PDF Version

March

1, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 47

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

public galleries today, I'd like to welcome members of the executive of the

Citizens' Crime Prevention Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will

be referred to in a Ministerial Statement today. Joining us, we have: Roberta

(Bobbi) Stanford, who is the president; Kelly Piercey, the vice-president;

Cheryl Barrett, the secretary; Wilson Chaulk, past president; Constable Jason

Coombs, RNC liaison; and Constable Brad Squires, RCMP liaison.

Thank

you, and welcome very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome in

the public gallery, I am very pleased to welcome several guests who will be

referred to in a Member's statement today. That's Ms. Mary Shortall, she's the

chair of the St. John's Status of Women's Council-Women's Centres' Board of

Directors, and Director Ms. Dwan Street.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome

members of the Friends of India Association, including: Rafid Khan, Sudhir Saha,

Ela Saha, Nabila Quereshi, Shirley Swamidas and Reshma Amanat.

Welcome

to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of

Ferryland,

St.

George's - Humber, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Windsor Lake, and

Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

recognize the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the steamship

S.S. Florizel off Horn Head Point in

Cappahayden on February 24, 1918. Of the 137 souls onboard, 17 passengers and 27

crew Members survived.

This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending a

commemoration event in Cappahayden. This involved a wreath laying ceremony at

the newly constructed Florizel viewing site, storyboards listing names of those

involved and details outlining what happened that night. The Town of

Renews/Cappahayden also renamed a road, Florizel Lane.

Following the site events in Cappahayden, a get

together was held in the Town Hall in Renews to showcase local musicians,

storytellers and a theatrical production of the events from 1918. There was also

original songs about the untold stories of how the heroic residents helped in

the rescue on that early morning.

I want to recognize the organizing committee of the

event and especially Susan Sheehan for ensuring that a significant marine event

in our history is remembered and we ensure such a significant part of

our culture and history be

shared with residents and all those that travel to the region.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the Town of

Renews/Cappahayden on the commemoration on the 100th anniversary of the

Florizel and certainly ask everybody

to visit the site.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of George's - Humber.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recount a little known story of events which happened 150 years ago in the Bay

St. George South area and to recognize a group of dedicated volunteers working

to preserve the heritage of the area.

In April

of 1868, six boys ages 11 to 16, and one young man, 21, stowed away aboard the

Arran , a bulk carrier leaving Scotland

bound for Quebec. The boys remained on the ship until they were abandoned on the

ice floes out in Bay St. George, off the community of Highlands on May 15.

Two of

the younger boys did not survive; and had it not been for the sighting by

Catherine Anne Gillis - MacInnis the other four may have suffered the same fate.

The four

boys were rescued by fishermen and brought ashore where they were treated kindly

by residents. The captain of the vessel was eventually convicted of homicide and

sent to jail.

This

year members of the Bay St. George Heritage Association and the local service

district are planning an event in May to commemorate Catherine's sighting and

rescue of the boys.

I ask

all Members to join with me in wishing them well with this project.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we

all heard the news that Jenny Wright and her daughter Shelby had survived a

harrowing collision on the Southern Shore highway, there was an enormous

outpouring of concern and support. Jenny's commitment to the feminist movement

and to the innovative work by her team at the St. John's Status of Women

Council's Women's Centre is legendary.

I am

thrilled to report that Jenny and Shelby are recovering and Jenny's team at the

Women's Centre continues to do fantastic work. Their “Right Here, Right Now”

counselling clinic, the province's first and only drop-in, single-session

counselling clinic specifically for women, quickly connects with women and

refers them on to complimentary programs and well on to the road of recovery.

Conceptualized by the Women's Centre and partnered with Catherine de Boer from

the School of Social Work at Memorial University, “Right Here, Right Now” has

had its first comprehensive evaluation and has proven to be a resounding

success.

Bravo to

Jenny and her extraordinary team, and her fabulous board members for creating a

drop-in counselling centre that is useful, relevant and responsive.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

acknowledge the Town of Springdale and its residents for holding their second

ever Random Acts of Kindness Week, which was enjoyed the week of February 17-23.

Random

Acts of Kindness Week encourages residents to give to a neighbour, co-worker or

classmate, as a way of saying thanks.

The

event is promoted by the Town of Springdale which was kick started by delivering

fruit trays to local groups. Others have jumped on board: strangers paying for

coffee for the vehicle behind them in the Tim's lineup, others were shovelling

driveways, students holding doors for one another and delivering flowers to

their teachers. As the week went on, it became more contagious.

Teachers

were placing motivational notes on students' lockers and bringing treats for all

to enjoy.

Indian

River Academy decided to promote the idea even further by placing a tree in the

school lobby decorated with a heart for every act of kindness.

Social

media was alive with related stories of kindness. It was a wonderful idea the

whole community rallied around and you could sense it everywhere.

I ask my

colleagues to join me in applauding the residents of Springdale.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the Friends of India

Association.

For over

52 years this organization has worked tirelessly to preserve, create awareness

and promote the Indo-Canadian cultural heritage here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Led and

operated entirely by volunteers, the Friends of India Association offers

year-round cultural, social and educational programs that bring many communities

together by showcasing Indian and other ethnic traditions through music, dance,

cuisine and art. Designed to promote multiculturalism, the activities and events

that the Friends of India Association host foster friendships between people of

Indian origin and of all the people throughout our amazing province. The

organization is a non-profit, secular, non-political organization that has

multi-generational volunteers who not only celebrate culture, but also give back

financially to young people for educational opportunities.

Recently, I was privileged to celebrate the 69th Republic Day Celebrations

hosted by the Friends of India.

behalf of the people of the province, I would like to express our gratitude to

the Friends of India Association for more than five decades of work and

dedication to promoting the rich cultural heritage of India in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With leave of my colleagues, I'd like to deliver a

Member's statement.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Does the Member have leave?

HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Please proceed.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

recognize the amazing dedication Alice Cumby has made to the residents of

Heart's Content.

Ms. Cumby moved to Heart's Content in 1965 with her

family. When the town was incorporated in August 1967, an advertisement went out

for a part-time town clerk. Having two small children at the time, and being

what you would call a people person, Alice decided the two-day job would be

something she would enjoy and applied for.

Mr. Speaker, Alice was the successful candidate and on

March 1, 1968, she began her role as town clerk/manager and has held that

position as the town clerk/manager of Heart's Content ever since.

Today marks 50 years since Alice Cumby began working

for the town. What started out as a two-day-a-week job has grown into a full

career, half a century in the making that anyone would be proud of. The Town of

Heart's Content has seen positive changes over the past 50 years and Alice has

been a part of many of these changes.

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

join me in congratulating Alice Cumby for 50 years of municipal service to the

residents of Heart's Content and best wishes as she continues to serve the

residents of the town.

The Premier and I will be in Heart's Content later this

evening to attend an event in her honour and look forward to congratulating

Alice in person.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, I rise today in

this hon. House to recognize Mr. John Antle, Principal of Exploits Valley

Intermediate and Mr. Michael Tobin, Principal of Paradise Elementary, both of

whom were named to the list of Canada's Outstanding Principals for 2018.

For over

14 years, the Learning Partnership's Canada's Outstanding Principals program has

annually recognized the important contributions of the country's top 40

principals in publicly funded schools. Candidates are nominated by parents,

colleagues and community members, and are chosen by a national selection

committee for their work demonstrating creativity, innovation, leadership and

student achievement and success.

Mr.

Antle has been recognized for his leadership role in the development of the

Positive Behavioural Intervention Strategies program, which focuses on rewarding

positive actions and behaviours in the school.

Mr.

Tobin's efforts are being acknowledged for his focus on innovation and his

encouragement for more technology-facilitated learning within the school.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend Mr. Antle and Mr. Tobin for their work and continued

commitment to our province's education system as they join the prestigious ranks

of the National Academy of Canada's Outstanding Principals, which I understand

has more than 400 members now. I thank them for the dedication and for the vital

role they play both as principals, influencing, inspiring and positively

impacting the lives of students and school communities.

I invite

all hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Antle and Mr.

Tobin on this incredible achievement.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Official Opposition

congratulates Mr. John Antle and Mr. Michael Tobin for making it to the list of

Canada's Outstanding Principals of 2018. These gentlemen have gone above and

beyond in their fields and the results have been a significant, positive change

in the lives of their students.

Being

recognized by the Learning Partnership's Canada's Outstanding Principals program

gives this side of the House a tremendous sense of pride that we are able to

call these educators Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

commend Mr. Tobin and Mr. Antle for being recognized as leaders in their

professions and the contributions they are making to Newfoundland and Labrador's

education system.

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 his statement. It's wonderful to see

two of our provincial educators being recognized on such a prestigious level for

their valuable contributions in our schools.

I would

hope that the department is learning from the work they are doing. I would

encourage the minister to look at how these programs, which are being recognized

so wonderfully by their colleagues, can be spread out throughout our whole

system.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the

challenges facing Newfoundland and Labrador's health care system today,

innovation holds the promise of opportunities to drive meaningful change.

Mr.

Speaker, started about six years ago in Montreal, Hacking Health is an

international movement designed to improve health care through diverse

partnerships. Today, there are active chapters in more than 60 cities in 15

countries.

The St.

John's Hackathon, March 9 to11 at Memorial, is a weekend-long event designed to

break down barriers to health innovation. At a hackathon, health care

professionals, IT developers and designers, technology innovators and

entrepreneurs form teams, and each actually develops a solution to a known

challenge in health care in this province.

