November 15, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 34
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
the Serious Incident Response Team Act, Bill 24, and I further move that the
bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety have leave to introduce a
bill entitled, Serious Incident Response Team Act, Bill 24, and that the said
bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, Serious Incident
Response Team Act. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call
Order 2, third reading of Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 13)
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.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 7,
second reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 25,
Prescription Monitoring Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 25, entitled Prescription Monitoring Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “Prescription Monitoring Act.” (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you once again, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
pleased to rise in this hon. House today – slightly sniffly after my flu shot
from yesterday – to open debate on Bill 25, an act respecting monitoring of
prescriptions in this province. It comes as no surprise that this bill comes
here. We have had discussions around the issues surrounding opioid use and
diversion for some time now. It has been labelled in other jurisdictions as a
public health crisis.
Just to
set the tenure and the background, Canada has more prescriptions for opioids per
capita than any other country in the G7, and Newfoundland and Labrador,
unfortunately, is at the leading edge of those numbers, too. It is felt that a
problem around opioid addiction stems from the liberal use of opioids and also
now, potentially, diversion.
I would
emphasize from the get-go, however, that the intent of this bill, which is a
legal framework to address monitoring of what are designated under the act and
then under the regulations as monitored drugs. The principle aim of this act is
educational; it is not punitive.
A lot of
the discussions now – and I suspect in Committee – however, will veer towards
the punitive end of the spectrum simply because those, by their very nature, are
unusual in the course of prescribing behaviour and medical behaviour in general.
I think it's worth stating now: there are a vast majority of people in this
province, prescribers in this province and dispensers in this province, who act
in an entirely professional and totally responsible fashion. This, if you like,
education piece is aimed at making that practice even better.
For
those people whose behaviour is egregious – and it is a very small number, both
of dispensers, prescribers and patients. For those individuals, they have, up to
now, been exceptionally difficult to deal with in a timely and responsive
manner. This is the principle purpose of this bill.
You can
go back through the department for maybe 10 years and find examples of
individuals who have been a source of worry, for whom there has been no simple
or straightforward approach to managing the problem. They have been managed
ineffectively, where they have been managed at all, and have often figured
prominently in the news, not once, but on multiple occasions before their
activities had finally been curtailed. This bill is to provide a legal framework
to help manage that very small group but, again, it's principal aim is to
educate and inform to improve clinical practice.
This
bill provides that legal framework to implement a Prescription Monitoring
Program in this province. The function of the program is going to monitor,
analyze and report information related to the prescribing and dispensing of
monitored drugs. Initially, the only and first category of drugs that will be
monitored – and this will be developed in regulation and stipulated there. The
first category and the only category will be that of opioids, which are
currently our pressing public health prescription challenge.
However,
Mr. Speaker, the bill is worded so broadly that additional drugs can be added in
the future. Benzodiazepines are another category of drug which would be worthy
of monitoring for a public safety point of view. Those numbers, however, and
their impact is smaller and less lethal currently than opioids.
We heard
just this week, however, and last, in data provided by OECD and CIHI around
category of drugs which are of significant public health concern but over a much
longer term. That, Mr. Speaker, is the use or inappropriate use of antibiotics.
Again,
to put that in perspective, this province has 33 per cent more prescriptions per
capita for antibiotics than the next leading jurisdiction in Canada. We are way
over the national average in use of a category of drugs that will actually, if
it continues, jeopardize safe health care for a whole variety of conditions.
Obviously, the impact on life and limb in the short term is nothing like that of
opioids, but in terms of a public health, a problem on a global scale, I would
suggest, antibiotics have just as big a potential to actually kill indirectly by
being useless on those occasions when we need them most. This bill and the
regulations under it that will be crafted would allow for monitoring of
antibiotic prescriptions, for example, should the need arise.
For the
moment, however, I will go back to the focus of the program, which is
principally opioids. For those of you who don't have a background in pharmacy or
prescribing, opioids are basically derivatives of opium. They are categories of
drugs such as morphine and its derivatives, which are well used and have a
well-respected and established place in clinical practice, but also other drugs
such as heroin which, in this country, anyway, is not recognized largely as a
prescription drug, although other jurisdictions do allow its prescription. There
are some programs in Vancouver, for example, where this can be obtained legally
through prescription.
They
are, and have been for a long time, an important and legitimate class of drugs
used in pain management and have been essential in such areas as the acute
surgical situation, for example, with which I was much more familiar, but also
in cancer care and palliative care.
The
national trends have shown an increase in opioid prescriptions, and this is of
concern because in actual fact they are drugs of habituation and addiction,
physical and psychological dependence. Classically, we were taught, when I was a
resident, that this would be something that happened in a very small percentage
and only after a prolonged exposure. But there is now evidence, for example,
that even those people who receive a prescription for post-operative pain
relief, those people whose prescriptions last six days or longer have fully four
times the rate of addiction than those people who have five days or less, and
that is a real alarm bell.
I have
to say, Mr. Speaker, that the medical profession and prescribers in general were
actively misled by companies such as Purdue Pharma, the manufacturers of
OxyContin, to the point where I think, personally, they bear no small
responsibility for what is actually a global catastrophe. And the most worrying
thing from a moral and ethical point of view is that they may have exhausted
their good will in North America, but they're now turning their sights on India
and Brazil where the populations are huge and the regulations minimal.
So, I
think, again, I digress slightly, but I hope no one will argue the issue of
relevance on this particular point. The most recent statistics indicate the
number of people referred for treatment for opioid dependency in Newfoundland
and Labrador have jumped by 600 per cent in seven years. They have gone from 73
people in the year 2007 to 2008 to 443 in the period '14-'15.
These
referrals resulted in a variety of treatment options ranging from counselling, a
dependency treatment using drugs such as methadone, which has been the mainstay
– we've now moved toward Suboxone – and there are other injectable medications
of what is called a depot preparation which are long acting, which are showing
some potential here. We're keeping an eye on those as options for the future.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program, however, is not intended – not intended – to
prevent the use of monitored drugs for legitimate medical purposes. There are
many reasons why an opioid is the most appropriate treatment for a patient's
condition and this program is not meant to deter prescribers from making an
informed clinical decision to make that prescription. It is hopefully going to
be a tool to educate them so their decision becomes more informed.
The
primary goal, apart from that, is to ensure that when an opioid is prescribed
both the prescribers and dispensers have up-to-date and accurate patient
information when they make that decision and when they write that prescription.
In a sense, this is actually the earliest form of a decision support tool that
we are mandating and building into the system.
The
trend of opioid use, diversion of opioids, overdoses and death nationally and in
Newfoundland and Labrador is and continues to be a growing concern. Numbers in
British Columbia, which is kind of the leading edge of this way, show that
already this year there have been over 1,000 deaths from opioid poisoning. I
don't think these people have overdosed; I think they've been poisoned by
additives to what that they thought were legitimate street drugs. Their heroin
or their cocaine has been laced with a poison called fentanyl or carfentanil or
one its derivatives, which is lethal in minute doses.
In 2016,
there were 2,816 apparent opioid-related deaths in Canada. In Newfoundland and
Labrador, we had 57 hospital admissions involving opioid poisonings and 16
apparent opioid-related deaths. Of interest, on a harm-reduction level, the
naloxone program, to which I have alluded on many occasions, has actually been
used at least as often as that with, good results; i.e., people who would
otherwise have perished are alive because of that program. I will highlight the
importance of that program a bit later on in this legislation because it's part
of a piece of a bigger jigsaw.
The
bottom line from those statistics is essentially these are extremely concerning.
In November of 2016, I joined with my federal provincial and territorial
counterparts to release a joint statement of action to address the opioid crisis
in response to some of the background I've just provided. At that same time, I
also announced the province's Opioid Action Plan in response to that situation.
One of
those action items, there were education pieces, there were some legislation
we've already referred to, Bill 55, from a previous session where we have
options for secure withdrawal management and also harm reduction strategies
again around the naloxone kits and needle exchanges. One of the action items
identified in November of 2016 was the introduction and implementation of a
Prescription Monitoring Program. This bill, and my standing here in this hon.
House today, is the culmination of that process.
The
program builds on other measures that I've referenced. Education; we have a new
mandatory safe prescribing course for all newly licensed physicians that went
live on the 1st of January. We are the first province in Canada to have done
that. Others are now following suit. We funded that through Memorial University
and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Early reports show that in other
jurisdictions elsewhere in the world where they've tried this, it has had a
beneficial effect.
We had
Bill 55 passed, An Act Respecting Secure Withdrawal Management for Young
Persons. We have a public awareness and education program on opioids and we've
also, as I referenced, gone into harm reduction manoeuvers around naloxone
take-home kits. As I say, we've used anywhere north of 16 of these. It's very
difficult to track sometimes the usage, but what reports we have on those 16
would suggest that they have reversed a potentially fatal situation.
We've
had naloxone pop-up tents which were initially collaboration between government,
Eastern Health and the City of St. John's. I'd like to shout out to my colleague
for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville who was a key link between our department
and them at the time. Festivals across the province have also seized on the
opportunity. I would encourage those folk who are planning for next year's
events to contact their local RHA. All we need is a space and a tent and we'll
do the rest.
To get
on to the program itself, these monitoring programs are being used in all
jurisdictions across the country, with the exception of Quebec, with the intent
of helping prescribers and dispensers make informed decisions about who requires
opioids and how and what that form should take.
Again,
for emphasis, the purpose of the program is education. It is to help prescribers
and dispensers make the most informed choice at the time when they feel that
prescription is necessary. It's not an intent to police professionals. It's
rather to give them access to information in a timely way about their patients
at the time the drug is either prescribed, or in the case of dispensers, at the
time it is actually dispensed with reference to the monitored drugs.
This
program will assist those professionals to make better quality decisions, but it
also will allow them to look and potentially identify folk who actually have
opioid dependence simply on the basis of their prescription pattern. That, in
turn, will allow them at least to be offered appropriate services and a
discussion to take place about how they wish to deal with what could be a
dependency or addiction. One of our challenges is sometimes actually identifying
people in that situation. That can then lead on to formal programming and help
them to manage and recover from their addiction.
The
foundation upon which this program is built is the Pharmacy Network. There was
reference made in this House to that network on previous occasions. It finally
went live in the spring of this year and was a success. We have anecdotal
preliminary information already from NLCHI that there has been a reduction in
adverse drug events. Unrelated to opioids, there's been a reduction in duplicate
prescriptions and there's a reduction in prescription errors as well.
Indeed,
going back to the first two individuals to connect to the Pharmacy Network
before it became mandatory, they in actual fact, the day they were connected,
identified an issue with potential double doctoring of opioid prescriptions. It
works, Mr. Speaker, in short.
In turn,
the Pharmacy Network itself is a component of an initiative around the
province-wide electronic health record, which we commonly refer to as HEALTHe
NL. The Pharmacy Network is comprised of a real-time database of medications. So
when a patient goes in to receive a prescription and get the drug dispensed,
that fact is entered into the database as it happens, live from all of the
province's pharmacies that are outpatient pharmacies.
In
spring, we have connected all 201 of them to the system. What the HEALTHe NL
viewer does is simply a front end, at no cost to the prescriber, which will
allow them to access that profile and close the loop, so that not only does the
pharmacist see the patient's dispensing history, but at the time the
prescription is written, a prescriber can look at the viewer securely, bring up
the patient's medication history – with respect to any drug over any period of
time that has been filled – and have that information at the time the
prescription is written.
It's
that complete medication profile, whether they filled a prescription in St.
John's and are now getting another one filled in Gander or Grand Falls or vice
versa, that's real time, it's live and it's current. That is the key, to have
that information in the hands of the prescriber at the time the prescription is
written itself.
Ideally,
with the fullness of time, the prescription itself wouldn't be written any more.
It would be composed, if you like, electronically and sent automatically to a
pharmacy of the patient's choice. Once more prescribers get on to the electronic
health record, then that will become a reality. This in the meantime is a hybrid
which has worked in other jurisdictions. I'm referencing British Columbia here,
which gets around the requirement and the onus to force change on physicians or
prescribers when there may be a cost incurred. They can plan this in a more
leisurely way.
Although
at some point, Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case are that good, quality,
primary care requires an EHR in a team environment. So with the fullness of
time, I would suggest that patients may well be at a disadvantage in those
practices that are so low and don't have an EHR. That is, however, outside the
remit of this act.
In
British Columbia – we are not reinventing the wheel here. In British Columbia,
what they did, just like us, we have tamper-proof prescription pads. These are
specially printed documents unique to a physician or made so by the way they
have to be filled in. These exist already and are used for what are called
control drugs, which are legally defined in a different way.
That
mechanism will continue, but we will likely modify. This will be prescribed
under regulations, so it's not part of the act. We just have an explanation here
for workflow.
A
physician or a nurse practitioner, or a midwife – when we get more than the one
we have at the moment practicing – and dentists will annotate in a way to be
prescribed that they have viewed the healthy viewer at the time the prescription
is written and are satisfied that there are no issues with issuing this opioid
prescription. It will be signed, maybe timed and dated, and the prescriber's
number will be affixed to that signature. Essentially, they're using their
licence and their professional standing to certify that in their professional
view there's nothing untoward about issuing this prescription.
I go
into that detail simply to enlighten folk who may not have the background of
others as to how prescriptions actually would be written in the system. This is
a hybrid, but it's worked well in British Columbia.
