky, extremely lucky in this province, we don't just have one, but we
have two police forces that protect the people and protect public safety in this
province. We have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and we have the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary. Both come from different backgrounds.
Obviously, the RCMP is a federal force which we contract with to deliver
services in this province. The RNC is a force that has been in this province for
centuries now – a very proud, historic tradition. Their jurisdictions are
different. The RNC covers the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and Lab West. We
have the RCMP that covers off all of the area that is not referenced, but mainly
in this province they are a rural-based force. They have a great tradition in
this province.
When you
look at policing in general, police officers are one of the roles that carry
with it a great responsibility to people, and with that comes an elevated
stature in the community. I've always said that growing up in a small town, the
RCMP were members that I looked up to. In fact, police officers were often some
of the best volunteers in our communities. They made up some of the best
volunteers.
For
instance, we played a lot of hockey and the members who came to our area, mainly
from away, from other provinces, and they came and served our community, not
just in their job, but they worked with the members in the community. They are
partners in the community. They become a part of that community.
That's a
part of policing. Policing is being a part of the public. As I said in a press
conference that we did earlier today, the public forms an essential
part in
crime prevention, in public protection. The police forces rely on the public to
do their job.
Mr.
Speaker, I say this to you as someone who needs no explanation, someone who has
served this province and served formerly as a member of the RNC. You're someone
that doesn't need this explanation. You've done this service, so you certainly
know of what I speak.
We look
at our police and we look at the duty that they have. I mean it carries with it
a serious responsibility. They come with an elevated position. They are held to
a different standard, as are many.
We've
had debates in this House in the last little while where we talk about the
different standard to which public servants, specifically Members of the House
of Assembly or city council or MPs, are held to a different standard. You know
what, that's been common throughout this province and others when we look at
certain positions where we have public trust, including the clergy, when we look
at teachers. There's a trust there. There's a fiduciary duty that we hold to
those people that we represent and policing carries with it one of the higher
ones.
With
policing, not only are they charged with protecting public safety, but they also
have the extraordinary power of withholding peoples' rights in the course of
their duty. It is only police that can deprive me of my liberty for being
accused of a crime. That's part of it.
That's a
serious, serious task. To know that they have this responsibility, that's
something they carry with them. It's drilled into them from the first day they
walk into their training, and it's carried with them right up to the day they
walk away from the force. You know what, it doesn't even leave then. Once it's
there, it's always there.
We're
very lucky in this province that we have a great history of policing, of police
involvement. Every day you can see what our police are doing out there in the
community, whether it's their job. I've been extremely lucky, as well, that in
the course of my duties in this department, I've gotten to ride along with
officers, of both police forces, to witness what they do on a day-to-day basis.
Again,
it staggered me how important it was and that was just on, say, one shift.
Imagine seeing what they do every single day. I didn't witness some of the
traumatic things that they have to witness, to experience and to deal with, but
I do have a certain appreciation. I've visited the training grounds for the
RCMP, their academy, to watch what they do. I have a very, very close
relationship with our policing forces, whether it's the RNC here.
We're
very lucky in this province to have two great leaders of our policing forces,
both of whom are fairly new to the position. Whether it's Peter Clark, who's the
assistant commissioner of the RCMP B division – he is the commanding officer for
the RCMP in this province – or whether it's Chief Joe Boland, newly minted chief
of the RNC, they're doing a tremendous job. We have utmost faith in them and
we're very lucky to have people of their calibre leading our forces here in this
province.
As I've
said, in order for the police to be effective in their jobs, for them to
safeguard the public, you cannot do this unless you maintain public confidence.
It is absolutely critical that the public be confident in the men and women that
are charged with the job of protecting them and of policing. It's an important
key source of information and we need that co-operation. You only have to speak
to any officer and they'll tell you that if they have a public that doesn't
trust, then it closes down the avenues of information. That's what they need to
go out and do their job.
There's
a gentleman named Sir Robert Peel who's known as the father of, basically,
modern policing. He started up the metropolitan London police back in the late
1820s, I believe. He was one of the architects of the principles of policing.
One of those was that the ability of the police to perform their duties is
dependent upon public approval of police actions. I concur with that
wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker. I completely agree with that.
With
this great responsibility, with this great power – and I would point out, as has
every other province and territory, as every state, just about every country,
any country in which there are police forces – we've, unfortunately, had
situations where there are accusations of police being involved in wrongdoing,
whether intentional or unintentional.