One

thing Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer to many health innovators and

entrepreneurs is the potential to design and test provincial solutions, which

can then be promoted to other jurisdictions. Today, there are about 10 local

start-ups, at various stages, operating in the medial technology sector,

offering a broad range of services from point-of-care devices to apps

specifically focused on seniors. Some of these early stage ventures have come

about from previous Hacking Health events in St. John's. Some of these start-ups

were at our technical summit last week. This summit put forward a clear plan to

encourage that innovation and the growth of provincial tech companies.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage companies and people throughout the province to take

part

in the upcoming Hackathon. For more information, they can visit

hacking-health.org .

Good

luck to all of the participants. Thank you for your desire and drive to change

the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. As the minister stated, we

face numerous challenges in the health care system. Through such innovative

approaches like the Hackathon, we can find creative ways to find solutions that

bridge gaps. Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the best and brightest minds,

and it's encouraging to know their involvement and contribution to this project.

I look

forward to the solutions and suggestions, which will surely benefit so many in

this province. I join the minister in encouraging local companies to take part

and to participate in this upcoming event; your support is appreciated. Good

luck to those participating. You make us all very proud to be Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I'm glad to hear about

the Hackathon happening once again in St. John's, as it is such a great

opportunity for technology innovators to collaborate with health professionals,

project managers and entrepreneurs to design solutions in our health care

system.

I look

forward to hearing about the practical applications that come out of this year's

Hackathon, and I think it's a wonderful example of the type of growth that we

need in this province in IT, in particular, for jobs.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Citizens' Crime Prevention Association of Newfoundland and Labrador is

celebrating 30 years of serving our province by working to make our communities

safe. I'd like to thank the organization and their volunteers for their hard

work and their dedication.

This

anniversary is an opportunity to raise awareness of this valuable collaborative

and community effort. The Citizens' Crime Prevention Association was formed in

1988 and is comprised of both police officers and citizens. This dedicated group

has invested a substantial amount of time and energy to develop projects and

initiatives that aim to inform and encourage people to become involved in crime

prevention.

Mr.

Speaker, the group has a number of important initiatives. One example is the

Rachel Project, which aims to spread kindness and compassion. This project was

brought to schools to enforce anti-violence and anti-bullying with students and

to encourage acts of kindness. They have also launched the buddy bench, which

aims to eliminate loneliness and foster friendship on the playground. It helps

spread the message of inclusion and kindness by placing a park bench where

children can sit if they are looking for a playmate.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Citizens' Crime Prevention

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on their 30th anniversary in the

province. We thank them for their tireless work on behalf of all residents and

wish them all the best in the next 30 years.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement this afternoon. We join with

the minister in congratulating and thanking Citizens' Crime Prevention

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for their long time support, not only

to individuals but also to community programs, schools, neighbourhoods and, as I

said, individuals as well.

Mr.

Speaker, I remember many, many years ago when crime prevention was in its

infancy. I remember in the early '80s when the RNC first started sending

officers to the Canadian Police College to learn the very basic and the newest

programs in the evolving thoughts of crime prevention, but it has continued on

to this day and that's a testament to the people and volunteers around the

province who continue to drive it.

I still

remember the very early words used by Gary Brown, who was one of the first

officers assigned to crime prevention, he commonly used the words: evil prevails

when good people do nothing. I think that holds true still today.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Congratulations to all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to the Citizens' Crime Prevention

Association on reaching its 30th anniversary, and a special thank you to all the

volunteers who have worked so hard with passion and compassion. Their work is a

valuable part of encouraging crime prevention within our communities and it

great to see anti-violence and anti-bullying initiatives in our schools like the

Rachael project and buddy bench.

I can't

wait to hear about what these young folks and the programs within their schools

are going to be teaching us. I can't wait to see that, and maybe we could

include a buddy bench here in our House.

Bravo,

Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, details surrounding the new federal Liberal environmental assessment

process for offshore oil and gas projects have been limited. The C-NLOPB is

uncertain on how their role would change.

Can the

minister inform the House today what the new role of the C-NLOPB will be under

the new proposal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) for last two years the government, Mr. Speaker, is working

diligently. We needed to have a role for C-NLOPB. The Member opposite might

remember that under their watch in 2012 the role of responsible authority of the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board was removed, Mr.

Speaker. We felt very certain that we needed a role for the C-NLOPB.

you've seen in the last number of weeks, we are moving towards an

impact-assessment process here in Canada. The federal government has recognized

the incredible strength of C-NLOPB. They will be a joint on the impact

assessment board and the panel review list.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, whether the responsible authority was removed by a Conservative

government and not reinstated by a Liberal government in Ottawa, it still

doesn't suffice for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, the new environmental assessment process could add an additional layer

of bureaucracy and could slow offshore development. A former Noia president has

expressed concern noting that as many as over 50 groups may be able to weigh in.

I ask

the minister: What assurances that you have been given that the new process will

not negatively affect or slow down offshore development?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

While I welcome these

questions from the Opposition, I just question where they've been for the last

two years where we've been working on this issue. And where they were, Mr.

Speaker, in 2012 when responsible authority and the opportunity for C-NLOPB to

manage their environmental assessment process was taken away.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say that we have worked very hard to ensure the federal

government recognizes the role of C-NLOPB in impact assessment. We are also

working now to ensure there are regional environmental assessments. Exploration

would fall under those regional environmental assessments and that will be

governed by the C-NLOPB; much further ahead than we were in 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

how further ahead they are today. Have you discussed it with the seven MPs, the

regional ministers? Are they all committed? The Liberal MPs, seven for

Newfoundland and Labrador, are they all committed to responsible authority being

implemented in this bill before the House of Commons?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I could tell the

member opposite is a little sensitive because it was under their watch that

responsible authority was removed.

I've

been working, and the entire government has been working very hard over the last

number of years working with our colleagues and yes, the seven MPs, the minister

of Environment for Canada, the minister of Natural Resources in Canada. We've

had repeated discussions.

The

Premier himself has weighed in on this issue. He was able to bring it to the

Atlantic premiers; they wrote letters as well, Mr. Speaker. Critical to all of

this was ensuring that the offshore petroleum boards in Newfoundland and

Labrador and in Nova Scotia had a role that was taken away from them under their

watch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was

the Conservative government in Ottawa that made the change in regard to

responsible authority, and the minister didn't tell us today whether the seven

MPs that are supposed to be representing Newfoundland and Labrador support

putting responsible authority back into the regulations.

Critics

suggest that the federal minister has the ability to make case-by-case

decisions, and this new process centralizes power in Ottawa.

I ask

the minister: Did you advocate to keep the assessment role with the C-NLOPB, or

are you simply accepting what's delivered by the federal Liberal government in

Ottawa?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

So let me tell you what

happened in 2012, Mr. Speaker. Responsible authority and the role of the C-NLOPB

in environmental assessment process was taken away.

here's what we've been able to achieve, Mr. Speaker. We have tighter timelines.

We have been able to say that we're going to do regional environmental

assessments, and that explorations would fall underneath that and that would be

under the control of the C-NLOPB. We've been able to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that

we are able to advance our offshore in a much more efficient manner than what

was there previously.

I can

say to the Member opposite, that we've been working on this. I'm glad they're

now starting to ask questions about this. We've been working on this for over

two years. We think we have done very, very well of ensuring that we are able to

advance our offshore, but we will continue to work this file.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said they're working on it. I understand that, but again I'll ask her.

We have a regional minister who sits in the federal Cabinet, we have six other

MPs, Liberal MPs.

So I'm

asking her: Are they endorsing her position that responsible authority would be

back entrenched in the legislation that's now before the House of Commons? A

straightforward question. Are they in agreement with it – I'm sure she must have

spoken to them about it – yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the

Member opposite is now finally asking these questions. We've been working very

closely with the seven MPs. As a matter of fact, we had ad hoc committees going

on all over the last year. We've been repeatedly talking to our regional

minister, talking to the minister responsible for environment, minister

responsible for natural resources, constantly on these issues.

I can

tell the Member opposite this, we now have secured a role for the C-NLOPB as a

joint responsibility with the impact assessment agency for those projects that

require the panel.

Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the regional environmental assessment process, we're

working on making sure, and we have the commitment of our seven MPs, as well as

our regional minister, to have exploration under that –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. COADY:

– that will really expedite

our offshore development.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

advise the minister, we already had a joint partnership. It was called the

Atlantic Accord in 1985, so we don't need another one.

What

representation did the minister and this province make specifically to the

federal government regarding the specific role of the C-NLOPB?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you this government has been very diligent on its efforts around the

Atlantic Accord. Much more diligent than the former administration, under whose

watch this entire system changed, Mr. Speaker.

We have

now been able to have a role for C-NLOPB, recognized by the federal government.

We now have regional environmental assessments and we're working to ensure that

explorations fall under those regional environmental assessments.

Mr.

Speaker, going back over the last two-plus years, this government has been

advocating for a strong role for C-NLOPB in the environmental assessment

process. We have secured, not only additional resources to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to this, but also a key role for C-NLOPB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in

1985, it was a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister of Canada and a

Progressive Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador who signed and

brought the 1985 Atlantic Accord act to the province. Mr. Speaker, that

and Labrador have reached an Accord on joint management of the offshore oil and

gas ….”

Does the

minister believe that the new environmental assessment process honours the

Atlantic Accord as defined in 1985?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat

surprised by this line of questioning. Why didn't he question this back in 2010,

2011, 2012 when the C-NLOPB was losing its role in the environmental assessment?