So to
speak a little bit more to the nuts and bolts of the bill. It provides the
necessary legal authority for us to actually operate the program. It grants
powers to and imposes duties on myself, the Minister of Health and Community
Services. It also has those same impositions and requirements on dispensers,
prescribers, regulatory authorities and also patients, because they have a role
to play in this, too.
Again,
the object of the program is around education, support and assistance to those
groups to avoid misuse and potential abuse of drugs that are designated, under
regulation, as monitored drugs. These monitored drugs will be defined, and as
I've already indicated, we're starting with opioids initially and the
regulations for that will be in place prior to the implementation of the
program.
The bill
does specify it's the minister who's responsible for the program itself.
However, the bill also does permit delegation of powers and duties by the
minister to an entity or person. In conjunction with discussions with the
Information and Privacy Commissioner, that delegation was felt to be required
that it be delegated to someone who is also designated as a custodian under the
Personal Health Information Act. That
was a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner, and it addressed a lot of
his concerns about potential loopholes or gaps in safeguarding what is sensitive
personal information.
It also
allows us to store complete information. By having the custodian designated
under fear, we can store everything that is relevant to the patient; everything
that is stored in that is secure and protected in a way that other legislation
may not be as stringent. So it holds us to a high standard.
The
intention also is that Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information
would be the delegate to administer this program. The logic behind that fits in
with other announcements we've made around streamlining of IT and clinical
records services electronically in the province. Essentially, the centre
currently houses several provincial electronic databases and principally the
Pharmacy Network.
As I've
already mentioned, the Pharmacy Network is the foundation block without which
this program would not be feasible, and that had to be up and running. Just to
remind folk, that happened 1st of July, just past. So we've really tried not to
drag our feet with this.
We've
had the Pharmacy Network up and running and I might say with minimal fuss. We
have had some issues with one or two pharmacies, but in actual fact on closer
examination that was an issue with their Internet service provider and not with
the technology or the centre itself. The centre would then house this
information and would generate reports which would be descriptive and could be
sent to prescribers and dispensers and also allow analysis about patterns of use
and potential sources in the case of opioids of diversion.
As I've
mentioned, at the time of writing a prescriber would be required under the act
to check the medication profile and to sign to that effect. The profile, I can't
stress, is key. A real time, up-to-date profile is key to the safe and reliable
functioning of this.
Equally,
the dispenser currently already has to check in the Pharmacy Network but there
will be a specific onus on them in the issue of monitored drugs for them to do
that. Their systems are flexible enough that this could be done electronically
and wouldn't require a paper process.
The
regulatory authorities are also involved in this. Again, this is where you start
to stray into that grey area of what is acceptable professional practice, what
is questionable and what is downright egregious and possibly even criminal.
There
will be a mechanism stipulated in regulation whereby once certain thresholds are
passed, that information would be conveyed to them. Should they take action or
have already taken action where a particular prescriber's licence has been
constrained or abridged in any way, that information would have to be fed in to
the system so that we could then identify any situations where someone who was
not allowed by their professional regulatory body to go near opioids or
benzodiazepines in the future, were they to issue a prescription for that, this
would be flagged and of itself would constitute behaviour that would require
notification.
We
understand that the decision around prescribing any drug is one related to the
clinical autonomy of the prescriber at the time. It's not our intent to tinker
or abridge that autonomy in any way, but we also recognize the prescriber's
ability to do that role and fulfill that role properly is kind of dependent on
the right information being fed to them by patients. That's why within the act
there's a specific onus on patients, on individuals seeking prescriptions, to be
honest and truthful as to the reasons for them seeking that.
If that
information that they provide is inaccurate, there will actually be consequences
potentially for the individual. There is wording in the act to cover the event
where you have someone who goes to mislead a prescriber and it is an offence. It
states that the patient is not knowingly to provide false or misleading
information at the time a prescription is sought.
Once the
data is housed and stored through the Pharmacy Network, there exists an ability
to flag unusual activity, the most obvious being where a person visits multiple
prescribers in the same day or multiple dispensers to obtain monitored drugs. As
part of the operation of this program, when that flag is triggered, we need a
mechanism to actually act upon it. That's part of the framework that doesn't
exist at the moment.
Officials would have to reach out to prescribers and dispensers to seek
clarification with respect to a prescription. The bill provides authority for
the minister or a delegate to request information where that's reasonably
necessary to achieve the objectives of the program.
Where
there are reasonable grounds – and some of these will be in terms of thresholds
and triggers that will be worked through in the regulation – the bill authorizes
the sharing of information between prescribers, dispensers, the regulating
authorities and if need be, law enforcement. It allows the safe, protected
information to be released in a controlled way when certain thresholds are
passed to either a regulatory authority or maybe to a regulatory authority and
law enforcement, or in the situation of what's been colloquially termed doctor
shopping, maybe to law enforcement directly.
The bill
authorizes that sharing and allows for the management of more egregious
circumstances. Again, I go back to my opening comment. This is not a punitive
bill, but there has to be a stick along with the educational carrot. Part of the
problem we're trying to deal with is not the behaviour of 99 per cent of people;
it's the behaviour of 1 per cent of the people. Those percentages may be off a
little bit, it could be 95 and 5 per cent, but the facts of the case are the
vast majority of people involved in opioids are involved for perfectly
legitimate, entirely appropriate reasons.
Bill 25
also contains an inspection regime whereby the minister can appoint an
individual, or person, who will be a custodian under PHIA or an employee of a
custodian. The reasons for that, again, relate to concerns the Privacy
Commissioner had about who should have access to what in the way of sensitive
information.
It's
important to note again – and I can't repeat this often enough because there's
some fear mongering going on about how this is a punitive exercise, but the
object of this program is to educate and assist. It's not meant to go out and be
a big stick.
It is
anticipated that in the issue of an unclear indication for opioids, or an
unusual prescription outside the prescribers normal profile, for example, that
the vast majority of people would comply with a request for information. We do
this regularly for physicians through MCP for their financial billings. There's
an audit process and there's very little issue for the vast majority of
individuals.
But
again, we're moving away from the behaviour of the reasonable individual into
territory that is at least gray and possibly criminal. So in order to address
that we do actually have to have the option of additional powers to address
issues of non-compliance. This, again, is for that very small percentage of
individuals, prescribers, dispensers, whose behaviour is well outside the norm
for their peer.
So as
part of the implementation process, the bill permits the establishment of an
advisory committee to address, if you like, this clinical audit function. You
don't have to have it, but the bill states quite clearly, should you exercise
that option, it has to have at least one prescriber and one dispenser on that
committee. The reason it's worded like that is to reflect potential flexibility,
depending on who the prescriber might be on an occasion, whether it's a
physician or a midwife or who the dispenser might be.
As I
say, while setting up the committee is discretionary – we don't need to create
committees we don't need and have standing committees all the time – when you do
the act, not the regulations, the act requires that there be at least one
dispenser and one prescriber on that committee.
The
function of that is to entrench appropriate clinical expertise in decisions that
essentially touch on clinical autonomy or clinical decisions. There's no point
in having a politician, a civil servant or an accountant decide on that
approach.
The
purpose of this committee is to provide advice and recommendations on any
matters that might be referred to them through the program. They're there to
educate the administrators of the program and the minister, if need be, on
what's gone on and whether this request or whether this prescription or
dispensing activity was clinically entirely reasonable.
In the
first instance, Mr. Speaker, it's the intent of Health and Community Services to
have two committees. One of these will be made up of representatives from
regulatory bodies, law enforcement, community partners and government
departments that have an interest in opioid use and diversion. During the
development of the program, we actually had a committee of such stakeholders who
provided advice and guidance on the development of the program and the framing
of this legislation. It would seem sensible to continue this committee and morph
it into that advisory committee.
The
second committee is the one I've referenced about clinical expertise, but in a
slightly different way in the sense of reports, what you do with these
educational pieces, how should they be crafted so that the end-user can get the
best benefit from them. There have been a variety of strawmen, if you like, for
prescribing and practice profiles that have been used over the time. I can go
back to my time with the NLMA when we did that with billing activities for
fee-for-service physicians. I know currently choosing wisely – and Dr. Parfrey
through the university is looking at specific activities within the realm of
clinical practice and has developed a series of indicators.
The most
common is simply a kind of box-and-whisker plot where you have an average for
your group and a range of, if you like, normal activity and then a little line
as to where you, as your individual practitioner, fall. That group could be
defined as being geographical. For example, before I retired it could have been
general surgeons in Central or off the Avalon, and it could also be described in
terms of specialists in general or general surgeons of the province and that
would be a different comparator.
Those
actually shift because different people have different practice profiles. There
are at least three or four, for example, family physicians whose principal area
of clinical activity are outside of family medicine in addictions and mental
health. They're prescribing profile, particularly for things like methadone,
will be completely different than a GP whose main focus is care of the elderly
and, in turn, that would be completely different from someone whose main
emphasis is on palliative care. You have to compare apples and apples, not
apples and anything else you happen to have.
The
clinical expertise on that committee will help determine how those reports
should be crafted. The proclamation of the bill we have proposed as the 1st of
January 2018. The regulations are well underway. There's one section of the bill
that we have suggested should be delayed and we've suggested it be delayed until
June 30, 2018, and that's section 7 which specifically relates to the
requirements for prescribers to have the HEALTHe NL viewer. Again, this is not
an electronic health record as such; it is simply a portal to the Pharmacy
Network to see who's written what and what patient has picked up which drug.
It is at
no cost to the prescriber that doesn't already have it as part of their EMR or
EHR. It is something you can put on a CD. They will simply require a username
and a password, which will be sent to them by NLCHI, to make sure the access
they get is authorized. That's the bare bones of it. How that will be
operationalized and the time to actually do that is why we're looking at June
30, 2018 for that final piece.
The
other piece of that is that NLCHI has to work with the regional health
authorities to actually push that software out to all their PCs and terminals
across their facilities. Again, not a lengthy process, but there's a change
management piece in there in that people have to get comfortable with using it.
It's not difficult. Even I, as a surgeon, could manage to use it. As they say:
It ain't brain surgery. I think, in fairness, it's a process that's analogous to
what went on with hooking pharmacies into the Pharmacy Network.
We have
spent a lot of time in the department consulting with the stakeholders I've
alluded to: provincial health care regulatory bodies, law enforcement, community
groups and professional associations. Their input has all been put in the
blender, if you like, and is manifest in this bill.
We've
also looked at other jurisdictions. We have really taken a leaf out of BC's
book, and I make no apologies for that. They have led the way, unfortunately,
because of a variety of social, cultural and geographic factors whereby the
opioid issue has become their problem first and slowly spread east.
Our
issue is it's kind of jumped a little bit because once it got into Alberta with
our connections and family connections and work connections, that has come back
a bit quicker than it would if it travelled by road.
The
bottom line from all these groups – the feedback we've received has been
predominately positive. There are always little nuances about whether or not
there should be this facet or that facet put in the bill, but I think there's a
general acknowledgement – well, I know there's a general acknowledgement out
there that this piece of legislation in principle is crucial. There's also a
groundswell of support for the bill as it is currently written.
I notice
the time is ticking down. I just have a few concluding remarks. Again, and I
make no apologies for repeating this, section 3 quite clearly states that the
objective of the program is to educate, assist and support the use of this
technology and this program for prescribers and dispensers with relation to
drugs that are monitored. In the first instance, that will be opioids. The
reason for that I highlighted in my opening remarks. It is not in any way meant
to be punitive. That might sound paradoxical given the fact that there are
significant chunks of the act which refer to inspectors and quasi-judicial and
judicial approaches to what some would view as a clinical activity.
I hope
my remarks have framed that in a way that makes that understandable. It is the
vast majority of prescribers and dispensers in this province who do an excellent
job, competent job, and look to be educated and fine tune their practice using
this information. There are, however, small groups or small numbers of
individuals, both prescribers, dispensers and members of the public who misuse
opioid prescriptions, either for personal reasons in terms of managing their own
addiction, for which we now have a tool to identify them and help them, or for
criminal activities, which I cannot condone nor will I.
So for
those individuals, it is important that we have a mechanism whereby we can deal
with them appropriately. The first issue is around identifying and building and
verifying your case. That's where the inspection piece comes in. That's where
the role of enforcing compliance with request for information becomes crucial.
If you go back over the last 15 years, for those individuals whose behaviour has
been sanctioned because it was egregious, it took 10 years in some cases to
bring these people to task and to be able to successfully terminate their
activities.
Again,
if you go into detail on some of those on an individual level, this was not the
first time these individuals have been brought to the attention, but because a
framework like this did not exist in terms of data collection and because there
was no rigorous mechanism by which they could be held to account, they got away
with it, or they got back to it somehow. This is an attempt to close that
loophole, because a small number of people with criminal intent actually have a
huge impact on the general health of the population.
You
don't want someone diverting significant quantities of opioids into small
communities around this province, or any community, no matter what the size.
Unfortunately, there are suggestions that that is happening. This will find
those individuals and hold them to task. The bulk of the people who will use
this are responsible, dedicated, committed individuals who simply want to do
their own job better, and that was very much the message we heard from the
clinicians I've spoken to about the intent of this bill. So this is about
building confidence in that group. It's also about building confidence in the
general public so that they realize we have seen a problem and we have acted to
manage that.
There
are harm reduction issues that will flow from this. This is not going to make
our job any easier on the harm reduction front. If you look at what's happened
in other jurisdictions, there has been a move for some people with particular
challenges to more illegal activities. So in terms of the addicts options, it
has tended to push them towards the street. This is why last year we had such an
emphasis on harm reduction. We have not stopped with harm reduction and we have
other measures that we are continuing to discuss, both in the province and with
our federal counterparts.