The fact
is, as I've said before and I'll say it again, even though there are a lot of
times where I think the police are superhuman and I compare them to superheroes
– where we run from danger, they walk to it, they run to it – the fact is they
are human. Just as there is not a profession out there that hasn't had a member
do something wrong or be accused of doing something wrong – lawyers, teachers,
doctors, politicians, you name it – there have been people that have done wrong,
that have contravened their code. Police officers are no different. They are
human. I'm happy to say that the vast, vast, vast majority never come close to
that, but sadly there are times, isolated in nature, where it does happen. When
it happens in policing, it undermines the public's confidence.
The
issue that we've dealt with – and it's evidenced by the fact that what we are
doing today in the creation of a civilian oversight independent team is already
in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia. This is evidence
of the fact that it's happened elsewhere. We're catching up. We are catching up
and putting ourselves where we need to be.
This is
not something new, but in the recent past we have had some very high-profile
accusations and incidents of a negative nature involving police. The question
becomes – the phrase that is used is blue-on-blue investigations, police
investigating police. Unfortunately, I've always said that sometimes in this
case, as it is in politics in general, perception is reality.
The
police can investigate, in some cases, on their own and they do a fine job, but
the perception is that there may be favouritism, that they might not investigate
as onerously as they should. Whether that's true or not, the perception is
reality. We cannot allow that because allowing that does not put the public at
ease, it does not strengthen public confidence. That we cannot allow because
that, in turn, affects negatively the ability of police to do their primary job,
which is to preserve public safety.
That's
why we here today are dealing with and debating the creation of a civilian
oversight team, because when this happens – and we've seen it happen in the past
in a very, very public manner. In fact, it's consumed the public's attention.
Even in just the last number of years, we've had incidents where it is the top
issue of the day for the public. It's something that in my almost two years in
this position I've dealt with very, very regularly.
That's
why we're going to eliminate any negative perception. We're going to eliminate
any chance that people might look at the investigation as being biased. We're
going to take steps to preserve, enhance and strengthen public confidence in
their police services.
I'm
going to get into this. I've had some people say: Well, why do you need this? To
that I say: I hope you will read what I just said. I hope you will go back and
listen to what I just said, but do you know what? I've had members of the public
come at me, whether it's in an airport or at a hockey rink or at a grocery
store, and talk about this.
This is
important to me, too, because it's one thing to bring this in – the general
public is supportive of this, this I know. I got off an airplane here in St.
John's one day, and as I was waiting for my luggage I had an individual approach
me. The individual knew who I was, perhaps from seeing the news. This is when
civilian oversight was in the news regularly. This individual said – first they
identified themselves and said, you know what, I'm police. I said: Well, thank
you, firstly.
The
second thing they said struck me. They said: I want civilian oversight. The
reason I want it, this person said, is because I know I do a good job and I want
the public to trust and know that I do a good job. That is the overwhelming
feeling of police officers.
This
bill we have here today, this concept of a SIRT, is supported by our police
forces. It is supported by the women and men who do this job because, as I've
said, we will not allow the actions of the very few to tarnish the positive
actions of the many, and many, the most – the majority of officers are doing
great work out there. We are so very fortunate to have them.
This
allows us the opportunity to ensure that when one goes astray, there will be an
investigation to preserve public confidence and at the same time these officers
know that they will not be negatively affected. A person doing their job is not
going to be in any trouble. It's supportive of this – we all are.
Again,
if I haven't already said it, and I say it every chance I get, thank you. Thank
you to the men and women who do this job. We can't say it enough. We should be
saying it every day. One only has to witness – there was a recent story in the
news about how that job – there are times when we think we have a tough job
being in the public eye, and then you look at what these people deal with and
the effect it has on them. It is absolutely amazing, the circumstances and
situations that they are in and they continue to do the job.
We all
know this is a valid concern. It's a real concern. We've seen it here. So we
announced a couple of years ago that we would bring in civilian oversight. The
bill we have here today will lay out what we want to do with civilian oversight.
What I'm
going to do, it is Bill 24. I would say that Members of the Opposition have had
an opportunity to be briefed on this and to ask questions. The media was briefed
on this today. I think that's very important, the opportunity to go through
that.
What I'm
going to take an opportunity to do is to hit some of the highpoints and to talk
about them and maybe why we chose to do what we did. I will also say, I've also
had the benefit of speaking with every SIRT director in the country. In fact,
I've had every one of them in my office. We've done this with the benefit of
speaking to the men and women, the civilian directors of these forces. They told
me the pros, the cons, the shortfalls, the lessons that we've been able to learn
prior to doing our own because some jurisdictions have made mistakes that affect
them to this day.