It's perplexing, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say this, the minister responsible for Natural Resources Canada, Minister Carr,

I can say that Minister O'Regan have been here to Newfoundland and Labrador,

have been to the Newfoundland Oceans Industries Association. They have given

assurances of the paramountcy of the Atlantic Accord. This, Mr. Speaker, is of

utmost important, to not only this government, but to the entire people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

you've seen recently, the Premier has written to the federal government, written

to the prime minister on the issue of making sure that we have maximum benefits

under the Accord.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, in the breadth

and scope of the first nine minutes, the minister has gone from being happy with

the questions, to being surprised that we're asking the questions. I don't know

where she is with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I will

not tolerate interruptions.

Please

proceed.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister admit, finally, that the new environmental assessment process erodes

the Atlantic Accord and the representation has not been given to Ottawa, as it

should be by this province, by the elected officials?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by

the tone of that question. To insinuate that we have not done our utmost when it

was under their watch, Mr. Speaker, it was under their government that we lost

the opportunity for C-NLOPB to be responsible authority for environmental

assessment. I am not just –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Shocked.

MS. COADY:

Shocked, I guess is the word.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say this. We now have made sure, under the amount of work – and

I can produce all the letters that have been written over and over and the times

I've gone to Ottawa to speak to the minister responsible.

The

reason I'm happy here today, Mr. Speaker, is that they're finally asking some

questions about this issue that has been burning in the province for over two

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

proposed eye surgery clinic in Corner Brook was rejected by the Minister of

Health. The Premier has since interjected and said he wants to review the

Minister of Health's decision.

I ask

the minister: Do you agree with the Premier's decision to review this case?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

received an unsolicited proposal from a business venture on the West Coast. It

didn't pass muster. What it did do was generate a really important discussion

about service delivery for people with eye disease on the West Coast and

Northern Peninsula of the Island. That discussion really started just over a

week ago. We have several avenues to explore, and I'm cautiously optimistic that

we'll be able to provide an even better service on the West Coast in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I would hope that the

Minister of Health would also engage unsolicited proposals that enhance our

health care system, no matter who offers those unsolicited so-called proposals.

The

Corner Brook eye doctor, Dr. French, would pay for the building, its

maintenance, its equipment. The services offered would remain publicly funded

and accessible to all, no difference than they currently are in the public

health system.

On what

basis did the minister so quickly deny such a proposal which would greatly

benefit the people of the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Just to

correct some background facts there. We, the department, have been engaged with

Humber Valley surgical services probably since January or February of 2016 on

this topic with considerable back and to.

The

issue we have identified is quite clearly a much broader subject of a much

greater importance in many respects. It's not just about cataracts, it's not

just about procedures. It's about the package of eye care, sustainable eye care

to the people of the province on the West Coast. We have several mechanisms,

including a formal arrangement with the NLMA to look into such mechanisms and

we're moving forward with that now, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the doctor suggested that the facility would be a unionized

environment, in what way will this plan differ from the proposed public-private

partnerships for the construction of the West Coast hospital or the announced

long-term care facilities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

issue is one of sustaining a reasonable, high-quality service for the people of

the West Coast of the province. Not just around cataracts and how they are done,

but also around recruitment and retention and also around issues that we have

inherited an arrangement from the previous government about a negotiated clause

to look at the transition of publicly funded services into other arenas.

That's

built into the negotiations. The NLMA want to be part of it. The doctor

concerned wants to be included in that process, and we're helping that process

along.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Dr.

French suggested that he may be forced to leave his practice on the West Coast,

the minister said: “I cannot control, nor can I advise him, what his career path

should be ….”

Does the

Premier endorse such a negative response from the minister when we're trying to

recruit and retain health professionals in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Those

comments as quoted were taken somewhat out of context. That's always a risk that

is evident when you make public statements.

Dr.

French is an excellent clinician; there has never been any concern about the

quality of his service. The concern I have is the sustainability of his

workload.

What we

have done in conjunction with Humber Valley services, himself, Western Health,

the department and the NLMA is to work on a program that will enable him to

continue to provide that service without killing himself, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Health Minister said “some eye surgeons may have engaged in illegal activities,”

and he accused eye doctors in the province of undertaking potential criminal

activities.

Does the

minister stand by those very serious accusations against health professionals in

this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

It's really an interesting

contrast of topics here. It's very useful, though, to use the opportunity to say

this is a totally separate issue from the one that we were discussing a few

moments ago.

What

happened was eight individuals approached the department saying that they had

been given to understand that an insured service was being provided outside of

an RHA facility and money had changed hands in the course of that. We started a

hotline to try and ascertain the magnitude and breadth of that problem to see if

we did actually have a problem and what that is.

Those

calls are being returned and analyzed, and I look forward to that report in the

very near future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are you

going to use your influence and your position to ensure there's better access to

eye surgery and eye care in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

At the risk of repeating

myself, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue about eye care is one that is front and

centre at the moment. We have challenges, we also have some great successes. We

have areas in the province in eye care where the national benchmark targets are

met and exceeded, and have been for some considerable time.

What I

want to do is make sure that every citizen of this province, whether they live

in Nain or whether they live in Ferryland, has the same opportunity for

high-quality service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South .

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, after 2½ years in government, the Liberals are spending tens of

thousands of dollars to ask expats why people are leaving the province.

I ask

the minister: Do you think this a good use of taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, when we looked at opportunities to increase residents, or

ex-residents of coming back into the province, it was intended for us to do a

survey and to gather some information. When you look at the survey, Mr. Speaker,

it contains more information than just looking at why you left. There are other

areas of that as well, which we will look at and monitor and gain some

information from the data that will be collected.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it's very important for us when we're looking at the

province to take all the initiatives as possible for us to enable that we do

have – we do have, certainly, an interest in the province. Mr. Speaker, very

clearly from some of the summits that we've done, there's obviously a lot of

interest in coming back into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Don't you think that over 300 new Liberal taxes and fee increases

that your government introduced is probably what is driving people away?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What

really would be driving people away is the $2.7 billion deficit that we were

faced with, and the Muskrat Falls. When we look at all of these issues that come

in, Mr. Speaker, there's been a tremendous amount of pressure that's been placed

on this government to try to clean up some of the mess that's been created on

the other side.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to some of the hon. Members over

there, they have a very narrow vision. As a matter of fact, I think some of

them, they're thinking they can probably look through a keyhole in the door with

both eyes at the same time, because that's about as limited exposure that they

have to what exactly is going on in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How many

provincial government officials will be attending the outreach events in Canada

and the United Kingdom?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Mr. Speaker, what we have

done and what we continue to do is we look at ways in which we can improve

within this province opportunities for people to work. We have a committee on

jobs, Cabinet committee.

Mr.

Speaker, if some of them had enough interest, they would have turned out to the

technology summit that we had last week where we had young people with a

tremendous amount of interest.

Mr.

Speaker, it wasn't government – it's not government saying that we have

potential. They need to go out and talk to some of the industry sector members,

people who are working and employers and what they're saying. They're saying

there's a tremendous potential for young people in the technology sector in this

province, and we'll continue to work on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, the technology

summits are all great, but that's about keeping people that are already here,

here. He's trying to get people back, and I already answered that question. I

think most of the people in the province agree with the 300 fee and tax

increases. They don't need to do a survey, the public already know.

Mr.

Speaker: Is the cost of the minister's travel included in this fact-finding

(inaudible)? He never answered my last question, maybe he'll give me the total

cost this fact-finding trip to the United Kingdom is going to cost the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell

the hon. Member opposite, it was a lot less than going over to Romania and

getting two ferries (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

MR. HAWKINS:

– at $54 million each for

this province that we had nothing but problems when it started that we were

handed.

So, Mr.

Speaker, you want to talk about expenses – and a lot less than going to Romania,

I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite

hearing numerous concerns from Canadian small businesses that proposed tax

changes would negatively impact their ability to do business, this week's

federal budget signalled the government is moving ahead with attacking small

business investments, retirement benefits and ability to transfer to family

members.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Are you content with what is included in the recent

federal budget related to small businesses?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

federal budget did pull back, to some degree, the announcement they had made

earlier regarding some business taxes; that is for this province, Mr. Speaker.

We're still evaluating exactly what it means to this province, to the Treasury

and to businesses.

At the

outset, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think it's good news for the business

community here. I think I've heard the President of the Board of Trade indicate

the same, that they were pleased with the measures taken by the federal

government in pulling back, to some degree, the measures they had announced

earlier this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

encourage the minister to really take a closer look. What we're hearing from

small business, there are still deep concerns in regard to the issues that were

related in the proposed legislation and what's proposed now in the current

budget related to the continuity of small business and the business to access

that equity and (inaudible) for retirement.

This

week's budget also mentions changes to the Employment Insurance Program. Can the

minister update us on the impact of these changes, possibly on seasonal workers

in the province, industries such as tourism, fishery and forestry which is so

important to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to say to the Member opposite, when it comes to small business, Newfoundland and

Labrador has the most progressive small business rates in the country at 3 per

cent, and it's good to see the federal government is reducing the small business

tax rate that's happening.

As well,

in the federal budget we saw billions of dollars over five years that's unlocked

in research and development and innovation. That's going to help Newfoundland

and Labrador grow. Companies like we had seen yesterday at an announcement,

Oceans Ltd., has made a breakthrough in discovery through their lab testing and

also through testing on animals for breast cancer that inhibits the growth.