Really
and honestly, we cannot allow one of these drawbacks to jeopardize what is a
sound, popular, well-supported piece of legislation. So, yes, it's not perfect
in the sense that it will have a consequence, but in terms of the problem it is
designed to look at, this, I would suggest, is a comprehensive and clear way of
dealing with the issues I've highlighted.
It
builds on a successful program. It builds on the Pharmacy Network, which once
the change has been completed, as I say, with the exception of a couple of
businesses who had challenges which then turned out to be related to Internet
service provider and router, not the program itself, we have had really very
little in the way of any issues. It's already anecdotally started to bring down
prescription errors, duplicate prescriptions, and reduced the number of adverse
drug events. We will hopefully have some comprehensive statistics to report,
probably at the end of its first full year of operation.
We
recognize that prescription drug misuse, particularly opioids, is a real issue.
This is a start that's focused on that issue. To get this done, it's not just
going to be a matter of passing a piece of legislation in the House and writing
some regulations. To address the societal impact of opioid misuse and addiction
– and drug addiction in general is not something government can do by itself –
we need front-line health care workers who are dedicated and want to see
progress. It also needs the public to recognize several things.
If I had
one sort of slightly off-track message here, the recognition that addictions is
actually a disease and not a lifestyle choice would probably be the
single-biggest societal change that I would welcome in this province. I cannot
do that by myself. People of influence, thought leaders, education are all part
and parcel of that.
Without
that mind switch, we are going to find people who will naysay this on the
grounds that somehow we are supporting unacceptable lifestyles. I'll put that
out there now in case anyone wants, either here or in TV land, to bring that
argument up. Bring it on. I'll talk to you about it because you're wrong – you
are wrong.
We
acknowledge that the program is taking some time to develop. You can have it
quick or you can have it right. This is a compromise. I suspect some people will
find issue with some of it. I think it's more right than quick. Having said
that, the Pharmacy Network only went live 1st of July this year. That is not six
months, and here we are with the Prescription Monitoring Program bill as
advertised; action not planning, not a strategy of strategies, but some concrete
and tangible developments.
The
commitment of the people who have been involved in this, I think, really has to
be commended. I've already alluded to that in another place, but I think I'd
like to read into Hansard the
fact that the individuals here, the RNC, the RCMP, the community groups on the
Burin and in other areas, and Ruby who actually made the trip in from the Burin
today –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Marystown.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yeah, sorry. Thank you. I'm fumbling for that one.
These folk have committed enormous effort and enormous time
to help make this possible. I think it doesn't do any harm at all to repeat that
whenever possible.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to abridge my time a little bit. I'm simply going to say I
commend this bill to the House. I look forward to hearing comments from the
other side of the House. I look forward to handling any questions in Committee.
I really think this is another milestone in our management of what is a
significant public health issue, and I look to the support of the House for it.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand in this House on this Wednesday morning and speak to
Bill 25, Prescription Monitoring Act.
I have to agree with the minister here. There are a number of key points that
he's outlined here that I personally wholeheartedly support, but particularly
the first one that in isolation none of us, no matter what agency you are, no
matter what professional you are, no matter how much of a concerned citizen you
are or if you're a parent or if you're a user or recovering addict, that we can
solve this issue alone. There has to be a holistic approach to addressing the
opioid epidemic that we have here, but particularly the impact that it's having
on our society.
We see
it in every community. I'm glad the minister acknowledged, too, that there are
grassroots agencies and organizations that are made up of citizens who are
coming forward to lend their support to addressing this issue. There's no doubt
we need legislation that helps move it to the next level, that helps us identify
exactly what are the main issues, how do we monitor what's happening, how do we
ensure that everybody involved in this are on the same page. There are
components and approaches that can be done that will make an even flow to the
whole process.
As the
minister had talked about, the impact that opioids have had in our society and
in this country and around the world, and the devastating impact it's had on
families, but particularly individuals. I've had personal experience in my own
community with agencies and organizations who have just recently been
established because of the loss of young men and women from overdoses and their
long battle with their commitments to the opioids.
As the
minister had noted, too, we need to get to understanding the philosophy that
this is a disease versus just a standard lifestyle. Because there is always some
adversity to sectors in society who don't normally follow that trend. It's easy
to point blame versus actually saying we have a responsibility and we have a
stake in this. We need to be able to do that and address it in a manner that
solves the issue here, but particularly engages all of our own segments in our
society. Looking at how we address the opioid issue here is no doubt very
important to our society.
Having
legislation that puts it at a higher level and includes the key stakeholders is
very important, but I first again want to spend a few minutes about the impact
that it's having. I think that our listeners who may not be tuned in to the
issues of opioids and may not have had experienced that in their community, in
their neighbourhood or particularly in their family would understand the impact
that its having on our society. Not only the ultimate loss of life – that's the
ultimate impact that it would have on these individuals and their families – but
it's the loss of productivity.
It's in
some cases, unfortunately, the lifestyle that it leads these people who are
addicted to the opioids from a criminal point of view, from a lack of education,
from a breakdown in the family unit to not being productive citizens, to not
being engaged in our society. That has a dramatic effect on what we do in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There's
no doubt any piece of legislation that comes to this House and gets debated, the
intent is always to improve a program, a service, to address a particular need,
to in some way, shape or form find a better approach to including our citizens
and ensuring their quality of life is better. To address that, particularly if
it's a grave issue that people are facing like addictions, particularly around
opioids, we need to have legislation that is balanced, respects the individuals
who are involved, respects privacy, but finds a better way to ensure that the
whole access and the flow is the continuum.
There
are going to be different degrees of interventions, different degrees of
monitoring, different degrees of partnering to address this particular issue.
It's not just the prescribers. It's not just the dispensers. This is a bigger
issue here. I'm glad the minister ended his address here on that note, that
there's a higher level of collaboration here that has to take place if we're to
address this. What this legislation will do, it will frame it in a legal manner
that instructs and guides agencies, organizations, government departments,
stakeholders to ensure that the process being followed is in line with us being
able to find a solution and address the particular needs.
One of
the particular needs has been noted, and it's been discussed by organizations,
users, professionals in the field, is the overprescribing. Probably the bigger
underlining issue is: Why are we overprescribing? Is it our particular
lifestyles? Is it our physical makeup? Is it it's easier to address – is it that
we have so much faith that we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are that much
tougher that we don't get addicted to things as easy in other issues?
That's
not necessarily the truth in the world. We always think we're indestructible,
but in our society, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we're susceptible to
any other issue in life that may be physically detrimental or, in this case,
medically detrimental, which has a total impact on your holistic life here and
that's the addictions to opioids.
Opioids
are prescribed for various multitudes of medical interventions. As we know, 95
to 99.9 per cent of the population can use that opioid to address whatever
particular ailment that's relevant to without any issues around long-term
addictions, without any issues around it totally interfering with their life. As
a matter of fact, in a lot of cases it helps them get back to a normal standard
of their everyday activities and get to the recovery.
Unfortunately, there's a group, for a number of reasons, that they become
addicted to it. That addiction becomes a disease. How we address that is very
important because it has an impact on what the rest of us do here in society.
What
we're going to be talking about here and what I do like about this part of the
legislation – and the key component here: It's meant to educate, support and
assist. They are philosophies that we try to embed in everything we do here, if
it's around education, if it's around inclusion, if it's around health care, if
it's around democracy. It's about how we educate people. It's how we support and
how we assist. We need to find the perfect balance that includes all of those
three components so that we know at the end of the day what we've put in play
will be successful.
There's
no doubt there's no magic wand, there's no quick fix, there's no let's nod and
it's all taken care of. That doesn't happen in any society. It definitely
doesn't happen when you've got something that's an addictive process and it's
disease related. That's what we're dealing with here. It becomes a holistic
approach to how we address issues around that.
What
we're creating here is the Prescription Monitoring Program. In a previous life a
number of years ago, I had the privilege of working with some professionals in
this field about the concept of that. The issue they had was there was no
ability to really monitor how often somebody who was abusing these or were so
reliant on them or the criminal element were having access to it.
We
didn't have a proper monitoring process to know what was happening in dispensing
and what was happening in prescribing in one area wasn't happening a day later
or two hours later or a week later for that same individual because the intent
of the use of it may not have been why it was prescribed. That becomes the
dilemma.
Obviously, as a professional who would be in that field, they must shake their
head sometimes in disbelief. Because they go in with the right intention, the
right diagnosis, the intent of saying here, this will improve your recovery;
this will help you get to the next stage so you can be more productive and more
engaged in whatever activity you're doing. This is to address, in a temporary
manner, the particular aliment you have. It's unfortunate, and I can't even
imagine as a professional, a prescriber, a doctor, a physician, what that means
when they come back and see their patient further down the road and see what
that's led to, the addiction issue and the impact that's had on their lives.
I see it
talking to some of my pharmacist friends, who've seen a young man or a young
woman come in, initially having to get a prescription for a particular pain
killer, a particular opioid, and then six months later see the downward spiral
and the impact that's had because now they're addicted to it. It's become a
disease to them. The process of getting them away from that and the supports
that are necessary sometimes are not always in play. That has a devastating
effect on those who prescribe it.
At the
end of the day, I've talked to many who've said I come in and sometimes I shake
them and want to say you're not getting this prescription; but, at the same
time, they know they're reliant on it. They need to have it. This is their
day-to-day activity. So professionals acknowledge the fact there has to be
another way that we can do this. The best way, no doubt, is preventative
measures.
I see
the act as a step forward in preventative measures. No doubt, as I get further
down I'll have a few challenges. As we get to committee I'll have a multitude of
questions about the process, the control mechanisms, the partnering with
entities there, the process of how we got to this, but that's secondary. What I
want to talk about here now is the intent of this bill and how positive it is if
we can move it and ensure that it meets the prescribed needs that it was set up
to do.
As we
talk about in communities – again, I relate back to my home community of Bell
Island – there's an organization set up, it's called Unity in Our Community.
It's solely set up to address the opioid issue that we have over there. It's
unfortunate that it had to be created after some deaths in our community from
overdosing, but out of darkness sometimes comes some light.
I've
been fortunate enough to go to some of these meetings and see the addicts talk
about what they're struggling with, and they're there. They're in a room,
they're addicts. They're telling us they're going to have to leave to go get
their fix, but they still want to be part of knowing there's a better life for
them. They just need the supports.
I've
been in a room with people who are going through their recovery and the
challenges they had. I've been there with people who've been off it for two or
three years and what that means to them, but every day they still struggle with
the supports.
I've
been there with families who've lost loved ones and the impact that has, and how
they want to prevent it happening to somebody else. Some of the signs they never
saw. Some of the safeguards that could have been put in play that just didn't
exist, and still don't exist, but need to be moved forward so we have a better
opportunity to ensure the next group and the next generation down the road can
be identified that this doesn't become the epidemic that it is right now, where
it doesn't continue and we start addressing it and we start dealing with the
issue and we start supporting those who have that particular need.
As we
get through this legislation, there are a lot of really good points there that I
think can be part of that. The monitoring, obviously, has to be one. If we can
ensure that only those who should have these opioids, to have access to it, if
we can identify there's abuse in some part of the mechanism, then we need to
deal with that. We need to deal with it in a number of ways.
One, we
need to be able to immediately stop the abuse from happening or access to those
particular opioids so people can't continue their destructive lifestyle. We also
have to make people accountable for their actions. When I say people, I didn't
say these may be the entities, the professional people who are giving it an
understanding. No doubt, they all are part of a bigger philosophy here. They
take an oath to do what's in the best interest of their patients, and 99.9 of
them follow that process.
We also
have to acknowledge the fact that there's a criminal element that will find
creative ways legally to get something that legally should be used, but to be
used in an illegal manner. So there's a continuum there where your law
enforcement agencies would have to work with your prescribers and with your
dispensers, and with the underlining over umbrella organization which, to me,
should be some kind of a board made up of professionals who would monitor the
whole process and keep it in line with other types of entities we have that
enforce regulations, open up lines of dialogue that promote education and also
help develop partnerships where support mechanisms can be put in play.
What
this legislation does, it does start that. I've looked at a number of other
jurisdictions and I've seen where they've started this process. Some have been
very successful. Some have the good mechanism, but the mechanism on paper
doesn't necessarily mean you're going to have successful results. The key
components that go in the continuum, there are some breaks in the line and
obviously the outcomes haven't been where they need to go.
There's
no doubt, like any policy or any program, there's going to be tweaking. There's
going to be some assessing exactly what's the best move forward. There's going
to be some addressing how we better use the resources we have and how we better
develop partnerships as we go through the whole process itself.
I also
have to talk about the functionality of the intent here. The functionality is
not to reinvent the wheel. There are a few things here that I have some deep
questions about when we get into Committee asking for particular clarification,
but the functionality here is not reinventing the wheel, using some of the key
things that we already have here.
The
Pharmacy Network, something that's been talked about, it's been piecemeal for a
number of years. I have to acknowledge it's now up and running. I've talked to
some pharmacists and they said there are still some challenges with it, but it
is being tweaked. Every day there are nuances here where there are suggestions
that people are finding better ways to ensure the information and the intent of
it is actually meeting those goals. So we've come a long way to do that.