We've
also employed the use of some of these forces right here. We've had Alberta SIRT
here and we've had the SIRT from Nova Scotia led by Ron MacDonald here in this
province doing work. We benefited from their expertise, from their work just in
doing the actual investigation, and we've benefited from their expertise in the
work in drafting up this legislation, which I think is a very strong piece of
legislation, but also flexible enough to cover off future circumstances which I
will get into now as I continue through.
Some of
the features that are found in this particular legislation is that we look at
the mandate, and the mandate covers all matters including “… death, a serious
injury, a sexual offence, domestic violence and” – this is the catch-all here,
which is important – “other matters of significant public interest that” may
have arisen from actions of any police officer in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's
pretty comprehensive. Any one of those is a serious issue, but if something is
to arise that's not thought of, we have the last part which is a catch-all
selection that will allow us to make sure public interest is protected. Not
every province has that wide a mandate. Some have less than that. We feel that
what we've dealt with here in this province and what we've seen when we looked
elsewhere, this is an adequate means to catch this. Not everything is
investigated by SIRT, but these are all matters of significant public interest
that need to be looked at.
SIRT
applies to RCMP and RNC on duty and off duty. It applies to them all the time.
It also applies to anybody that's acting as a police officer while here in the
province, which is something that happens regularly. People come from other
provinces; while they're here they're subject to our law.
Three,
SIRT will be responsible to the minister for certain aspects such as budget;
however, the team will be operationally independent. In other words, I can't
tell SIRT to do an investigation or how to conduct it and I'm certainly not
going to be able to influence the outcome of an investigation.
Similar
to the police – this is a misconception that's sometimes out there. I don't tell
the police how to do their job. There's no political interference with the
police. How can we allow any politician of any stripe, especially one who's
never been a police officer, to tell the police how to do their job? I don't
tell them. They're operationally independent.
We deal
with the budget side, as we should. That's a prerogative of governing. But when
it comes to the work, we work with them and they tell us what they want to do.
There are times when they'll say this is a new approach that we want to take.
That's excellent.
The same
thing when it comes to SIRT. I'm not going to tell them how to do their
investigations and I'm certainly not going to influence, nor is any politician
going to do that. They're going to do the job and do it right because that is
what the public demands and that will ensure the public confidence.
This is
an important part. The concept of this is that it's not police on police; it's
civilian independent oversight. That's why the director, whoever is hired as the
director, can never have been a police officer. That's important. It is not the
case in any other province in the sense that nobody else has had a police
officer do this job, nor should you. In many cases it's a former Crown
prosecutor or somebody who has a legal background.
That's
something that we'll be looking forward to because, after this, the next steps
are the hiring phase, the finding of the director, finding the other
investigators, finding the admin staff. That will form part of it. We want the
best person for this position.
The term
will be five years with the ability to be appointed for another term of five
years. Appointments will generally be for five years with lesser terms being
used to allow flexibility in the appointment, in the event that a director from
another jurisdiction is hired.
We've
actually seen that. The director in Nova Scotia, someone that is familiar to us
in this province, is Ron MacDonald. Ron MacDonald has now taken on the job of
leading BC's SIRT. Once you get into it, it's a very specific level of expertise
and it's in demand, so we have that flexibility there.
This is
the second part, of which there are some questions. Investigators can be
ex-police officers, seconded police officers or civilian investigators. Before
anybody gets going and says: Well, my God, how can you do that? Remember, these
are investigators. You can't put somebody in who does not have an investigation
background. They have to have that ability and that's most often found with
police.
Another
thing to put out there to people, this is what is done in every other province.
So it might be somebody that comes who is retired; it might be somebody with an
investigation background, maybe in the military. It's amazing; I've had
interests come to me in the last year, people hearing about it that are there,
so I look forward to this process. The more people that apply, the better; the
best force we can get is what we all want.
But we
are prepared to have seconded police officers. In fact, there's the likelihood
that there will be one seconded from the RNC and one seconded from the RCMP.
Once they are seconded, they work for the civilian director. They don't answer
to the police forces.
That
question was brought up in the technical briefing of the media: How does that
work when they end up going back to their police force? What we've been told by
other forces is that is, in many cases, a badge of honour. To be seconded is
sought after; it's something that's looked upon favourably. And if it's the case
in other provinces, I'm very certain that it will be the case here. The most
important thing is we want the expertise and we want that background to be able
to investigate.
We will
also be hiring – obviously, there will be administrative staff. In BC, they have
one difference. In their case, they said you cannot be hired if you were a
police officer in the previous five years. What's happened in BC is that they've
had trouble hiring; they've had that issue.