These are all positive things that are in place.

When it

comes to the federal budget, the Finance minister and his department will do an

evaluation. It's early days and, as he said, there will be an analysis done on

how it impacts the people of the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed,

it's important for small business, I agree, but we need to be on this in terms

of the changes. They've been proposed for some time.

The US

has decreased corporate tax to approximately 20 per cent while Canada ranges at

almost 27 per cent. This will obviously affect investment.

I ask:

How will the lack of initiative on this by the federal budget impact a goal

announced by you recently of increasing oil production by half by 2030?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

put in place many initiatives over the last six or seven months in terms of how

we work strategically with all industries in our province. I think the most

significant collaboration and partnership we've seen so far is really company's

private money building on investments that have already been made in our

province.

Mr.

Speaker, this province, along with other Atlantic Canadian provinces, was

successful in getting some positive news around the ocean supercluster. That

will bring hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, Mr. Speaker, in

Atlantic Canada. I can assure you that Newfoundland and Labrador is primed to

take full advantage of the Ocean Supercluster.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday, when responding to my questions about what he expects to get from the

Atlantic Accord review, the Premier said he hoped to get to a place where

Newfoundland and Labrador finally gets the benefits from its offshore

developments.

Currently, we get royalties that are shared between the government and Nalcor.

As well, Nalcor benefits from equity shares.

I ask

the Premier: What are the other benefits that he is expecting to get? Does he

think he can get the federal government to change the equalization formula to

benefit us?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

also said yesterday, it's a little too early to predetermine what the outcome of

a negotiation would be until we actually start the formal review. Mr. Speaker,

there are so many opportunities when it comes to working with the federal

government. I just mentioned just a few minutes ago about the positive news

around the Ocean Supercluster.

We speak

a lot about equalization and everyone in this country would know right now that

based upon the current equalization formula, this province would not qualify for

equalization, simply because it's based on revenue only. Newfoundland and

Labrador, along with Alberta, would always be either first or second when it

comes to the amount of revenue that's created in our province on a per capita

basis.

That

prohibits us right now from qualifying for equalization. There are two other

transfers that I'd love to talk about just in your next question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll ask

my questions. This government has had over two years to work with their federal

cousins on these issues. Finally, he has written the prime minister about

hurrying up the Atlantic Accord review.

I ask

the Premier: Has he yet had a response from the prime minister to his letter? If

so, what does it say?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've yet

to hear from the new federal NDP Leader. Apparently, he's not that interested in

what's happening in our province, Mr. Speaker. He's yet to reach out about our

situation.

I will

say we've had many meetings with our federal colleagues. As I said yesterday,

I've written the prime minister. Before the end of this week we'll be reaching

out to the prime minister's office, as we've been trying to get a meeting and to

set up the review.

Back to

her question, though, Mr. Speaker, about two years to work on this. If the

interim Leader of the Third Party had read the agreement, she would have known

that this must be completed before March of 2019. That is the review that we are

starting.

MS. MICHAEL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

As a Member opposite, she

will ask the questions, Mr. Speaker. I will take the advantage to answer the

questions on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I

asked the Minister of Finance if he was doing a gender-based analysis for his

current budget. He said he was speaking with the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women and her officials. He also told media he would be open to it,

but that he would be bringing down his budget in four or five weeks. Sounds like

a no to me, Mr. Speaker.

Deficit

reduction budgets disproportionately hurt working women who typically earn less

than men. Single mothers, seniors and indigenous women suffer the most when

governments cut programs.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister again: Is he doing an actual gender-based analysis

for the preparation of his budget? If so, when did it start?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every

decision we make as a Cabinet, every decision we make as a caucus and as a

government we put a gender lens on it. Every decision we make in the upcoming

budget and in the previous budget, the Women's Policy Office had a view to our

decisions. The minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office had a view to

those decisions.

The

federal government, in their recent budget, Mr. Speaker, announced some

significant policies towards gender. I was asked if I would introduce the same

in this year's budget. It's a great deal of work, I would suspect, to do what

the federal government did, in the next four to five weeks. But I can absolutely

assure the Member that every decision we make in this upcoming budget, the

minister responsible for the Women's Policy Office will have a say.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

more than having a view to, and the federal government does it automatically.

This is their third budget chance.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women – she responded to my question

yesterday saying: This is the second year it's been done here in Newfoundland

and Labrador and that the Finance Minister has been engaging with the Women's

Policy Office to ensure that lens is there. Mr. Speaker, I find that pretty

vague.

I ask

her again: Can she describe what exactly is being done? Is a specific

gender-based analysis tool being applied in the actual preparation of the

budget? How it is being done? When did it start? Who is doing it?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. COADY:

That's a very thorough

question, Mr. Speaker. I'll do my best to answer all the questions that were

asked within that larger question.

First of

all, this is the second year that a gender-based analysis has been applied to

the budget. The Women's Policy Office has been engaged for the last number of

months, reviewing all positions, all budgets that are going forward, all asks

that are going forward, Mr. Speaker. They're applying a lens on every decision,

every policy that's being brought forward.

Mr.

Speaker, they're using the Status of Women Canada's core program, their core

dimension. They're also then layering on top of that the data relevant to

Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the process. I understand that last year the

former minister that was responsible for the Women's Policy Office did engage

with the Member opposite to advise her exactly the process.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Question

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Pursuant

section 8 and

section 10 of the Public

Tender Act , I hereby table reports of Public Tender Act Exceptions for

October 2017 as presented by the chief operating officer of the Government

Purchasing Agency.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House do not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Monday, March 5.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS a year has passed since the tragic event of

January 17, 2017, where our school was completed destroyed; and

WHEREAS we have 250 people in a building which is only

equipped to handle 150; and

WHEREAS we do not have a science lab, a library, a

resource room, a cafeteria, a computer room, a student support suite, wheelchair

WHEREAS we have classrooms which require co-programming

but this cannot happen because of space issues in the building; and

WHEREAS government has a legal responsibility to ensure

our students have access to the best education;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to: one, commit to a new

state-of-the-art K to 12 school for the students of Bay d'Espoir; two, announce

funding in the 2018-2019 budget to begin the design and tender process; and

three, we would like the construction to be expedited.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second petition I have brought

forward to this hon. House. I will continue to bring these petitions forward on

behalf of the children of the Bay d'Espoir area until such time as the budget

comes down. Please, God, the announcement is in there.

This is not a circumstance whereby parents are saying

we want a new school; it's a situation where we need a new school. We tragically

lost our school. We're in a building that 20

years ago the school board shut down. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that our

children are able to avail of a decent education.

This day

and age, no child should be heading to university without having been in a

science lab. Our children, who are in grade nine, will have grade nine, grade

10, 11 and 12 without access to a lab. We looked at alternative measures but

because of insurance issues and other factors, they don't seem to be working

out, Mr. Speaker. It is unacceptable that our children will have to go off to

university without having seen inside of a lab.

It's a

crucial issue for all the residents of Bay d'Espoir. By the time this petition

is fully submitted, there will be 766 signatures. We truly hope that the

Premier, the minister and the government opposite recognizes the children

deserve a new school.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to respond to the Member's petition. It was a tragic event, the burning

of the school and the other buildings. I have to say, the one thing that came

out of this that was most positive is that I got to see just how kind and

co-operative the people in the Coast of Bays region are.

I went

down with the Member and met with a couple of mayors. I had a kitchen-table

conversation with the mayor of Milltown-Head of Bay d'Espoir and the mayor of

St. Albans. I met with the school community, the school council, the principal.

I had a tour of the temporary location. They have been nothing but co-operative

through this difficult time.

I would

say for the public record – I'm not sure the Member is aware of this – the

Minister of Finance has advised me there's $13 million that will be coming to

the province through the insurance process because we do have insurance on our

schools. I have made a commitment, publicly, to the people of the area that they

deserve nothing less than a facility to replace the one that burned down. We'll

certainly work to that end, Mr. Speaker.

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.

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

the government has not implemented curriculum to teach the basic monetary skills

needed for our youth; and

WHEREAS

the government of our province has the responsibility to act in the best

interests of our youth; and

WHEREAS

the youth of our province deserve the greatest level of respect and

consideration;

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

of Assembly to urge government to introduce financial education into provincial

curriculum to prepare youth for the monetary and financial challenges of life

upon entering the workforce.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, as we all know, things are changing in our world here. We're finding

ourselves, and young people, particularly, in financial peril at times. Their

understanding of how they deal with that and the realities of long-term planning

for retirement, long-term planning for changes in their life, long-term planning

for their education and long-term planning for starting families or whatever

other entity they may be involved in or long-term planning to become

entrepreneurs, all starts with them having a key understanding of financial

management, the monetary expenditures and a key understanding of how the whole

monetary process works. It's a very simple process.

commend the minister who last week talked about we're going to be introducing

some new modes of use of technology in education; very important, very valuable

and very timely, as we move forward. Just as timely is the understanding of how

financial operations and the needs for an understanding of the monetary

expenditures and processes in this world. It's not just about in your own

neighbourhood, that's important, or in your own school, but it's very important

about how we do it from a global perspective and their understanding of that.

We've

had people from those who deal with bankruptcies, to understand that if people

get in over their heads, without understanding the cost of borrowing, some of

the restrictions on certain things, assets and what that means and their ability

to understand debt loads and how you stretch it over periods of time or what

their financial ability would incur.