There is
no doubt technology will improve such that everybody will have access at a
moment's notice. It will be able to draw down on that information. The
information that's accessible is the information that only those who should have
access to it – which becomes an issue around putting out so much information and
having so much more information accessible. Who is it accessible to? That has to
be some of the safeguards.
There
are some things within the act that I have to be satisfied, at the end of the
day, the safeguards are in play. The information, the privacy part of it, that
people shouldn't have access to the general public or beyond those who would
necessarily need it, there should be a mechanism put in play to ensure that.
There are a number of questions we'll have related to that.
The
whole concept that was noted about: How do we better engage the existing
resources that we have? Like you said, using the Centre for Health Information,
they have a decade of expertise. They've been refurbished. They've been
realigned. They've set out what has worked and what hasn't. They've tweaked
certain programs and services there. They found a mechanism that would better
capture our information and better segregate it so it's usable for what
particular needs.
I think
noting and agreeing with this part of the act of taking the Pharmacy Network and
adding some additional information so we're being able to extrapolate some
additional information so that the Centre for Health Information can identify,
if indeed there are some issues there around abuse, overuse or misuse.
There
are three components here that we have to look at. We can't label everybody in
one category or another; there are different segments as to what would happen.
I do
agree whoever prescribes, whoever dispenses are responsible for exactly what
they're giving out. Now, to what level of responsibility? Well, the ultimate
responsibility, and I know they all feel the same way – it's about ensuring that
what is being prescribed would be a benefit to the particular patient and not in
any way, shape or form be detrimental to their well-being and their health.
In some
cases, it's acknowledged, we have to live. We don't live in a utopian society.
There are going to be people who take advantage of that. So we need to be able
to find the mechanisms to put in play to ensure that our society is safe,
particularly from that part of potential abuse.
We know
from a financial point of view it's a very lucrative business because, again,
when you're an addict, you've got to have that. In a lot of cases, unfortunately
– and this is testimonials from some young men and women and older citizens who
have said – it gets to a point where you'll almost do anything to get that fix
that you need to have it.
How do
we get to a point where we know there's a trend? Some will tell me that they
started where they could take four and five pills a day and that was quite –
then it was eight or 10. Now it's 12 and 15 and sometimes they're up to 20 and
30 pills a day to get their fix. They're finding all kinds of stuff.
I've had
horror stories where people have told me they went and broke their leg
deliberately so they could go in and get prescriptions because the doctor had
already caught on to them knowing that they were abusing it. But then they'd go
in to emergency and you have a broken leg, a doctor has an oath and a
responsibility to fix that. Obviously, they know you're not faking pain when
you've just put pins in your leg. Now you get your prescriptions again and now
you're back into a trend of being able to manipulate that for as long as
possible. That's part of the whole process.
It
becomes unfortunate that we've gotten people into that mode. As was noted,
sometimes it is ill-fated processes of what these opioids were intended to do to
what they're actually doing to people.
Conspiracy theories – is it that some companies didn't share all the data in
their research of the impact it would have on people? And that some people might
be more susceptible to becoming addicts and this becoming their health disease?
Is it deliberate? Was it lack of research at the time? Was it that there was a
need for a particular intermediary opioid to address something that wasn't
addressed? Did we build up a resistance to particular painkillers and this over
a period of time? There are still all kinds of discussions out there as to how
we've gotten to this point where opioids themselves have become so addictive and
become so reliant on them.
There's
been a whole discussion here around how we address moving forward on this plan.
The Prescription Monitoring Program is a first step, no doubt, and it is not in
isolation because there are a number of other agencies out there who've been
doing yeoman service in trying to address the needs around curbing addictions to
opioids, access to opioids, prescribing of opioids over a period of time but,
again unfortunately, sometimes are working in small silos, in isolation.
What I'm
hoping this will do and what I think it has the framework to do is bring all
that in line, try to bring it under one prescribed philosophy, if nothing else.
It doesn't force everybody to do their part out there, but it does particularly
identify, from a monitoring point of view, the amount of use, who are using it,
where they're getting it from and particularly what the time frames are within
that prescribed use and dispensing. I see a number of benefits from where this
can take us into addressing the opioid epidemic that we have here.
I'm glad
that the minister talked about other jurisdictions and identifying where there
are some challenges in other ones. In my own review of other provinces and how
they implement them – and other than Quebec, everybody else has some form of
legislation. Some, it's under existing legislation. In our case, it could have
been under the Centre for Health Information legislation if we wanted that to
be. Having a stand-alone piece of legislation, I'm not adverse to it. I see
sometimes there's strength in having something forthright and upfront so people
understand that this is being taken seriously and it spells out exactly
responsibility, it spells out exactly the intent of the act and it spells out
exactly what you would hope the outcome would be as you move forward.
One
thing about a piece of legislation, there's nothing preventing you from coming
back and making changes over periods of time. As you assess the success, as you
develop more partnerships, as you understand there are other segments to what it
is you're trying to address and then as you get to that area in life, you make a
decision that we need to either upgrade something or there's something here that
we need to remove, or there's a whole new angle that we need to go to ensure
that legislation meets the need that it was set up to do.
In this
case, contrary to what people may think, this is a very encompassing piece of
legislation because it outlines a number of key components here. It's not only
about the standard legislation of the intent here and the intent about
education, supporting, about putting in play the mechanism; it also outlines
exactly who the stakeholders would be, their roles and responsibilities. It also
outlines exactly the process, and there's a legal component here. This is just
not fluff and data collection for the sake of data collection. There's a legal
component here. This act here will have legal ramifications for professionals in
a multitude of health-related professions here about following rules and
regulatory processes, but particularly from a legal point of view.
When, in
an act, you note your Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, when you note your RCMP
and you note other specialized policing agencies, then you know this is a
serious bill. Then you know that what's being discussed here is being taken
seriously, and that there's a full-fledged umbrella process here of
accountability and people have to live up to that accountability.
So I
just want to take you through some of the things for the bill because what
people may not realize – well, what does this include? Is it just a bit of fluff
that we're going to have a computer program and now we have two more blocks on a
sheet when you note it? In principle, it's an easy way to say we're going to
collect more data, but the data collection is only the first part of a bigger
picture, and the bigger here is how we address the opioid epidemic. How do we
ensure that the resources we already have in play can be used? How do we ensure
that those who are not following the ethics, the morals, the proper procedures,
the legalities are accountable and, more importantly, can be stopped from doing
things that they're not legally allowed to be doing, and are doing things that
are detrimental from a health point of view?
There
are a number of agencies here. We're talking about the Medical Association,
we're talking about the Nurses' Union, we're talking about the pharmaceutical
association and we're talking about the dentists. There are a number of people
here who have the ability to prescribe opioids and have the ability, on a daily
basis, to be seeing those individuals, those patients, who may be at risk of
becoming addicted to opioids, or themselves who are already addicted to opioids.
So even
that data there, even that collection data there, that resource is a positive to
be able to ensure that we start addressing the issue and make the connections
between all those who are out in our society who have it their main objective to
try and improve the lives and address issues around opioids.
I just
want to read some of the key components because as I go through those, I may
note some of them; I may get through them all before my time is up. If not, in
Committee I'll have a number of questions for the minister and, no doubt, the
minister has had dialogue with a number of stakeholders out there. I've had some
dialogue with a number of them over the last couple of days, but prior to that,
on some other issues, but now, particularly, as it relates to this act.
There's
no doubt, everybody has concerns. Everybody has, as their primary objective, the
philosophy of finding a better way to address opioids. I found nobody, no
agency, no particular group, no head of a not-for-profit organization who's
adverse to us in the House of Assembly having an act that addresses prescription
monitoring, particularly around opioids.
Keep in
mind – and it was noted, particularly in the press conference – the issue here
is about monitoring drugs. The list right now is restricted to opioids, but that
doesn't mean it wouldn't be restrictive. So that's a discussion that we'll have
with the minister in Committee as we get there.
The
primary intent here is about the immediate challenge that we have in
Newfoundland and Labrador and it's about those opioids. The act itself, while
it's generic in what it's doing and it's open – that it can continue forever and
a day adding new drugs to it as if they're deemed that they have a major impact,
that we need to be able to collect that on a more precise basis, and have to
have more safeguards in there. And have to have a monitoring process there that
becomes a watchdog to ensure that the use and/or misuse or misguided use is
being monitored, identified and dealt with by a particular agency authority or a
particular supportive intervention organization.
That can
be done simply by identifying the information that's – first, where it came from
and then, subsequently, which agency is best equipped to deal with that. I want
to talk particularly about some of the issues that are here around the
difference between how we will probably be implementing or what's being proposed
here versus some of the other jurisdictions.
One of
the biggest challenges that I have here – and it's no disrespect to this
minister or any other minister – is that the minister in this case has absolute
power. I have a struggle with that. I have a struggle with that with any piece
of legislation when a minister has absolute power over exactly what's being
done.
I
understand ministers are there to guide. Ministers are there – they have a
responsibility for their line departments. They're the umbrella guiding light
for programs and services, no doubt about it. But when I looked at other
jurisdictions and couldn't find any that were similar where the minister has
carte blanche control over the whole process, I tried to find something that I
felt comfortable with.
Nova
Scotia has a better process where a board is put in place. I have no qualms with
the minister or Cabinet or the process where appropriate board is selected to
monitor this. We have the Centre for Health Information, so we have a mechanism
in play where the information can be stored, disseminated and then broken down
to see how it's addressed as part of that.
But in
this case here – and I just want to note because when we get in Committee I'm
going to ask the minister then for a little bit more clarification about
responsibilities of the minister. As we look at them, they are prescribed
basically that the minister has total control over every aspect of this. Now,
the minister does have the jurisdiction to be able to designate somebody, and
that's fair enough.
From a
personal point of view, I would of rather have a bigger umbrella group that's
already put in play prior to that with the minister's endorsement – not the
minister's control, the minister's endorsement – because this organization or
agency or board, in a number of jurisdictions, would have the professional
ability to monitor the process here and come back with a set of recommendations
to either the minister and then to the House of Assembly, about changes to a
particular legislation as part of the whole process.
So
here's just some of the things here: “The minister may, in accordance with the
Act and the regulations, enter into an agreement relating to the sharing of
information with the following persons: (a) a dispenser; (b) a prescriber; (c) a
regulatory authority; (d) a law enforcement authority; or (e) another person
prescribed in the regulations.”
May – if
there was a board here that was made up of these particular individuals, then
that information would be directly shared within the confines of those. And all
these agencies already have a vested interest; they're already part and parcel.
They're the ones who monitor, they're the ones that are the authorities who
police agencies; they have a set of guidelines that must be followed. These are
things that are very important, I think, to sustainability, but success here.
Because these are the players who all – there's a continuum here of assessing
which agency, if it's a registered nurse who sees a particular client, who
refers them a doctor, who does an assessment, who prescribes an opioid for that
aliment to the pharmacist, who fills that, that has that effect. Or we go back,
there's another component here, there are dentists who are involved because
somebody just had a root canal needs a particular thing.
Having
access to knowing of what the file is for that individual. And that's why I want
to bring it back to the real intent here. The real benefit I see is that there
will be one file on your screen where you bring up, will have all the
information, particularly around that individual's use of opioids.
Now you
got four or five lenses. If people do what this is intended to do, the health
professional, you have four or five lenses to take a particular look at the use,
the prescribing, or again, as I said, the overuse or misuse of particular
opioids. All of these professionals would have to be in some way, shape or form
– no doubt, they're already trained, they're professionals, they're health
professionals. In some cases they spent eight, nine, 10 years in post-secondary
education being trained to identify particular situations, but there would have
to be some additional supports and training here to identify here's a potential
red flag or here's something I should go back and identify.
I do
like that there are a few extra things that need to be done when you're doing a
prescription from a prescriber point of view about some of the issues. Is this
the first time that I've had somebody actually come in? Is it the second time
somebody has come in? Is this a continuum? My assessment was that this injury
had been healed; why is this person still depending on that?
I mean,
there are things that a doctor, no doubt, asks themselves every day when they're
doing it. And a pharmacist again, because it's storefront, when they're people
coming on a continuing basis, when they look at their file, would say there's a
red flag here. This person hasn't had a major alignment. Why is this now another
prescription two weeks later?
It's to
identify if there's some way, shape or form one component or a collaborative
approach by a couple of components, be it the patient or physician or somebody
else have collaborated to move more opioids or prescribe more opioids than they
should. Is it the criminal element has found an illegal way to address this?
We've heard stories over the years about stealing prescription pads and people
filling them out and these type of things, but again the more safeguards that
are in play, the better it is.
There'll
be questions around what is the impact that it will have on the physicians from
a time point of view, from a report point of view, the same with the pharmacists
from that point of view. They are smaller nuances I think can be worked out. I
would think that most of these agencies would be welcome to more dialogue, more
consultation about finding out how they improve their role and how they use the
mechanisms they have or the infrastructure they have to make this less
encompassing and to ensure that it meets the particular need that it was set out
to do.
There
are also issues here around how we move things when we get to law enforcement
authorities. What real stake would law enforcement agencies play in this? What
role will they play with the prescribers, with the dispensing? What role will
they play once things are identified, once it becomes a legal matter, the
process – and I know it's outlined here in certain areas of the regulatory
bodies that would then make decisions as to how they deal with what they think
is an infraction. Do they then refer it to one of the police forces or to a
legal entity to take it to the next level rather than it just being an in-house
review and then respective punishment levied on that individual or that group of
individuals? Does it become a bigger issue where it becomes a legal matter where
police forces have to come in?