I don't
mind saying – and this comes to me directly from the individuals that led BC –
BC had trouble from the get-go. They had trouble from the day they started,
because (
a) they didn't get it right when they started; they rushed it. That's
not something we are going to do here. We have learned from the mistakes of
others. This is not us picking on BC; this is self-admitted by BC. We're lucky
to have that. They were so gracious to tell us this. So we've learned from that
and certainly that's not something that's going to be rushed.
When we
talk about the creation of this team – this is just the legislation; the team
comes next. I'm hoping to see it done within six to eight months, but as I said
today, and I'll say it again in this House, we're not going to rush it. It's one
thing to do it and it's another thing to do it right, and we are going to do it
right. So if it takes more time, we'll deal with it; if it gets done quicker,
even better. But again, the creation and the composition of this team are as
I've described.
For the
purposes of the act, they will be deemed peace officers to allow them to do the
duties that they do as investigators. SIRT will have a broad, discretionary
power to investigate with the ultimate decision to investigate or take over an
investigation or refer to another agency. That's all left to the director of
SIRT. So they can take it over, they can refer it out, they make the decision –
that's what we need. So that's an important classification there.
I would
suggest that as we did this, there was a jurisdictional scan done across the
country of other SIRT legislation. So I think we've assembled the best piece
here based on what we've seen elsewhere, based on our specific province and
based on conversations and experience from the other jurisdictions. It's not
just looking at their law; it's talking to them. How is it this way? Why is it
this way? Would you do it the same or would you do it different? So I think we
have a strong model here proposed by our legislation.
SIRT
will have the ability to enter into agreements or arrangements necessary to
allow it to discharge its duties. This is where they are allowed to create MOUs
with police forces for the provision of specific services such as forensics,
such as securing scenes. They have the ability to do what's necessary to make
sure that the investigation is done properly.
With the
agreement of the minister, SIRT will have the ability to conduct an
investigation or do oversight in another jurisdiction. This comes back to one of
the issues that is outstanding and that remains: Will we have a Newfoundland and
Labrador SIRT or will we have an Atlantic model? That decision has not been
made, but this act is structured in such a way to allow us to go either route.
Now, we
know that the recommendations from the Dunphy inquiry by Justice Leo Barry,
Recommendation 5, were that we do an Atlantic model. I think the reason that we
would do that, and why I certainly think it's favourable, is because it allows
for economies of scale, it allows for us to be more efficient and it allows for
the sharing of resources. Officers from here can go elsewhere and vice versa,
and that's what this
section allows as well.
I'd like
to see that happen. I look forward to speaking with my counterparts again. We're
not closed to any idea. It might be a Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia
model. It might be an Atlantic model. It could be just a solely provincial
model. We're going to make the best decision based on what we can control and
what we can work out with other jurisdictions. These are all factors that play
into this.
Both
provincial police forces will be required to notify SIRT of incidents that may
fall within its mandate. SIRT also has the power to start its own investigation.
So we're saying to the police forces, specifically to the chiefs, as soon as you
know, as soon as it's practical, you need to notify SIRT ASAP, but SIRT also has
the ability to come in on its own and say we're going to do this. They can also
take referrals from the public or from the minister. The final decision on
whether to investigate or not is at SIRT director discretion.
If we
see something that's an issue, we can report it. If you see something that's an
issue, you can report it. If the public out there sees something that's an
issue, they can report it. At the end of the day, the civilian director will
make that decision.
Now,
this is an intricacy that is not seen in every other jurisdiction. I think it is
one that is extremely important, and it comes from that experience that we've
gathered from working with the other provinces. The SIRT director here will
consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions, will consult with the Crown,
on whether a charge should be laid in relation to the actions of a police
officer who is the subject of an investigation. If the charge is laid, SIRT
turns it over to the Crown.
What has
happened in other provinces is that SIRT did not consult with the Crown. They
lay a charge, and after the Crown looks at it the Crown says we have no
reasonable likelihood of conviction. It's very clear that the Crown cannot
proceed with any case against anybody if there's no responsible likelihood of
conviction. So instead of doing that, which we've seen happen elsewhere, which
can be quite embarrassing – again, this is the value of the advice being
provided to us – SIRT director says I'm laying a charge; the Crown Prosecutor
says, no, I can't do this.
Where do
we go? In our province, SIRT will consult with the Crown. Now, the ultimate
discretion is the SIRT director's, but it's much better to do this in
consultation with the Crown, with the Director of Public Prosecutions – in this
case right now, Ms. Jennifer Mercer, QC – to say, where do we need to go with
this? Again,