We have

an ability here. We have a captive audience. We have an audience who are very

intelligent, who are open to learning and we need to prepare them for the basic

things in life. This is one of the key basic things. We include that in the same

way we use technology, their understanding of financial monitoring, financial

processes and their understanding of planning and that's very easily done.

You know

years ago some of our institutions, when we were all kids, would put out the

little things about starting your own bank account and give you a little tidbit

and give you a little one pager of what you could expect to know about that.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's very important. I encourage the minister to outline

exactly how they're going to approach addressing this. It's very valuable with

all the other things that are being done in our education system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a response, please.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I can understand

why the Member would want to have some financial literacy because the previous

administration of this province didn't have any financial literacy or we

wouldn't have walked into office with a $2.7 billion deficit staring us in the

face.

However,

I would say – and I don't say that lightly, Mr. Speaker, I'm very serious – the

fact of the matter is we have heard the calls for financial literacy to be added

to the curriculum for quite some time. As a part of the process involved with

the Premier's task force, we will be looking at curriculum review in a number of

different areas. There are currently – and I won't get into the details of it

because I'd be announcing something that I don't have the authority to announce,

but basically there will be a course in future that we're going to develop that

will incorporate a number of important things, including financial literacy. So

there will be a course that's sort of oriented around life skills and careers

and so on that will include financial literacy. So that work is ongoing.

As I

pointed out the other day, I think 15 of the recommendations of the task force

have now been implemented and virtually all of the other recommendations – there

are 82 in total – all of them are seeing a certain amount of activity. So we are

very committed to curriculum reform in the province in terms of mathematics as

well. We will be doing that. That is our priority to implement this report in

its full form.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I moved,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The

Order Newfoundland and Labrador, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad

to be able to speak once more to Bill 31 to raise an issue that we did talk

about in Committee when we were doing that stage. I know that there will be no

more questions or anything, but I just do want to make, again, the important

point that we were talking about.

It had

to do with the two members at large that are going to be appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council under the

Schedule C of the

Public Service Commission Act . The issue that I was raising with the

minister was the issue of the need for our process to be an open process. That's

no problem. That's not my issue, but to be also a process that shows an

understanding of the diversity of our province.

If we're

going to have a process that recognizes the diversity of our province and the

need then to have diversity in those who are nominated to become members of the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we need to have diversity, gender and

otherwise, on the council itself.

The

minister agreed with me; there was no doubt that he agreed with me. Also, I

think we have agreed that four of the eight people on the council we have no

control over because they are in roles that are fixed roles, and there could be

diversity in those roles. Because they're not connected with each other, there's

no way to make that happen. They're totally individual roles such as the Clerk

of the Executive Council, the chancellor of Memorial University, the chief

justice of Newfoundland and Labrador or the chief justice of the Supreme Court

of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

There

are times when they could all be four women, times when they could all be four

white women, times when they could all be four white men, who knows. So we have

no control over diversity in those four, but we do when it comes to the members

at large.

The

minister made a commitment which regard to making sure diversity happened. When

I look at

section 12(1)(

b) which says “2 individuals who are members of the

Order who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, each for a

term of three years,” well, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and therefore

the minister, does have some power over who gets chosen there. We do have

diversity among the members of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would

suggest it's a small diversity in some areas. Probably the largest area where

it's positive diversity is on the gender level. In other levels with regard to

indigenous representation and representation by people who come from different

ethnic backgrounds, it may not be the same; it may not be the same when it comes

to people with disability either, but at least we do have representation.

The

minister can keep a commitment that being part of that decision that he really

is going to be concerned and the government is really going to be concerned

about diversity. But when it comes to the two individuals who are appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, according to

Schedule C of the

Public Service Commission Act there is

no power over that; it's a system that does not recognize diversity. It

recognizes only an evaluation of the person and person's background without any

sense of diversity.

We had

this problem arise when we discussed the formation of the IAC. It was absolutely

definite that because it was part of the Public Service Commission process they

really had no legislative stance for looking at diversity in the names that

would come forward. Now, obviously if there's diversity in the names that come

forward and they go on to the government, then government can certainly say,

okay, we want to make sure that in these names that have come forward there is

diversity.

But I

really believe that the minister made a commitment that he can't keep with

regard to those two positions, the two individuals, members at large, appointed

according to

Schedule C of the Public Service Commission. I'm very disappointed

that the minister didn't see that this was an opportunity to put the call for

diversity into the piece of legislation. That would mean not using

Schedule C of

the Public Service Commission, but there could have been another way to have two

people appointed in a fair and just and equitable way, recognizing diversity.

And I'm very sorry that we don't have that laid out in the bill. I will be

passing it, I will be voting for it, Mr. Speaker, but with that disappointment.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

All

those against, ‘nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act,”

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

31)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, continue second reading of Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

indeed an honour to stand and speak to Bill 32,

An Act Respecting the

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. Mr. Speaker, going

through this and having a somewhat connection to the Centre for Health

Information in a previous life, in working for the department at one point, but

since then in politics being connected with the Public Accounts Committee, a

number of years ago we had looked at one of the reviews from the Auditor General

about the Centre for Health Information.

remember doing some very in-depth research and discovered this was a great

agency that we had set up and it had a great process to ensure that data was

collected relevant to the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

how the information could be disseminated to ensure that those who do research,

those who are in the medical fields, and those who on a day-to-day basis are

front-line providers of services can share information, but in return get data

back that helps them deliver the service in a more equitable and a more

time-efficient manner.

There's

no doubt, when you set up any new entity – and it's been around for a number of

years and changed somewhat in the mid-2000s. It was changed to enhance the

attraction and the dissemination of that information. There were a number of

segments over the years. It started as a small project to be able to say how do

we particularly address the needs we have in Newfoundland and Labrador when it

comes to our health information, keeping in mind geography has a major play in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The different regions have different health needs.

There are different challenges. There are different priorities. There are

different models on how we deliver our health systems.

The best

way to address how we improve that – the whole process of our health care system

but, particularly, the data being collected and the ways it's broken down and

shared, not only provincially but also nationally, and in some cases

internationally when we look at things that are changing in the way of diseases

or chronic ailments or, particularly, in ways that we address those ailments

that people may face.

As this

whole process was developing, it started to morph into its own entity. It had

gotten to a point where the entity needed a specific set of skills. To get those

skill sets, they tried to recruit within Newfoundland and Labrador. They went

outside Newfoundland and Labrador in some cases, but in some other cases they

try to draw from the existing regional health authorities.

Unfortunately, the dilemma with that is we've only got so many trained

professionals to go around who are already in a mode of being able to provide a

particular area of health care and their speciality. When we start trying to

recruit one from the other what that does in some cases, in my opinion, and,

particularly, in a number of other people's opinions, it slows down our process,

it doesn't move us forward. There has to be a way of being able to make an

equitable process in making sure the centre does what it needs to do without it

being a hindrance or taking away from our existing process.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, when you've got a job to do and you're in

charge of the Centre for Health Information, you want to recruit the best you

can get, those who already have experiences. As a result, they had the ability

inadvertently to interpret their act and their legislation that they could

bypass some of the other particular regulations around salaries to change the

classifications, to change some of the job descriptions, to enhance salaries,

thus encouraging or recruiting people away from existing services that are part

and parcel of being able to provide our health service.

So,

while we set up an entity that was very beneficial and had long-term processes

to ensure the data would only improve our health care system for decades and

decades, it became a little bit of a challenge in that we were slowing down some

other parts of it because of the recruitment process, which was very vigorous.

No doubt, was seen in the light of the senior executive of the Centre for Health

Information a benefit to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador but,

particularly, a benefit to them in doing what they were set up to do. No doubt,

it started to do that, but you can't steal from Peter to pay Paul in those

processes. So everybody needed to be working together.

It got

to a point where we discovered in our research as we prepared for the Auditor

General's review, that there seemed to be a disconnect between the regional

health authorities and the centre and at times a competition, which isn't

healthy. We all should be on the same page. We all should be complimentary. We

all should have a fluent continuum of how we improve our health care system

here. Obviously, that seemed to be a concern at the time.

remember meeting with the Auditor General today and asking – obviously, his

officials had done some very in-depth research and had come back and said the

centre itself, its mandate, the philosophy, its intent to enhance the health

care system are very valid and have shown successes. The challenge he has is

they haven't been following the processes that were put in play when it came to

their management system and their pay scales. He did note also, as a result he

felt it would have a negative impact on some of the other processes we have in

the health care system.

When we

looked at it – I remember my colleagues, all from different parties – we also

identified that that was a challenge. As a result, we felt we needed to have

that discussion with the centre to ensure we're supportive of what they do, but

the processes they follow can't be any different than any other Crown agency we

have or any other entity we have out there. We want to support exactly what it

is the program and services are set up to do.

engaged in a process of reviewing the report and found a number of key concerns.

One was that there was no process in play where they could justify why

reclassification for a position in the Centre for Health Information would be

any different than it would in one of our regional health authorities, or even

within the department. The issue about that was there was compliance here, and

there has to be a process that is equal and fluent for everybody across the

board.

The

second thing, as I mentioned earlier, we started to notice they were very good

at recruiting people away. It's very easy to do when you're offering 10, 15 and

in some cases 25 per cent more salary and have a more flexible working

environment. That resulted in some shortfalls in some of our regional health

authorities, particularly where the centre is mainly based, its function here in

the metro area. If you have people who have a specific skillset, who are in

another health region in some of the remote areas, and who go there because

they're committed to the health service and that, but it's a career and we have

to be realistic. People base their lives, to a degree, on their incomes. That

drives exactly what they do and their career paths.