Then we
talk about the access they would have to information. That becomes one of the
fears here. What we're doing – and this is not about fear mongering, I want to
make that very clear. This is about ensuring that all the components are thought
out, so that information being shared on health information is relevant to
exactly what the issue may be here. If it's opioid abuse, fair enough. If it's
relevant to something else, well, then that health information has no bearing
and nobody else should have access to that.
There
are decisions that would have to be made there. There's no doubt, the
authorities that have a speciality in that particular field should be able to
identify that, but I think there's a little bit of work that needs to be done
and a bit more consultation around those particular areas to identify what's
acceptable.
If we do
an investigation in a particular area, what health information – if it's about
opioids, has something happened from an ailment previously? It may be a mental
health issue before that. It may be something else relevant to your health over
your lifetime. Should that information be made available, too? Is it a carte
blanche that your health file is available to that entity for review and to
whoever the minister may designate as their representative or the designate for
inspectors when we talk about coming in doing audits and that?
Some of
the entities haven't necessarily said they have problems with this. What they've
said is they need clarification. What would the rights be if all of a sudden an
inspector can come into a pharmacy and say I demand this file? Well, which part
of the file do you demand? Does it have anything to do with someone who had an
antibiotic? Are the antibiotic ones also going to be added to these lists? Those
continuums here need to be clarified, at the end of the day, exactly what it is
the inspectors and the auditors would have access to, because then there's a
real challenge about your privacy. It becomes about your privacy.
People
will tell you they would rather somebody know their income than to know what's
in their health file, because people are private around their health conditions.
Now, if it's something that's illegal, if it's something that's been done
without following proper regulations, I have no qualms here that that
information should be accessible to the authority or a police force to
investigate and identify whether or not there's been a violation and then the
appropriate action taken.
The fear
I have reading this is there are many unknowns here. That's the thing, there's a
lot of information here. I give credit, there's a lot of clarification in some
areas. There are a lot of acknowledgements in some areas, maybe not as much
clarification in some others as to where does it start and where does it end in
certain areas. When you talk about health information, it's something that
people are very wary of having the general public, or people who are designated
within the general public, to be able to go and access that type of information.
So
there's a fair bit of clarification here that I will want some clarification in
Committee, no doubt. I know there are a number of agencies out there who want
some clarification. Only last night when I had a chance – only getting the
briefing yesterday – to get my head around it and bounce it off some other
people, just average citizens like the rest of us, who would want to know what
impact does it have.
Again,
I've got to be forthright and upfront. Nobody is averse to us finding a better
mechanism to identify how we deal with opioids. Nobody is averse to putting a
mechanism that prevents those who shouldn't have access to it having access to
it. Nobody is averse to finding a mechanism that ensures the few bad apples that
we have in a particular profession are identified and dealt with harshly,
because we know the impact this has. This is not just nickel and dime stuff.
This is having a dramatic effect on people's lives. There's nobody averse to
developing a collaborative approach to addressing the opioid issue.
There
have been a number of issues that were thrown at me, particularly when it was
noted yesterday in our briefing – and I shared it with a couple of citizens I
spoke to last night – that this is not exclusive to opioids. There could be
other drugs put on the table.
What are
the mechanisms that are used to identify that these should be part of the
monitoring list? They're some legitimate questions, and I'm not an authority by
any stretch or know anything even remotely close to understanding how or why
certain things would go on, but it was a little alarming when I heard we need to
look at one that possibly could go on, it could be antibiotics. I need more
clarification to understand where or how would an antibiotic – is it over use?
Is it that it's not fitting the needs now? Is it that we're not prescribing in
the right manner? I don't know. These are things that worry me.
What
worries me, too, is then what other ones get added without it being fleshed out
fully to understand the impact? Do we willy-nilly start adding things? I would
think that wouldn't happen here, but my fear is there's an open-ended process
here that doesn't prevent that.
So I
think every now and then – and we've gotten caught in this House of Assembly,
the present administration, the previous administration got caught with
legislation that had holes in it. We were so caught up in doing the right thing
that there were so many nuances to it, a few things slipped through.
Again, I
went out to people in society and they threw little things at me that I wouldn't
have thought of and I got a briefing on it. There are people who have had no
briefings but have been able to identify certain things just in asking
questions.
There's
no doubt, that's what this debate is all about. It's for us to talk about what
our understanding is of the particular bill, what our understanding is of the
intent of the bill and what our understanding is of how the bill could be
implemented.
While we
do that in debate – there's no doubt, I've sat here sometimes shaking my head.
No way would I agree with a bill that was coming in. After the debate and the
clarification and Committee questions and answers, I would nod and say: Yes, I
get it now. I understand.
There's
always some apprehension here and there's no doubt, there's always – all of
these are live entities. They're continually being looked at. They're
continually being identified to see and evaluate it, and then we come back to
the House and change legislation. This is a particular difference because this
is the first kick at this.
We
didn't do what some jurisdictions did and already put it as part of one existing
piece of legislation. I'm not averse to that. At this point, I have no problems
with that. A piece of stand-alone legislation that addresses a particular need
right now and particularly such a serious need, I have no problem supporting
that.
There
are some challenges here around part of the policing process, part of the access
to the files, part of who has access to that, part of the designate, who, where,
when and how the designates are going to be put in play, how the reporting
process works prior, during and after and who the reporting comes back to. It's
here, but it's in general context: may, shall. It's a bit vague in some areas
and I'm going to be looking for clarification.
The
other thing is about the minister having full control over the whole mechanism.
It's only recently that we went the opposite. In one piece of legislation that
we passed in this House recently, we took the minister out of it because it was
felt you don't want the perception that a minister could micromanage and have
undue influence on a piece of legislation or a program or a service other than
being responsible for the legislative part of it and ensuring that the
information, the research and the coordination moves forward. That's the general
context.
I've
been a minister. I understand that philosophy. There's no doubt there are times
I wanted to micromanage things that we did, but that doesn't make sense. You
can't do that. To put it in legislation worries me. It worries me because a
particular minister being able to do 20 things and make decisions on 20 things
consistently in one piece of legislation, when there are agencies and
organizations who have and have had for the last decade or century authority
over these types of services, the providers who provide those, the input into
legislation that monitor what they do and to the actual day-to-day interaction
with the clientele that they're trying to serve.
For a
minister to be able to have carte blanche over that, I have some real concerns.
Now, I'm open-minded; I can be sold if there's a rational reason that's
different than my mindset. That's fair enough. I'm open to that. No doubt, I
think we're all open to having that discussion on this side of the House, but we
need to get to that part of it.
I only
bring that up again because it's one of the few times I've seen it where the
minister has so much control over a piece of legislation. It says here: “The
minister shall (a) administer the program; (b) monitor the prescribing and
dispensing of monitored drugs; (c) evaluate the effectiveness of the program;
(d) provide information, professional consultation and assistance to the
regulatory authorities relating to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored
drugs;( e) monitor the use of monitored drugs: (f) educate prescribers and
dispensers regarding the appropriate prescribing and dispensing of monitored
drugs; (g) educate individuals on the appropriate use of monitored drugs; (h)
report to the regulatory authorities on new and emerging prescribed patterns for
monitored drugs; and (i) perform any other duties prescribed in the
regulations.”
Now,
these are normally – I've seen this in legislation, but it's never the
minister's responsibility; it's board chair, it's the regulatory body, it's a
particular agency. To have the minister given full authority over all these
things, obviously, as you read that, it's pure micromanaging if the minister was
to do that. I know no minister would ever do that. I would think that's not the
intent here. No matter what their skillset was, the time frame would never allow
them to do this. These are things here that are somebody who solely, fully
entrenched in doing that particular job. This would be somebody's full-time job
to do this.
Obviously, the Minister of Health and Community Services has a multitude of
other responsibilities that would take them in other directions also in
performing their duties. So that's why I ask is it necessary to have this in
here and what the intent was. As I went through some of the jurisdictions, I
couldn't see that that was the main philosophy here. I see the minister shall
appoint a regulatory organization, a board, a representative to do exactly
what's outlined here. I see all that. I see the benefits of that. I see how that
would be, in my opinion, a better way to move things forward because, from my
philosophy, on a daily basis somebody or some group, or some organization or
some board would have that responsivity. That board, particularly, would be made
up of a multitude of people who have a vested interest here because they come
from the regulatory bodies, they come from agencies that have set out,
particularly, the responsibility around addressing opioid monitoring and the
impact that it has.
I see a
benefit from that, and that's why I particularly like Nova Scotia's. Not
everything in Nova Scotia was perfect. I like the fact that we have taken some
of our own approaches in some other categories here and other sections. I like
that we've taken some from BC. We've taken some from Ontario. There are some
there from New Brunswick. We've been encompassing those to do that.
The one
I don't see, the trend across the country, is that the minister has carte
blanche. The fear in carte blanche is, again, and I mentioned earlier, what
other drugs can be added. I think somewhere here it notes that minister would
recommend to Cabinet additional monitored drugs to be added to the list. I have
a concern about that, too.
I would
think this is where the agencies and organizations, the authorities that have
the speciality in that area, would be the ones that would make these
recommendations, through research, through consultation, would identify exactly
what the issues are. I would see also from public acknowledgement that these are
the challenges we have. There's been a trend in a particular drug, either being
abused, misused or over prescribed as part of that whole process.
That
would be, to me, a very functional process. I would think 80 per cent of the
legislation we have here, where there's a regulatory process of monitoring and
reporting back and engaging and then making modifications to exactly whatever
that program operates has, somewhere along the way, a monitoring board or agency
who oversees all of that. Legislation that I've been part of, that's normally
how it would work. When you have legislation that is relevant to doing research,
monitoring, overseeing, implementing, somebody has to do that. It's not at the
minister's level.
I find
this a little bit concerning, a little bit bewildering, but I'm open for
clarification. I have no qualms on that, getting that clarification as to why
the government decided to go this route. That will be curious. I know some other
agencies have asked the same thing.
I do
have another concern around – and I noted it earlier – the access to the
information. I particularly would want to have some real clarification on how do
we ensure that the opioid process, when a pharmacist goes in or a doctor goes in
to review the file, and they both have responsibilities and access to it,
because they do, the information that's there that if, indeed, a red flag is
noted and a designate, an inspector, an auditor comes in, what is it that
they're auditing. Are they auditing the whole health file? Are they going
through everything relevant to somebody's perspective? If that's indeed the
case, then I have a challenge on that, too. I have a challenge because that's
not the issue that we're addressing right here.
If
that's a bigger issue that your health information now can be easily and readily
made available to anybody, to a police force who comes in because somebody has
been accused that you've been overprescribed medications, or you've overused
them or you've illegally accessed them, then that's a different story than
what's also in your health file. That may be relevant to people in your family.
In your health file, doctors take notes and there are things there relevant to
discussions that took place about situations of how your ailments occurred or
things relevant to that.
I think
we have to go back to a balance. The minister said this is at the beginning:
This is about a balance. I agree. It's about functionality and it's about
balance, the functionality of using the resources we have. The Centre for Health
Information, the Pharmacy Network, a multitude of very highly trained
professionals dedicated to their particular fields and their expertise to
identify and weed out the very small proportion who are not following the
regulatory and legal matters here, to identify better ways that we can help the
particular patients, and that what this is about – or the particular citizens
here. It's about the fact that we're identifying opioids because they're having
a major impact on our society and a major impact on individuals in our society.
This is
a proactive approach here and I agree with it. It's proactive because we're now
going to outline a strategy that first gets at the root of the situation here,
how people have access to these opioids. Time frames – and I mentioned that
earlier, who prescribes in this. Is there a mode? Is there a consistency here?
Is there a different approach we can use?
The
gathering of information is important because it will weed out those who are not
following the process. But I'm thinking the information, too, can be better used
through one of these regulatory boards or the board itself – I would think the
advisory board – to identify other streams that may be added here. If we add
this here, if it goes to the prescription monitoring, maybe there are other
components there that can identify other issues that pharmacists and
prescribers, doctors, deal with when it comes to better use of health, better
interventions in our health-related supports.
There's
a whole mechanism here that should be used. I noted the minister talked about
consultations, and no doubt the people that were involved in these consultations
wholeheartedly have an expertise in these fields, wholeheartedly are committed
to what they're doing there, but I am hearing from a number of them, some who
were involved in this. That while they want this to happen and they know it's
needed, that there's still some consultation. There are still some things that
need to be fine-tuned here to make this more effective.
It's
probably better that we delay it for a little short period of time to make sure
it's done right and meets its particular needs and it's effective the day it
becomes real and it's in a real-time process. To start it and then halfway
through have to come back and say this is not working the way we wanted it and
then put everything slow. Once the momentum starts and you stop it, it takes a
lot longer to get people on side again and keep moving things. So if we're going
to do it, let's do it. Let's fill in any of the gaps that may be identified.
There's
no doubt there's some inclusion here with some other stakeholders, there's no
doubt of flushing out a little bit more of the definitions on some of these.
Maybe these are not all the right approaches in some areas, but I've gone
through it. A lot of this, a fair bit of this to me would fit the needs of what
we're trying to address here, but there are a couple of challenges and I've
outlined some of those. No doubt, some of my colleagues will outline some of the
other ones that I haven't.
I want
to go back again, and there are two things I want to reiterate. I want to
reiterate, first, my personal support for the philosophy and the process here
and the intent of the bill. A majority of what's in here, the regulatory
components here are very efficient. They spell out exactly what would be
engaged.