So when

you're enhancing and enticing people away, then, to me, and to us during that

conversation, that becomes a concern because we want to ensure that every region

of this province: people in Nain, Labrador; people on the Southern Shore; people

in Twillingate and people in the Coast of Bays area have access to proper health

care. To have access there, you must have the skillset of those professionals.

In some

cases, it's automatically harder to recruit just because of the geography or

because of people's attachment to another particular area or people's interest

in this social life and that. So it becomes a challenge.

If you,

then, also centre everything in one particular area, and in this case it would

be the urban area, which is an attraction in its own self because of some of the

things it has. You add on that a higher salary base for doing the same job then

you've got a real challenge in equity across our health care system here. You

don't want a divide of regional health authorities, not only competing against

each other, but now competing against a bigger entity who has limited

restrictions on what they can do. So that became a real concern.

I can

remember being in this House of Assembly and questions being asked to the

representatives of the authority, who, at the time, I can't say flippantly, but

I suppose honestly, felt they weren't doing anything wrong, that it was well

within their jurisdiction and their obligation to enhance the centre. They felt

the approach they would use to enhance the centre would get the best people

possible. The way that they could do that was enhance their benefits. The way

they could do that was use an obscure

interpretation of any restrictions they

may have on following the collective agreements and the salary bases set by

Treasury Board or by government or by the department or by their board.

became a bit of a tangled situation because it wasn't that they were

deliberately – I shouldn't say deliberately. They were deliberately enhancing

them because they saw the benefits of it but they weren't doing it with malice.

It was never meant for that reason. It was meant to, obviously, enhance what

they had established. No doubt, if you're a manager in any position or you're a

CEO, you're going to want to do that.

They

also had a board of directors who were appointed, people who come from various

backgrounds, some medical, some business and some from other entities that are

appointed to the board. That entity, obviously, would help direct the work of

the centre itself. It would help also to direct the focus. If you're on any

board you have as your objectives, and your main objective, to meet the process

that's been set out to you by whoever your umbrella organization is or your boss

to achieve those.

Competition is healthy. In this case, competition was about making the Centre

for Health Information the best it could be and to achieve what it was set out

to do. Even the board didn't take a hands on to question: Why are we paying 20

and 25 per cent more for salary bases than we would in the normal regional

health authorities or in normal government equal type of positions?

doubt, some people on that board were very aware; some had come from the

regional health authorities and understood: We're allowed to do that because we

have this

interpretation. It took a bit of discussion in here. It took the

Public Accounts with the Auditor General pushing back at the officials who came

and presented. Their arguments were valid from their perspective. They weren't

valid from the Auditor General's. They weren't valid from the Public Accounts

and they weren't valid from the Department of Health at the time.

A number

of recommendations were made around them having to come in line with the

existing classifications and contracts that would be put in play for any other

person offering a service or being part of a Crown agency. We know there are

specific nuances there if you're going after a particular skill set that you're

looking for, but in a lot of cases here we found the skill set was just the same

offered in one regional health authority or somewhere else in government, and at

a particular salary that we felt was in line with other jurisdictions, that

having an unfair advantage to that entity, took away. Not counting the fact,

we're responsible for the taxpayers' monies that are spent here. For having an

entity to have carte blanche on how they spend money wasn't acceptable.

There

were recommendations made. It went back to the minister of Health. The minister

of Health of the day came back and put a total freeze on any reclassifications

or any other increases. As a result, wanted a full review to ensure that we got

the salary bases in line with what other system we have within the civil service

or equivalent Crown corporations. That was put in play, so it got to slow that

process down.

I say

that upfront before I get directly into the bill but that's a very important

part of the bill because one of the key components here is about financial

management which is, I think, one of the big drivers.

A number

of the other ones here are about expanding the objectives. As I noted at one

point, the board themselves, when we talked to them and the officials, were

talking about to expand the objective, to reach our goals and beyond we need to

have a particular skill set. Nobody disagreed with that. We understand. We want

you to have the best, the brightest and the most experienced you can to ensure

that what was set out as your objectives and your responsibilities can be

achieved and build beyond that.

We can't

do it at the expense of the other entities. We have to have a responsibility to

provide services, be it health care or be it whatever individuals that were

recruited out of a government department, if it's finance or if it's HR or if

it's particular management skills. Once we had that discussion and that debate –

and that's what it was, it was a healthy debate about understanding. There has

to be a happy balance here.

You're

well-funded. We understand there are specific projects that you may take on or

there are skill sets you may need. Everybody was open to that. The department is

open to being able to look at that. That can't be done in isolation of just your

management team and your board making decisions because that has an impact on

the regional health authorities.

It has

an impact on the department. It has an impact on all the civil service. It also

particularly has an impact on the taxpayers. If we're going to spend $10 million

more because we're using that to enhance more recruitment for a particular skill

set, if we can get that skill set for the salary that we're offering everywhere

else, that $10 million is better used somewhere else in the health care system

to provide other services.

After

the debate was done, and there was some discussion and there was some pushback

on certain areas, there obviously then was still left that there was

interpretation in the existing legislation that dictated the board and the

senior executive still had the ability, through

interpretation – and there was

still debate over one definition of that

interpretation versus another that they

could still do it.

Obviously, the discussion then – and this was back in 2014-2015 – was about

there has to be clarification on that. There was a review of the legislation and

discussion. I know Public Accounts had a discussion around it, but then it was

also discussed within the department about the

definitions. It was felt there

were changes that needed to be made, while at the same time sending a very stern

outlined processed letter that says: Here are your limitations now when it comes

to the issues that have been identified around your spending practices and your

hiring practices.

That was

clarified. To my understanding, for all intents and purposes, in most cases it

was followed. There still have been some challenges around salary bases and

recruitment, and the impact that may have on it, but no doubt that was heeded by

the board at the time. There have been changes to the board because it's a

living entity, and staffing also, as they went through the whole process. So

that was in play.

understanding is that it was being followed through. But the fear was always

there that if a new board came in, or a new CEO or senior executive or whoever

may want to interpret that they have the authority to change the funding process

for hiring and the classifications, then that puts us back to where we started

from. That wouldn't be acceptable.

I know

it takes a bit of time to change legislation. When you're dealing with an entity

you want to make sure – if you're going to change it, you don't want to be doing

this flippantly every six or eight months – that this has to last and reflect,

and anticipate the changing trends over the next five, 10, 15, or 20 years so

that the centre is well equipped and well resourced. But at the same time

doesn't have carte blanche freedoms, while enhancing their ability to change

with the flows and the needs to collect that data and that information. Then

disseminate that in the manner that best fits how we're going to improve our

health care system.

I know

it's a balance. Discussion with the minister over the last year or so,

particularly the last number of months since I became the Health critic, and

looking into what pieces of legislation may be coming and what changes were

taking place – and even since reviewing the Auditor General's report on the

two-year follow-up where it says there have been major improvements, but there's

still no legal documentation that doesn't restrict the entity from being able to

do it.

wholeheartedly support the fact that we're bringing legislation here – and the

Minister of Health is doing that – and clarifying, particularly, key areas and

adding some that enhanced existing ones so that it's reflective of modern-day

needs. Particularly, I do like some of the things I read here, that it

anticipates some of the changes in our health care models down the road and our

health care processes.

As part

of that, the collection of that data has to be able to configure differently. As

Newfoundland and Labrador, from a geographic process and a population process,

changes and their health needs, you need to be able to conform to that also.

What that does here does give that ability.

I'm just

going to quickly talk about the purpose of the bill. There are four key

categories; one, I've just spent a fair bit of time. I may go back to that

because, from my perspective, it's one of the key ones. It's the key one because

the other three are important, have been happening, will continue to happen and

are just being modified. The key one about financial control is very important

because you want to maximize the benefit, but you can't do it at the expense of

other investments in health care.

Purpose

(

a) of Bill 32 is to expand the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health

Information objectives. The key objectives for the centre, as people would know,

and the key mandate here – and I'll just read it out so people are familiar with

it, because the minister noted some of it yesterday, for those who are listening

now, as we get into debate, they would understand exactly what the centre is all

about.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is responsible for

developing and implementing the province's confidential and secure electronic

health records, which we all know when you talk in the field: EHR. The centre

also works to improve the health of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by

providing quality health information to health professionals, the public,

researchers and health system decision makers. The centre is a Crown corporation

of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it also receives funding from

the not-for-profit group Canada Health Infoway which funds EHRs across Canada.

Don't

forget now, as I've said earlier, this information is used particularly in

Newfoundland and Labrador as we develop our health system. It's particularly

used in particular regions, our regional health authorities, to be able to

ensure they address their particular needs. It's used on a national level.

We all

feed into what are the trends nationally. What are the supports that our federal

counterparts must give us? What are the commonalities we have in other provinces

that we can partner with and share information so we're better equipped to

either training our health professionals, doing education with our citizens, or

addressing particular ailments when it comes to either research or new types of

implemented strategies around addressing those issues.

It's

also on a global level. That's why there's a private sector not-for-profit that

funds that. They fund it for that reason because they look at it – and they

partner with other entities around the world. There's a global need when you

collect health information. It's a global need because genetically we can all

learn from procedures, we can all learn from ailments or diseases that happen in

particular areas.

Particularly, the information gives us the ability to counteract interventions

that are needed or diseases by coming up with a strategy that globally can be

implemented to help everybody. If you can do something on that level, then you

know the cost is going to be much more effective. The training modes would be

much more beneficial to everybody.