I do
want to emphasize the challenges I have here around how we determine which drugs
get added, outside of the opioids. I understand that and I understand why we're
going there and we're going to label them in one category, and rightfully so. We
need to do that. We need to immediately start looking at how we address that
particular issue. So put them in that pot, that's fine.
I have a
fear of an open-ended process where at a whim or at somebody's suggestion,
Cabinet can decide there are other drugs going on that, without knowing exactly
what process is followed there. Is it a set of recommendations from a board? Is
there research done on something relevant to that?
So I'm
going to want some clarification around what the process, the intent of the
process, and what the plan would be from the minister and from the designate or
a committee he may strike. Also, again, clarification around the ability to
ensure that people's information is not readily accessible to those, other than
those who directly should have it, relevant to whatever that issue is.
In this
case, the issue is around overuse, misuse, misdiagnoses when it comes to
opioids. It's an open-ended file that when an inspector comes in or an auditor,
they take that and they have access to all of that. How are we going to ensure
safeguards there around people's privacy?
I'd like
to know what the Privacy Commissioner's view would be on this because,
obviously, this is a new piece of legislation. I'm not quite sure what input
he's had to it. If he only got it yesterday like I did, I'll be three weeks
trying to figure out exactly what each clause means, or what the intent of each
clause is. I'm hoping to find that out when we get to Committee because I'll ask
the minister in a number of cases to clarify exactly where some of those issues
are.
I also
have, as one of it is, again, a board. Somewhere along this process I feel there
should be a board established, made up of the professionals. I don't just mean
the regulatory ones who will be the policing bodies to ensure if someone
violated something that they're punished properly, or it's addressed in a manner
that is befitting that particular classification or that particular profession.
What I'm
talking about is an overarching agency, board, that would ensure that this
legislation is being enacted, that it's being monitored to find out if it's
meeting its needs, and then that there's a set of recommendations coming back.
Some of those might be recommending back to the minister, who in turn takes it
to Cabinet, who in turn takes it to this House and says we want to add this list
of other drugs because here are the impacts they're having, here are the
challenges we have or here are the concerns we have. All legitimate, no problem.
I have
no problem with the process. I have a problem with who is responsible for
certain components of the process here. One is the minister having full-fledged
carte blanche control over it. The second is we don't have a stand-alone,
upfront board, organization that would have the regulatory advisory capacity to
ensure that this House has more advice, more open debate, more recommendations
as to how we improve this because it's the first kick at this.
This
again, as I mentioned earlier, is a living document. It's going to grow, it's
going to be changed, it's going to meet different needs. So we need some
organization out there, some entity and a regulatory board that we have here, or
an operational board, an advisory board that some other jurisdictions have to me
would fit that particular need. Particularly, when we already have agencies who
could suggest, or put somebody there who would come with the knowledge of how
they could, from their stakeholder's point of view, improve this piece of
legislation and ensure it meets its particular needs. That's another one of the
issues I have.
The
underlying issue here is about – we talked about assessing, improving,
educating. I'd like to know a little bit more of how we're going to do that. Is
this a resource related thing we're going to do? Are we going to develop better
partnerships? Are we going to take it and run with it the way we should?
Are we
going to now make this a living entity, so continuously every one of these
organizations will have an open-door process to come in and recommend? Here's
what we found. Here's how our members feel that they can better improve this
piece of legislation and ensure that we as a society here and we as a government
and we as the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador can ensure that the
challenges we have and the epidemic we have with opioids are being addressed.
The best way to do that is to have open dialogue, have a process in place, but
have those professionals who best advise government.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll have a chance to talk to this again in Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
– Grand Bank.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's my privilege to rise in this hon. House today to participate in
the debate on Bill 25, the Prescription
Monitoring Act.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure we have all heard the very sad stories of abuse and overdose
related to the use of opioids. Our province is not immune to the opioid crisis,
Mr. Speaker, people are dying from overdose.
In 2016,
in Newfoundland and Labrador there were 57 hospital admissions involving opioid
poisonings and 16 apparent opioid-related deaths. What may have been seen as a
problem in other parts of Canada and the world is now on our doorsteps. Mr.
Speaker, the deadly drug fentanyl is now on our streets.
We all
have to recognize that prescription drug abuse, especially opioids, is a real
issue that impacts the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every single
day. We all have to do our part, Mr. Speaker. The provincial government, the
Members of this hon. House, the public, our communities and our front-line
health care professionals need to work at finding ways to reduce and address
this very serious and real public health issue.
A
Prescription Monitoring Program is a tool that can help address this opioid
crisis. It can help improve the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs
and controlled substances. It can support ways to lower or prevent the harms
related to these drugs, Mr. Speaker, and it can help identify patients who may
be at risk of addiction.
Every
province in Canada, except Quebec, has some form of prescription monitoring. A
Prescription Monitoring Program is not intended to prevent the use of opioids
for legitimate medical purposes. There are many reasons why an opioid is the
most appropriate treatment for a patient's condition. The Prescription
Monitoring Program, Mr. Speaker, is not meant to deter prescribers from making
an informed clinical decision to prescribe an opioid. Rather, it assists
prescribers by providing them with necessary and available information to make
the best clinical decision for a patient.
Bill 25,
the Prescription Monitoring Act, which
sets out the legal framework for the province's Prescription Monitoring Program,
is another step in our government's Opioid Action Plan. The Opioid Action Plan,
which was launched in November of 2016, includes a number of initiatives aimed
at addressing the opioid issue, including a new mandatory safe prescribing
course for physicians, public awareness and education program on opioids,
naloxone take-home kits and naloxone pop-up tents.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program and Bill 25 will also meet one of the
recommendations presented in the Mental Health and Addictions Action Plan, Mr.
Speaker. The Prescription Monitoring Program will build upon the success of the
provincial Pharmacy Network. The Pharmacy Network is a component of the
electronic health record, which is commonly referred to as HEALTHe NL, that
allows dispensers to contribute to the access patient medication profiles in
real time.
HEALTHe
NL is a private record of an individual's health care information, Mr. Speaker,
available electronically to authorized health care professionals. It integrates
information from many sources into a single lifetime record of an individual's
key health history and care.
As of
this spring, all pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador were connected to the
Pharmacy Network. The Pharmacy Network gives health care professionals access to
a person's medication profile. Mr. Speaker, when a prescription gets filled at a
pharmacy, the Pharmacy Network stores information about a person's medication
history. The Pharmacy Network makes it easier for pharmacists and other health
care professionals to make more important informed decisions about care and
helps prevent harmful drug interactions.
Data
from the Pharmacy Network shows that benefits are already being realized. There
has been a decrease in adverse drug events, there has been a decrease in
prescription errors and there are reduced duplicate prescriptions, Mr. Speaker.
The
Prescription Monitoring Program will operate in tandem with the Pharmacy Network
to detect an alert to questionable activity when a prescription is filled. For
example, it is intended that the program will automatically flag where a person
has visited multiple physicians or pharmacies within a defined period to get
more opioids.
Other
activities that may be flagged include where patients on an opioid-dependent
treatment receive prescriptions for other opioids, where opioids are prescribed
or dispensed in a supply of greater than 30 days and where patients attempt to
create multiple patient profiles at multiple pharmacies.
With the
program, there will be a stronger ability to identify excessive and
inappropriate use of a number of serious drugs such as opioids, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 25
states that the objects of the Prescription Monitoring Program is to monitor,
analyze and report information related to the prescribing and dispensing of
monitored drugs in order to educate, support and assist individuals on the
appropriate use of monitored drugs and to educate, support and assist
prescribers and dispensers in appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored
drugs.
Monitored drugs will be prescribed in regulations to initially capture opioids.
The Minister of Health and Community Services will be here to oversight the
program. The minister will be responsible for administering the program;
monitoring, prescribing and dispensing practices of monitored drugs; evaluating
the effectiveness of the program; providing information, professional
consultation and assistance to the regularity authorities relating to
prescribing and the dispensing of monitored drugs; monitoring the use of
monitored drugs; educating prescribers and dispensers about appropriate
prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs; educating individuals on the
appropriate use of monitored drugs; and reporting to regulatory authorities on
new and emerging prescribing patterns for monitored drugs.
This
bill permits the minister to delegate his powers and duties and it is the
intention that the administration of the program be delegated to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. The centre currently
houses a number of provincial electronic databases, including the Pharmacy
Network, from which data and reports will be drawn to monitor and analyze the
use, prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs.
Under
the bill, Mr. Speaker, a prescriber will be required to check a patient's
medication profile contained in HEALTHe NL prior to prescribing a monitored
drug. Dispensers will be required to record the prescription in the Pharmacy
Network and to check a patient's medication profile prior to dispensing a drug.
Regulatory authorities who license and register prescribers and dispensers will
be required to provide notification where the licence of prescriber or dispenser
has been suspended, revoked or restricted with respect to a monitored drug, Mr.
Speaker.
Bill 25
highlights the importance of providing accurate information to prescribers and
dispensers whose role it is to make the best health care decisions for their
patients. As such, the bill states that a patient is not to knowingly provide
false or misleading information to a prescriber or dispenser.
As I
indicated earlier, the program has the ability to flag certain questionable
activity, such as where a person has visited multiple prescribers or dispensers
to obtain opioids. Where those activities are flagged, officials may have to
reach out to prescribers and dispensers to seek clarification with respect to a
prescription. The minister or his delegate may request information where it is
reasonably necessary to achieve the objects of the program.
Where
the requested information is not forthcoming, Bill 25 authorizes an inspector
appointed by the minister to attend at the place of business of a prescriber or
a dispenser to access information and review documents in order to determine
compliance with the legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, as the object of this bill is to provide education, assistance and
supports, and with the expectation that prescribers and dispensers will respond
to requests for information, it is anticipated that the inspection powers will
be rarely used, if at all. However, such powers may be necessary to address
those very few but most extreme cases.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 25 will allow for the sharing of information with law enforcement
for investigative purposes where there are reasonable grounds to believe that
illegal activity related to a monitored drug is occurring. It will also allow
the sharing of information with health profession regulatory authorities where
there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prescriber or a dispenser is
acting contrary to the legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, our government has had the assistance of health care professionals,
regulatory authorities, law enforcement and members of our communities in
developing the Prescription Monitoring Program. As a part of the program's
implementation process, there is an intention to continue to engage with these
stakeholders in order to benefit from their advice and recommendations on the
implementation of the program.
As such,
Bill 25 permits the establishment of advisory committees, Mr. Speaker. The bill
specifies that committees must have at least one prescriber and one dispenser as
members. This requirement will ensure that clinical expertise is available to
program officials.
Mr.
Speaker, except for the requirement that prescribers view a patient's medication
profile prior to prescribing a monitored drug, it is proposed that the majority
of the bill will come into force on January 1, 2018.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
The requirement that
prescribers view a patient's medication profile will come into force six months
later on June 30, 2018, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
This delay in proclamation
will allow time to work with those few prescribers who do not currently have the
technology in place to allow access to the patient medication profile. It will
also give prescribers the time necessary to build this requirement into their
practice.
This
phased-in approach is not dissimilar to the process undertaken with respect to a
pharmacy's access to the Pharmacy Network, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that
we have to come to a time in our province where we require a Prescription
Monitoring Program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
However, misuse and abuse of
opioids is a real problem facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We need to
take action to protect our families, our neighbours and our communities from the
forces of opioid addiction. Bill 25 is indeed an important step in that
direction.
Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize Mrs. Ruby Hoskins of Marystown on
the Burin Peninsula. Ruby is a strong advocate and chair of the Stand Against
Drugs Committee. I say thank you to Ruby for all the good work she has done and
continues to do.
I am
very pleased to support this bill and I ask all of my colleagues in this hon.
House to also do their part and support Bill 25. Mr. Speaker, given the time, I
now adjourn debate.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour, I would suggest, with consent from my colleagues across the way, that
we recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with
provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b), this House stands in recess until 2 o'clock
this afternoon.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I'd like
to welcome to the public gallery today, Mr. Mark Brown, who will be the subject
of a Member's statement today. Joining Mark are the current and past chairs of
the United Way, Tammy Davis and Kathryn Atkin.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we have the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, Lewisporte –
Twillingate, Fogo Island – Cape Freels, Conception Bay East – Bell Island,
Placentia West – Bellevue, and Terra Nova.
The hon.
the Member for Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize Mr. Mark Brown of
Windsor Lake who was recently honoured by United Way.
In 2002,
Mark started his work to establish a chapter of United Way in our great
province. In 2005, United Way of Avalon was launched and then became United Way
of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2009.
Mark has
dedicated the last 15 years to United Way in many forms. He was the founding
chair, is a member of the past chairs council and now his volunteer work has
been recognized by the establishment of the Mark Brown Community Builder Award.
This
Community Builder Award recognizes an individual who works to build stronger,
more resilient communities through volunteering with United Way.
As a
member as the past chair advisory council, I'm confident that Mark is excited to
see United Way grow and create an even greater impact in our communities.
Thank
you, Mark, for all your hard work to such a great organization.
As Mark
would say: “Each of us has something to offer. Every little bit counts.”
Mark,
we're so grateful for your efforts.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte – Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize a good friend and an award winning
singer-songwriter from Lewisporte, Mr. Terry Penney.
Terry's
accomplishments encompass multiple Music NL awards, including Male Artist of the
Year, Songwriter of the Year and two-time Country Artist of the Year. Terry has
also received recognition on the national and international music scene for his
outstanding work.