These

are some of the important things that the Centre for Health Information does.

When it says about the public because the information then will send out –

every now and then you'll see statements or sometimes there are even radio or

television ads around the Centre for Health Information; some of the information

that it's gathered and some of the things they're doing as part of the process.

It's a very important entity; it is in line with some of

the other provinces. I'd like to be able to say we have some particular nuances

because we've been cognizant of our past health, our present health and our

future health, but also our geographic differences and even the climate when it

comes to the terrain: that all has to be taken into account when you look at how

you address people's particular health needs.

Health needs are not only about the physical interventions

you need, but some of it may be the physical ability to get to an intervention,

to get to a service and to ensure that people have the adequate access to it,

but at the same time do it in such an equitable way that minimal investment is

necessary to get the maximum return. When you gather information, the best way

you can do that is you have

all the players feeding information into one central entity who can then break

that down and, again, ensure that each category is relevant to those health

professionals or a region or a particular entity who may have the ability to

address that.

The

other thing that's very important and perhaps the most important thing: this is

about security of the information that's being gathered. We have a great system

here in the OCIO, Office of the Chief Information Officer. They have and they're

entrusted – any dealings that anybody has with government and all the

information that's gathered about our citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador is

secure and only accessible by those who have a right or a privilege or a need to

have access to that. That has to be protected.

As a

process here, there's an entity established that does all of that, ensures that

our information is kept safe and secure and is only shared in the benefit of the

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for particular reasons. That becomes

a very important issue.

It was

only recently that we've had it noted that there are some sexually transmitted

diseases that now seem to be becoming more prevalent around Newfoundland and

Labrador, particularly in certain areas. As doctors feed in, as we get a better

process of sharing information – one doctor may not know on the West Coast

what's happening on the East Coast or on the Northern Peninsula or in Labrador.

But if all the information is fed into the Centre for Heath Information, that

can be broken down and then trends can be identified, practices can be

identified and interventions can be identified.

It's a

collaborative approach of all the health information that's necessary, but it's

also just as important that it ensures all the information relevant to a

particular patient is secure, safe and private. That's what it is. As citizens,

while we want people to ensure that we've got the best of services, we

particularly want to ensure that only those who should have access to that

should be given an opportunity to do it. There has to be a mode, a medium and a

process in play that protects that. That's what the Centre for Health

Information has as one of its other key component responsibilities there.

When we

talk about the act itself, the act was incorporated in 2004. The entity itself,

the centre, existed for six or seven years before that on a smaller scale. As it

grew, and as the mandate got defined, then it was entrenched that it had to have

its own act. Like other corporations that we have, it had to have

responsibilities, it had to have parameters and it had to have objectives. They

were all set out in the 2004 act.

I do

realize now that more than a decade later you need to go back and review exactly

what the initial intent was. Has it achieved that? Has it gone beyond that? Are

there ways we need to modify it? Are there ways that we just need to make it

timely? That's what this piece of legislation will do as we bring that forward

over the next number of days in debate.

As I

mentioned earlier, the Auditor General had some real concerns about how we were

going to sustain at this salary base. As we all know, we're spending $3-plus

billion in our health care system and we have to be answerable for that. We have

to be answerable because we have to ensure first and foremost that we get the

best return on that investment. We also have to ensure that, as part of that,

everybody is responsible for what they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

That was one of the key things that the AG talked about and it was key just

around salaries. We've already talked about how that process will be put in

play. What's outlined here is a key component as to what can be done here to

ensure the health authority follows these set out regulations.

There

are some things here I want to talk about too. One of the other objectives here

is that the minister would have more direction. I shouldn't say more direction –

more input and would outline more direction to the entity itself.

For

those who can remember, back this past fall we had a great debate on a great

piece of legislation that was set up around the opioid registry program. It's a

very important piece of legislation. I'm glad we all supported it. We had some

concerns about some of the nuances in it and we had great debate. We even had

some collaborative co-operation and understanding, that there were some changes

that were accepted that would benefit everybody involved in it. So that was a

testament on how we can have open debate and actually enhance a piece of

legislation when everybody throws in their perspective or other outside

entities' perspectives. We had a great debate on that process.

For a

fair bit of time I stood and talked about the biggest concern I had was about

the minister having a lot of influence and direct control, for want of a better

phrase. That's in no disrespect to the minister or his title or his

responsibility. At the time on that one it was felt by myself in some of the

research I had done – and my colleagues and some outside entities – that there

were other processes that could be as beneficial that could have restricted the

minister from having to have total control. But after the debate, after the

discussion and after some agreeing and disagreeing, we passed and could live

with the fact that the minister would have a major influence on the opioid

registry program. It's important because it's necessary to do that.

When I

looked at this and saw that almost in the same vein the minister would have

direct oversight when it came to that, red flags went up again. I started to go

through it and I started to do my research and get my head around what impact

that would have. It's no disrespect to the present minister, what it was about

was ensuring there's a process that can't be influenced in one particular area

by one individual from a holistic point of view.

But

saying that, and saying what we had argued previously reviewing this piece of

legislation, it's a bit different, from my perspective. It's a bit different

because there are certain nuances here that are very important that the minister

be engaged. It's not just the minister as an individual and as a former

practising health professional or a non-health professional. It wouldn't make

any difference. In this case it's about administration, it's about

accountability.

The

registry was a whole different scenario because we were bringing entities from

outside that have a particular speciality in that field. I felt at the time, and

we felt at the time, that maybe the minister should relinquish some of that

control to them. Fair enough. We came to a consensus. We agreed to that, came to

a consensus and we're happy that's moving forward. It was a great piece of

legislation and we're looking forward to all the positives.

In this

case, I'm going to go the opposite side and say I see the benefits of the

minister having direct input. I see it because it's a different set-up; it's an

outside Crown agency. There have to be checks and balances. It's all related to

the health care but it's a different process than that. Not only with the

minister but I know, no doubt, as minister directing it, the direction and the

dialogue, obviously, would come from the officials in the department. It would

come from the regional health authorities who may have a concern as part of

that. Because it's information – and some of the changes that I'll note as we

talk about it a little later – the OCIO would be engaged.

This is

a very important entity that we have here in government because they're the

people who collect our data. They break down the best way we can analyze it.

They break down the best way we can keep it private. They also break down the

best way we can share that information. That's another entity that no doubt the

minister will have, as part of that agency, a very close working relationship

with and the department, his officials, will.

I see,

coming from that perspective, that it's not just that a minister would have

carte blanche. In this case, you can have carte blanche and still ensure the

process is not going to be influenced by a certain particular mindset or a

particular background. This would be based on the principle that the minister

going would drive the objectives of the entity or pull the entity back, if

they're going beyond their scope or not following their scope, to ensure they

meet their aims and objectives.

I know

sometimes it becomes questionable because they have a board of directors that

will be appointed and appointed through the proper process, which is ideal. It

adds a flavour of people coming from different backgrounds. I think in any

entity we have, a case internally or externally that deals with the holistic

approach to a particular need, we need to have influences or we need to have

information and guidance from people who come from different sectors.

I know

the ultimate decision has to be made by the government of the day. The

recommendations come from that line department who comes from the leadership,

which in the case would be a minister. Been there and I understand that. You

make those decisions based on the information you're given and your

understanding of what's happening. You make it based on the principles that what

you're doing is going to enhance the objectives here.

I have

no qualms in supporting that the minister would have much more influence over

directing what the Centre for Health Information does. I think it's healthy in

this situation. I think it will only enhance what gets done. I think it will

help better coordinate exactly what we're doing.

That has

no bearing on which minister is there at any given time. What it does is gives

an opportunity for the department that's ultimately responsible. The Department

of Health and Community Services is ultimately responsible for enhancing our

health care, for providing the health care from an umbrella perspective, but

also to ensure that the information is available so that we can change policy,

we can change programs, we can support programs, we can delete programs that are

no longer in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we can

find a collaborative partnership with other entities that work.

The

minister having that authority makes all the sense in the world. No qualms in

supporting that whatsoever. I think that's a good addition. I think maybe in

some cases – not all cases, in some cases – maybe line departments need a little

bit more where a minister doesn't have directly hands on but has the final

decision when it comes to directing outside entities on making them accountable.

That's

what it's about. It's not telling them what to do and when to do it; it's making

them accountable for reaching their goals and achieving their objectives. If

some stray, somebody has to be able to pull them back and say – there's an

entity with the Auditor General and that, but that's encompassing and it's two

or three years down the road. By that time we've either lost an opportunity to

enhance our health care, we may have lost an opportunity to spend our money more

wisely or we may have lost an opportunity to develop our partnership.

When

you're in the House and the minister has all the people advising him around him

who are specialists in that field, then you obviously have a better opportunity,

from a time point of view, to make changes that are in the best interests of

everybody that you're trying to serve. I have no qualms in that. That's one of

the second ones that are being proposed here. I think that it fits well. I look

forward to it working.

The

minister has outlined some of the objectives. I've had some people discuss with

me whether or not it should be that, that you're giving so much authority. But

after reviewing it and reviewing exactly, there are two nuances here. One, it's

the responsibility of the minister and what the minister already has within the

department, but it's also looking at the other entity. It may not be

transferable for every agency we have or every program but when you look at the

Centre for Health Information, to me, it makes a good fit.