Terry
has captivated audiences from England, Ireland, the United States and various
parts of Canada. Through his song writing and performances, Penney has given a
strong voice to Newfoundland and Labrador war veterans since the release of
“Normandy in Newfoundland” in 2002. Since that time, he has released several
critically acclaimed songs inspired by our veterans.
On
November 3, I had the honour of attending Terry's eighth CD release,
The Unforgotten: Stories of Newfoundland
Veterans, which featured a literary collection of short stories, song
lyrics, interesting facts and wartime photographs, as well as a full-length CD,
featuring nine war-related songs written by Penney.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Terry Penney on his past
accomplishments and wish him much success in his future endeavours.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Fogo
Island – Cape Freels.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
rise in this hon. House to highlight a milestone upcoming for a senior and her
family from my District of Fogo Island – Cape Freels.
Leah
Ackerman was born in Pound Cove, Bonavista Bay, on November 23, 1917. She was
one of eight children born to the family of Spencer and Beatrice Green. At the
age of 16, she travelled to St. John's where she found employment working as a
nanny for a family on Shaw Street.
Four
years later, she returned home for the Christmas holidays where she met her
future husband, Elisha Ackerman. They married on March 10, 1938 and moved to
Wareham. Together they had 12 children and, from that, 25 grandchildren, 45
great-grandchildren and nine great-great-grandchildren.
Back in
the day, Mrs. Ackerman held the highest level of education in the community.
During the Second World War, mothers and wives would drop by her house to have
letters from loved ones read. Mrs. Ackerman is known for her generosity, opening
her door to many over the years.
Please
join me in wishing Mrs. Leah Ackerman a very happy 100th birthday.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
today to recognize the passing of a very valuable educator and volunteer in my
district. I speak of the recent passing of Mrs. Joan (Craig) Whelan of Bell
Island.
Joan had
served as a volunteer with a number of organizations over her 77 years, but it
is her contribution to education on Bell Island where she made her biggest mark.
Her nearly three decades as a teacher in the mainstream school system played an
important role in mentoring and guiding hundreds of young students. Her advocacy
for those who could not advocate for themselves, particularly those who needed
an alternate approach to education and social inclusion, is a true testament to
her commitment to her community.
As the
founding member and the volunteer coordinator of Operation Sunshine for the past
decade, she improved the quality of life for a number of special needs adults
while providing services to the Janeway's Neonatal Unit, the Boys and Girls Club
and numerous other organizations.
Her
energy and enthusiasm never faltered, even though Joan lived most of her life
with physical limitations. Her dedication and commitment to her community will
be missed.
Rest in
peace, Joan.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize the honourable Mr. Vikas Khaladkar, a newly appointed Justice of the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Justice
Khaladkar's professional resume is extensive and impressive. From appearing as
co-counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada on a case which solidified the
rights to provide persons detained or arrested with right to counsel, to serving
as chair of the Project Management Team for the construction of the First
Nations University of Regina Campus, to prosecuting MHAs as the Crown Attorney
in the aftermath of the House of Assembly spending scandal.
His
legal credentials are self-evident and his sense of justice is unshakable, but
so too is his sense of community. As a resident of Sunnyside in my District of
Placentia West – Bellevue, he became dedicated to the Heritage Committee and was
always someone Mayor Snook felt the town could rely on. He also became known for
his talented photography. In fact, one of his photos of the Hebron GBS at Bull
Arm still hangs in my office today.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Justice Khaladkar
on his appointment to the bench and wish him and his wife, Susan, all the very
best.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
acknowledge the outstanding contributions and leadership of Mayor Genevieve
Squire.
Genevieve moved to Eastport in 1971 after completing her post-secondary
education in St. John's. Shortly after getting married in 1972, she was employed
for five years with the Eastport Peninsula Committee for Development of
Progress. For the next 31 years, Genevieve worked at the Terra Nova National
Park as a financial specialist. In recognition of her leadership abilities, in
2003 she received the People Management Award.
Outside
of her work, Genevieve has volunteered with various community-based
organizations including the Eastport Peninsula Firettes, the Santa Claus parade
committee, the Venture Credit Union, the memorial park and playground committee
and the Gander Airport Authority. For the past 10 years, Genevieve has headed up
the Eastport Seafest festival committee.
As a
former Beaches Arts & Heritage Centre board member, she is among the shortlist
of individuals who make up the Hall of Honour.
Currently in her fifth term on the Eastport town council, Genevieve is serving
her third term as mayor.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing community activist
Genevieve Squire.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to inform hon. Members of the completion of a significant piece of
infrastructure that has strengthened the transportation network throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In
October, the new Sir Robert Bond Bridge opened to traffic over the Exploits
River in Central Newfoundland. The bridge is a welcome addition to the region
and makes travelling throughout the area much easier.
Mr.
Speaker, I extend my thanks to local residents and businesses for their patience
as they waited for this bridge to be completed. However, our work in upgrading
road infrastructure in this region is far from over.
For the
remainder of the season, the contractor will be working on demolishing and
removing the old bridge. In addition, a contract for permanent approaches on
each side of the bridge has been awarded. This project and work to upgrade and
repave the interchange of Botwood Highway and the east exchange to Bishop's
Falls is set to begin next year.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know that our
government will provide significant highway improvements such as the Sir Robert
Bond Bridge. This year, our department paved more than 600 kilometres of highway
and replaced more than 300 culverts.
And we
are currently inviting residents to identify provincial highways and bridges
that should be considered in the second year of our five-year roads plan. We
continue to provide infrastructure that is important to the travelling public of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased
to celebrate the opening of the new Sir Robert Bond Bridge and we welcome the
completion of this project, which was another initiative started under our
administration.
The old
bridge was an important issue, not just for area residents, but for all members
of the travelling public, and I know the completion of this new bridge was
highly anticipated.
I'm so
glad to hear the minister acknowledge the importance of improving the
transportation infrastructure in our province, and I encourage him to release
the scores for the province's network of highways so that the residents of the
province can see exactly where their request for roadwork rank on the Liberal's
five-year roads plan.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm happy the people
of Central Newfoundland finally have their new bridge. I'm also pleased
government is following its Five-Year
Provincial Roads Plan – something we called on for years.
We have
been asking for government to work climate change into their plans for repairing
and replacing infrastructure such as culverts, drains and ditches. I hope to see
the new initiatives in government's upcoming Climate Change Action Plan.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash
Victims.
The
third Wednesday of November is set aside each year for Canadians to remember
those who have lost their lives or been seriously injured on Canadian roads.
Annually, more than 1,800 people are killed in road crashes in Canada and more
than 160,000 are injured.
Mr.
Speaker, it only takes a moment for lives to change forever because of a crash
on our roadways. It also only takes a moment to make the decision to drive
safely.
At an
event this morning at RCMP Headquarters, I met with many people who are
dedicated to raising awareness about road safety.
Service
NL's Highway Enforcement Officers, the RCMP and the RNC are doing valuable work
to raise awareness and ensure the Highway
Traffic Act is respected.
Groups
like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, STAND for Hannah, the Save Our People Action
Committee and Safety NL also provide valuable input to government as we all seek
ways to make our roads and highways safer.
I call
upon everyone here today to join me in thanking those who support and promote
road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. We also recognize
the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims. Mr. Speaker, our
thoughts are with those families, friends, individuals and communities that have
suffered losses and have personally been impacted by road crashes.
I also
would like to take the opportunity to thank those who keep our roads safe,
particularly the RCMP and RNC, and those government and non-government
organizations who work hard to improve and educate us about the importance of
road safety and offer support to those affected by these tragedies.
Mr.
Speaker, road safety is indeed a shared responsibility. We all can and must do
our part to make our roads safer. Safe driving saves lives and we must all do
our best to help ensure that everyone comes home safe.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. My sincere condolences
to the families of the many road crash victims in our province. I thank the many
groups and agencies promoting road safety in our province.
I point
out to the minister that casualty rates in this province are higher than the
Canadian average. So we have much to do to ensure that the act is being better
enforced and to improve the enforcement of speeding and distracted driving laws.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday during Question Period when the Minister of Finance was asked about
job cuts, he gave somewhat of a fragmented answer. He referred to other than
deputy ministers and some managers – and we know that most of them were replaced
by their own Liberal friends. He talked about most of what we've achieved and
talked about upwards of 600 positions in government. He also went on to make a
comment that they've practised attrition.
So I
asked the Minister of Finance: Can you table a list of positions that have been
eliminated by attrition?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I don't have that information
here, but I'll certainly locate the information and provide it to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We look
forward to that. He had some numbers yesterday, so it shouldn't be too long or
too difficult to find.
Yesterday, again in Question Period, when attrition was being discussed, he
talked about reductions in the public service.
I ask
the minister: How much has been realized in savings as a result of your
attrition plan, and what percentage of your payroll has been reduced?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I can get those exact dollar
figures for the Member opposite as well.
What I
can say to the Member opposite is that we are focused on attrition within core
government. We're asking our agencies, boards and commissions to be focused on
core government.
Mr.
Speaker, I can say as well to the Member opposite: While his government grew the
size of the public service by 20 per cent, putting the taxpayers of this
province at risk, we will not be doing the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the Minister of Finance that it was while he was a minister that government
grew. I can tell you that during my time as a Cabinet minister and premier, we
shrank the size of government, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, there is some confusion over attrition. In 2007 Estimates, the Minister
of Health and Community Services indicated that they were not following an
attrition plan. But yesterday the Minister of Finance says they are using an
attrition plan.
I ask
the Premier: Can you confirm? Is that a government-wide attrition plan that's
being followed or just some departments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, what never
ceases to amaze me with the Member for Topsail, the former premier of the
province, is the fact that he's never been honest with the people of the
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
He projected a $1.1 billion
deficit in 2015, continued to have the people of the province believe that the
number was $1.1 billion even through the election when he was making spending
promises. I'll tell him this as well where he's not being honest with the people
of the province, the budget grew from the time I was minister from
$4-point-something billion a year to $5.4 billion a year. After that, you became
minister and we got an $8.7 billion budget annually. Check your numbers.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
deal with that in due course, as the minister likes to say as well.
On April
27 of this year, the current Finance Minister's predecessor said: “What is
missing from the attrition discussion and attrition plan … was a full and
comprehensive workforce plan which we intend to build as part of our zero base
budgeting, Mr. Speaker.” That was the previous minister.
I ask
the current Minister of Finance: Can you please provide an update on your
predecessor's plan of a full and comprehensive workforce plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I can tell the Member what
our plan is. We haven't had massive layoffs; we haven't cut public services to a
huge degree. We're not asking agencies, boards and commissions to do that
either. What we're asking them to do is what we've done in departments, and
that's to find efficiencies.
In core
government, we went from 9,000 – we reduced upwards to 600 positions in core
government. We're asking agencies, boards and commissions to do the same.
I didn't
hear any media announcements of mass layoffs because there were none. What we're
asking agencies, boards and commissions to do here is simply find efficiencies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate some of that information there from the minister because they are
asking agencies, boards and commissions to practice attrition. He referred to
that yesterday.
Minister, what are the targets that you're going to assign to agencies, boards
and commissions? How many people will be replaced for how many people that
leave?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, that obviously
varies by agency, board and commission, just as it varies by department. We
can't put a stringent, across-the-board number on this.
What I
will say, Mr. Speaker, is that we're not looking to have an effect on the
services that are provided to the people of the province, just as we didn't
through departments in government, but we need to find savings. We cannot ask
the taxpayers to dig any deeper into their pockets.
If the
member opposite is telling us that we shouldn't look for efficiencies and we
shouldn't look for savings, why don't you tell the taxpayers of the province
what you expect them to do about it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
almost sounds – every day the Finance Minister gets up, he's asking for help
from the Opposition and wants our assistance. Maybe he can't figure that out
himself. He's the minister; he's supposed to be leading the issue and the
province here, Mr. Speaker.
In
September of this year, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police asked the
federal government to postpone the legalization of marijuana. They said they
need time and money to train officers throughout Canada.
I ask
the Premier of the province if he shares those concerns.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly happy to stand here and speak to this very important policy decision
that all governments across Canada are dealing with now in every province,
territory and including the federal government.
The
issue referenced by the Member opposite is one that we take very seriously and
one, given that it's at the core of what we do in Justice, is something I take
very seriously.
This is
an issue that was brought up at the latest federal/provincial/territorial
meeting in Vancouver. I don't mind saying that I actually spoke to the federal
minister myself, Ralph Goodale, at that meeting and said that this is an issue
that is being brought forward by the Chiefs of Police.
That
being said, we're doing everything within our power, working with other
governments to make sure that we will be ready. I am sure we will be ready for
this legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In an
interview just last month, in October, the Finance Minister referred to
marijuana discussion with his federal counterparts as being in the early stages.
Now, with implementation scheduled to be just around the corner, I ask the
Premier if he's concerned with the lack of progress on a provincial plan
regarding this very serious issue. We know where the federal government is and
those federal concerns; we're also concerned about the province's readiness.
So I ask
the Premier if he has any concerns about the progress of the provincial plan.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the question from the Member opposite, as certainly this is a huge
issue. It's one of the biggest public policy shifts that our country has seen in
decades.
The fact
is our government will be ready. In fact, we are the second province to come out
with an online consultation with the public – one of the greatest attended
consultations that this province has seen – and I hope the Member opposite took
the time to pass on his thoughts, as we invited all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to contribute.