I think

it's a continuum there, it's a safeguard, it's an enhancement but it's also a

support mechanism for the centre. It's not an us-and-them type of thing in any

agency that a government department is responsible for. It's always a

collaborative approach of ensuring you get the best return, the best results,

and for the most equitable investment possible. If you can take money and put it

somewhere else and still get the same return, why wouldn't you have, in some

form, an oversight process there to ensure that it works?

So I

like that. I think it's healthy; I think it benefits exactly where we are.

There's no doubt the minister has been brought up on the file as to where the

Auditor General came from. He can now start directing some of the key things.

Some of the key things were around job competition, upscale hiring, centre's pay

structure, step increases, reclassification, pay in lieu of notice, chief

executive officer's contract of employment, salary increases and the hiring of

external consultants to fill employee vacancies. So now he can be aware of that

and he can influence that by directing it. Somebody has to make decisions if

things are not going.

Now, you

let these entities have their freedom. They're independent and they do and they

operate very fluently, but there has to be a mechanism to ensure if things get

off the rails, somebody can bring it back on. So I like the outline that that

would work there.

One of

the other things here we pointed out, there would be a chief executive officer

appointed. And while we've always had that, or we've had some form of senior

management, it's never been entrenched in the legislation. We need to have that,

because you need to be able to determine exactly who is responsible for what in

your organization. As we do that, it works very easily. When you have set

position, and people would know their responsibilities, then they would know

exactly who reports to who and who has to take the lead in moving the process

forward.

having that entrenched, it's a simple change, but it's one that does two things.

It now gives the ability for promotion of that particular position – promoting

but also recruiting. In this case, because it's going to be entrenched in

legislation, it will have to be recruited through the Independent Appointments

Commission, which is healthy. We have no problems with that. We've great debate

on that. We saw the benefits of it. We see the people appointed. They are very

fluent people, very competent, who do a very diligent job. But this process then

makes it open to the general public to ensure you get the best qualified people

who should be put in those positions. It opens up that process to enable that to

work the way that you want it.

One of

the other changes to the legislation that will be enacted here is about adding a

senior official from the Office of OCIO. While there has always been a working

relationship, it has never been entrenched that there has to be somebody from

that entity in government, and that agency, who ensures that the information

that's being developed and accumulated can be done in the mode that fits with

all the other systems that we have in government.

OCIO –

for those who don't know it – is established to do a key thing here: Collect our

data, protect it and ensure we have access to it. They do a great job at doing

that. We need to have that mechanism now part and parcel of the Centre for

Health Information because they bring in expertise that would be beneficial.

Instead of duplicating, there may be particular skill sets that we have in the

OCIO that can enhance it. Or if we're doing a contract with an outside entity

with OCIO it may be, on an economy of scale, better if we partnered and added on

to that contract something that Centre for Health Information may be able to

benefit from.

Having

all the resources that we have at our disposal sit in the one room, sit on the

same board or have similar responsibilities is a positive. We can do that very

easily and the change being made there makes sense. In Committee, I'll have a

few questions around at what level will this person, or individual be; how much

of the time will be spent with that; are they just a member of the board when

the board meets periodically, or will they be working very closely with the

senior executive of the organization to ensure that the information,

recommendations and that, make sense. These are some of the key components of

what would be very important if we're to ensure that these changes are going to

be beneficial.

Again,

as we talked about earlier, the Centre for Health Information – it's a fairly

large piece of legislation. We talked about the few key things here that we're

going to do that are very important: expand its objectives, very important. It's

been talked about for a number of years. We have an ability to do that now, as

times have changed, developing new partnerships. Add the position of chief

executive officer. Again, you need somebody at the helm to run it, the internal

operations. Now they would have a set of rules, regulations and responsibilities

in legislation. They would be chosen through the Independent Appointments

Commission, through an open, obviously, recruitment process.

Then

that person would be known publicly who's responsible for it. So then they're

accountable, obviously, to the department, the minister, but particularly to

their board as they operate the agency that they've taken on. I see that as a

positive. I see that moving in the right direction.

Again,

as we talked about earlier, an employee from the OCIO to be a director on the

board at the centre. As I just mentioned earlier, I have no problems with that.

I endorse that. The issue I have, I'd need to know – sitting on a board meeting

once a month or once a quarter may not work. I'd like to know at what level or

what influence that director will have or what responsibility or reporting

process. Is it back to the Minister Responsible for the OCIO? Or does that

person come back and also report to the Minister of Health on some of the

information or develop partnerships with some of the recommendations they're

making.

I know

the minister and the department work closely with the board and the board comes

back with sets of recommendations and that. But I think we have a great asset

that's going to be added. I think and I would recommend that you use them to the

ultimate benefit to the agency. They have a wealth of experience, whoever is

going to be appointed. I would hope it will be somebody at a senior level who's,

not only from a management point of view but understands exactly the objectives

of the centre and the information technology uses here and how that can benefit

exactly what we're setting out to do as we try to look at improving our health

care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I

said earlier, allow the minister to direct the centre itself. Direction

sometimes is not considered having control. It's setting direction, making sure

people are on the right path and supporting. Direction, in a lot of cases, can

be support. So now it's set out that the minister has the ability to direct the

centre which, as I see it – and I'm looking forward to this as it evolves over

the next year or so – directing exactly how we improve what the centre does.

It's

very easily done when you have an understanding of what's happening and your

officials are briefing you on what's happening. In this case, the minister would

understand the nuances around the health information because he's worked in that

field. That's an added bonus here. I see that as very beneficial and encourage

him to use that knowledge as quick as possible to move us to the next level.

These

are all good things that are part and parcel of what's being proposed here. A

key one, while it's number five here I don't think it was done in any manner

that diminished its importance: “… modify the financial responsibilities and

obligations of the centre.” This was outlined, as I said earlier.

What the

Auditor General has noted in previous reports and what we have talked about,

it's maximizing the investment we make to ensure we get the best returns; but

while we're doing that, to ensure even while we're getting great returns from

the centre, that sometimes we've identified there may have been at the expense

of a particular other entity out there who also has a responsibility in ensuring

health care is improved.

We don't

want that duplication, we don't want that competition. We want to find a way

that works best for everybody. To do that, the classifications, the modem that's

used, the administration process has to be on an even keel with everything else.

We can't segregate one group over the other. You can't just say because somebody

gets information around health that's more important than an entity that

generates hundreds of millions of dollars from a sale for something else that

does something around protection in a school system.

You have

to ensure all entities and programs that we support in government are treated

equally and are treated fairly. There may be different funding models, but in

this case, at the end of the day, that the skill set works for everybody

involved.

These

are some key components as to why this piece of legislation will I think help

enhance the centre as it moves forward. It will also, no doubt, make people more

aware. We're having legislation here – I suspect, other than if you drove by and

saw the sign on the building or you're involved in the health care system, you

probably didn't have a real keen understanding of what information is being

collected on us as citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly around

our health needs, particularly around some of the interventions that are

happening here and particularly around access to particular health care in

certain regions.

This

dialogue and this discussion here, I would hope those who are watching at home

and anybody else who may see some of the information that's coming out, those

who read new parts of legislation that get added will have a better

understanding that we do have a very professional agency, a very equipped

agency, a very financially supported agency but a very open agency that will use

the data that's collected to ensure we all have better modes of health in this

province.

The

encouragement here now is to ensure that the regional health authorities are

tied in and now see the even higher value of having an entity that's not

competing against them anymore. There was some challenges. People manage in

different ways.

Some of

the regional health authorities were perturbed at times because just as they get

somebody trained, they're being taken away by the centre because of a higher

salary base. They can't fault their employees but they can fault the entity for

doing that, and they can fault us. When I say us, the previous administration,

present administration, for not having a system in play that ensures everything

is equal across the board and that we're making sure we don't take from one so

that another one can gain from that.

So,

hoping that the regional health authorities, no doubt when the information gets

out there, they'll have a better understanding of exactly what's in play. I know

there have been some past practices over the last couple of years and the freeze

that was put on a number of years ago about making those practices.

I do

realize there are times when the centre has come back and said: No, we need a

particular skill set and it doesn't fit with any other classification that we

have existing. We need to find a different way of doing it or a different

classification. Nobody has ever been adverse to that, but you have to follow the

same processes and procedures that any other entity would do about adding a new

classification or a new subcontract. Or if you're going outside for a particular

piece of consulting work, you have to follow the processes that are in play.

What's

being offered here is a very in-depth piece of legislation that will now say

while we're only changing some key headings, the detail does ensure this entity

falls in line with other entities that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That can only benefit the people of the province. It can only make it easier for

management to, no doubt, operate the facility and the process they have in play.

It can only ensure that staff know exactly where they lie.

there's room for advancement, they would know the pay scale is no different. So

it doesn't restrict them from taking another position somewhere else that's a

lateral move, that's in their best interest from a career path, or it fits them

from a social perspective. These are simple things that need to be put in play

to ensure that everything is in the right order as it should be.

I do

want to stress again – and I go back to the minister – I will be in Committee

asking if he's developed a process with his involvement with the board. Will he

meet with the board periodically? Will he just wait for the board to do their

recommendations coming to him? Will it be when there are recommendations that

there are changes in the existing structure of the organization that he then

intercedes and gives direction? No doubt, when we pass this legislation he'll

have the authority to do that. But I'd like to know – and I think the House and

the people would know, and I would suspect the Centre for Health Information

would like to know – exactly what the minister's thoughts would be on how he

feels he's going to address the particular needs.

For over

two years he's been in that position and would have clear knowledge of exactly

the connection and the part