What I
can say is that our government is certainly ready; we've been working on this
diligently. There are a lot of people within government, through every
department, that have been working on this, and we will be ready for the
implementation of legislation here in the province and for the federal
legislation.
Thank
you.
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. Manitoba's provincial government has announced that private stores
will sell marijuana, while the province will control distribution. Alberta has
earlier announced their plan, as did Ontario. We haven't really heard much about
the plan here in the province.
We still
know that it's in the works, and the minister just referred to that. But do you
have a plan yet regarding the sales and distribution?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly every province has been working on this issue and certain provinces
are in different states of readiness. Some provinces have gone ahead and
announced their plan. Some provinces haven't even done a consultation yet and
are still going through that. It's something that every government is working
through.
I, as
one of the co-leads of our intergovernmental department on cannabis
legalization, think that we are ready as a government. We all as a Cabinet and
caucus know that we will be ready and our plans will be announced in due course.
We look forward to speaking publicly about them when that information is
available.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance has rightfully stated the majority of costs related to
implementation of the sale of cannabis will be borne by the province, including
regulations, distribution, as well as justice, health care and social issues.
I ask
the Premier: From the work undertaken by your government so far, what are those
costs looking like? What's the impact going to be on the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the issues that are being discussed is the revenue that will come from the
legalization, as well as the expenses and costs that come with it. One of the
misconceptions that we've been hoping to dispel is the fact that there will be a
tremendous revenue stream with this. No doubt, there will be revenue that comes
into every province and to the federal government, but when you're introducing
the legalization of cannabis, there's also a safety side and a social
consciousness that we need to have. So there will be significant costs borne
when it comes to safety, when it comes to education, when it comes to health,
when it comes to addictions. We will be doing everything in our power to ensure
that we cover that off, also at the same time looking at the revenue that comes
in.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
finances and the financial implications certainly are an important part. I ask
the Minister of Finance if any analysis has been done so far on what expected
revenues may be generated from the sales of marijuana. What analysis has been
done and what are their expectations at this point in time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, there's been tremendous analysis of all facets of the legalization of
cannabis that has been done, not just by our government but by governments,
agencies, groups across Canada. In fact, I'm willing to say that in the last
year, it's probably the most corresponded issue that I've had to deal with,
whether it's private industry, whether it's safety, whether it's just regular
citizens – the number of conversations we've had on this has been tremendous.
There
has been a lot of work done within government on all aspects of this and we look
forward to announcing our government's plan when it comes to all angles of the
cannabis legalization. Very soon, we look forward to putting all the information
out for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
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.
Chemotherapy patients were turned away from their scheduled appointments at the
cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, not because of lack of space but because
of lack of nurses.
Can the
minister give this House and, more importantly, cancer patients in Central
Newfoundland an assurance that this problem will be resolved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to rise to deal with this issue which arose yesterday. Through a
communication error, essentially two patients were contacted in error to have
their appointments cancelled. One of them was contacted before they got too far,
came back and had their chemotherapy. The other one had a mutually convenient
appointment rescheduled for either today or tomorrow, with no clinical impact.
I've
asked Eastern Health who runs the cancer clinic service to look into why this
erroneous call was made. As soon as I have that information, I'll be happy to
provide it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's good to hear,
Minister, but the treatment, as one person rightfully described, is life saving,
life extending. People cannot simply afford to miss appointments because of
staffing that we originally thought, now with communications in Grand
Falls-Windsor.
What
other options do you plan to put in place to ensure this doesn't happen in the
future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
opposite is accurate. This was a communication issue; it's obviously an HR issue
and a policy issue. I've directed Eastern Health to fix the problem and I expect
them to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
The Liberal Finance Minister
stated: Our plan is working. Tell that to the sick who had to wait four hours
for an ambulance, and tell that to cancer patients who drove hours for chemo and
told to go home.
Minister, the Liberal plan is not working. In the past six months, how many
chemotherapy appointments have been cancelled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, appointments may
be cancelled for a variety of reasons, not least of which at the interest and
request of the individual patient. If the Member opposite has a particular time
frame, say, from the beginning of the calendar year, I can get that information
from the Cancer Care Program. I obviously don't carry that kind of number around
in my head at the moment, but I'd be happy to supply it for the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
We're being told that there
are issues around HR; we're told that there are issues around communications.
Obviously, this has an impact on the quality of health care we get in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: You claim that you're looking at the health system as a
place to cut; can the people of the province expect more situations like the one
that we just talked about here in the House of Assembly in the future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I think the
gentleman opposite is stringing dots together that don't naturally lie that way.
What I can tell him is that the aim of my department and this government since
December of 2015 is to look at getting the best value we can from the dollars
we've put into health care.
What we
have managed to do is stabilize the hemorrhage, Mr. Speaker. We have managed to
keep health care spending at a constant level over the last two years – an
achievement which, in actual fact, is almost unparalleled in any other
jurisdiction. At the same time, we have not compromised the level of service or
the quality of care. We've done it by looking at how we spend money and how we
spend it wisely, and we'll continue to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mayors
across the province are saying how unfair and unaffordable the 50-50 cost-shared
ratio on road construction projects is. Your government changed the cost ratio.
I'm
asking: Are you considering changing the cost ratio again?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question because that is the decision we made, to leverage
federal funding. There was a certain amount of federal funding that was there
for water and waste water. As a government, we made water and waste water a
priority for the government.
As you
know – or you didn't know but now you do know, there was $34.6 million left on
the table because your government would not sign the contract. Mr. Speaker, what
happened, we had to find a way to leverage the funding. We went to MNL; we
explained the situation, why we had to do that.
We made
water, waste water – if their finances improve across the province, yes, but I
stood in front of the convention of 350 people and I said that we had to do it
because we made water a priority for this government. We apologize, but it was
done for the right reasons.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
With
everything else against them, Minister, where do you expect small rural
communities to get the monies to be able to do their roadwork?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, just to let you
know, we were in consultation with MNL when we made those changes – 100 per
cent.
If
anybody opposite, that were in Opposition, had to be at the convention, which
they weren't this year – not one person showed up to the convention to listen to
my explanation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. JOYCE:
Not one. Many from this side
were there because we support municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
You would have listened when
I stood up at the opening of the convention on Saturday morning, and I said
here's what we're going to do. We've made the decisions, but we're going to help
in other ways. We're going to piggyback on other contracts.
A good
example, Meadows, they had a $300,000 contract; when we helped with the
Department of Transportation and Works it was $150,000, Mr. Speaker – half.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the
minister mentioned MNL.
Your
policies are having such a negative impact on roads in rural communities that
even the former chair of MNL and now current federal nominee presented a
resolution at MNL. The resolution, he wanted to make sure there was some kind of
change in the fiscal.
So are
you looking at changing it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, we'll consider
any changes if it's going to help when the fiscal situation arises. I said that
publicly. I said it in front of the whole convention. If I was a mayor at the
time presenting a resolution – we know, we're in consultation on a daily basis
with MNL, a daily basis.
I could
tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker – the year before we made the announcement to
change the cost-shared ratio, almost 20 per cent of the funding that was
requested were for roads. When we changed the cost-shared ratio, almost the same
amount was asking for the same. So municipalities can afford it because we're
helping municipalities with the extra cost that we can help through
transportation by piggybacking on contracts.
If you
were at the convention, you would have heard it and you would have heard the
ovation I got when I said that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'm sure you got a great
ovation, Mr. Minister.
Listen,
this is what MNL are saying. This is a resolution that was passed out there.
Do you
think it's fair?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You
asked, do you think it's fair? I ask the Member, and you were aware of this, by
the way. Do you understand that your government had a three-year program, 20
years you spent it all in the two years? The third year there wasn't one cent
for municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that fair?
Mr.
Speaker, what we did is we made water a priority. MNL agreed water is a
priority. Mr. Speaker, because of that, we're after getting hundreds of millions
of dollars from Ottawa, because we're leveraging funding from Ottawa. We're
using this fund. People understand we are helping. We are helping to ease the
burden of the cost-shared ratio for the roads, and municipalities are well aware
of that Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Interesting answers from the
minister. One minute he says: We didn't spend it. The next minute he says: We
spent it all and too much of it. You have to make up your mind, Minister.
It's
government's responsibility to provide safe roads.
I ask
the Minister of Transportation and Works: What do you think of the policy and
the negative impact it's having on provincial roads and roads in your district?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, what I'll do for
the Member, I like the Member, I'll take him over to the department and I'll
give him a briefing. I'll give him a briefing on the difference between the
Small Communities Fund, which was $34.6 million not signed, and the $20 million
a year for Municipal Capital Works. It is two different funds.
The
Municipal Capital Works is totally provincial – totally provincial. The Small
Communities Fund, which for some reason your government didn't want to sign –
$34.6 million wasn't even signed. The money that was used for Capital Works for
your government was spent in two years.
Putting
out the applications – give us the application. There wasn't one penny there to
be spent. Is that the way you want people in municipalities to be living? You
don't know if there is any money in the pot for it after the application?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I can assure the minister
there were a lot of municipalities very pleased with what this government did,
for damn sure, in our term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
There was a lot of roadwork
done and a lot of water and sewer work done all over the province.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You had a couple of standing
ovations yourself.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I had a great couple of
relationships with the ministers, as a former mayor.
The
policy of having such terrible roads in rural communities – I ask the Minister
of Tourism: Do you think it's responsible to have roads in such conditions when
we want to do a good job on our tourism?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, too bad the
Member wasn't at the MNL convention. I have to say, if you're so concerned about
municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, why didn't one of you show up, just
one show up? You'll be out there next year when there's an election the
following year to see who can run for your party. What a difference, Mr.
Speaker.
The
people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the vast majority of applications are
for water. The vast majority is for water. So what we did is we listened to the
communities. What we said was if that's your priority, we have a certain amount
of money. We can go and leverage the federal money, and that's what we did, Mr.
Speaker. That's why you saw the Premier last year announcing $140 million for
140 projects across Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, we're working with our federal counterparts and we're listening to the
people and we're providing safe drinking water.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
initial court standing regarding Wabush Mines, the government remained steadfast
on the $50 million reclamation or remediation fund that was required as part of
the bid process; however, government relinquished that requirement instead of
settling for millions less.
Can the
minister explain why this happened?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a very important question for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it
has to do with reclamation of a Wabush Mines site.
Mr.
Speaker, in the Department of Natural Resources we are very consumed and
concerned about making sure that we have the monies and opportunity available to
reclaim any site that mining takes place.
The
Member opposite did read from the information that was provided, but, Mr.
Speaker, the $50 million, we have secured $41 million from the new owners of
Wabush Mines. The difference is some reclamation work had already been done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: What was the amount of reclamation work already done?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Department of Natural Resources does a very thorough job of looking at
reclamation plans, rehabilitation plans around mines. Mr. Speaker, we have a
whole team of engineers and people that work very diligently. If the difference
is between $50 million and $41 million, it is $9 million that have been
completed in terms of what was required. It may not have been in terms of dollar
value, but what was required. They work very diligently.
Mr.
Speaker, we worked very closely with Tacora when they were making the moves
towards the purchase of Wabush Mines to ensure the people of this province were
protected and had a reclamation plan in place.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland for a very quick question, please.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just to clarify, if the
minister could. She referenced $9 million. She said it may not have been $9
million, it could be other. I'm not sure what you mean.
Was $9
million worth of work done or was it not done? A simple question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for a very quick response, please.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
have to check with the department to see what the total value was, but in terms
of what was required to be done was the $50 million; therefore, if the
difference would have been $41 million and therefore that's where the $9 million
came in, but I will check exactly what the difference in the amount was. I can
assure the people of this province we made sure we had the funds available for
reclamation.
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.
Two
years into their mandate, government is as dependent on oil revenues as the
previous administration.
I ask
the Premier: Where are the decisive actions and new initiatives and revenue
streams he promised the people of this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
I would make mention, number one, the current administration we see right now
with the current budget lines is really just north of 10 per cent compared to
some 35 per cent, so I would challenge the reliance on oil. I'd ask the interim
Leader of the Third Party at least to go and review those numbers because there
is a less reliance on oil today than there was in the past.
Last
November, Mr. Speaker, we outlined A
Vision for Sustainability and Growth in Newfoundland and Labrador. The
Member opposite has been following the progress that's been made. It was, number
one, to stabilize the financial footing in our province. We've been able to do
that.
Secondly, was to work with many sectors. We've seen multiple announcements over
the last year creating jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and investing –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
– in Newfoundlanders
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Government says we have a spending problem; I believe we have a revenue problem.
One way to tackle this issue is to create a fairer income tax system. During the
2015 election, government promised to review the tax structure to ensure it is
fair to all residents, but it is still not done.
I ask
the Premier: Will he tell this province what exactly he means and what did he
mean by taxation that is fair to all residents?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
review is currently ongoing right now. I think in a release that went out when
the names were released, the Schedule was part of that. Secondly, I would
challenge her comment about the revenue situation in our province. As a province
per capita to comparing us to every other Canadian province, we rank second.
Newfoundland and Labrador ranks second in revenue generation on a per capita
basis.
There is
no doubt right now, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very challenging situation to
deliver the much-needed services in our province. When you compare the delivery
of services in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is where we rank first in most
situations.
For the
Member opposite to ignore the fact that it's not expensive and this is not the
most expensive place to deliver those services is completely wrong. The revenue
problem in our province, I just said that, we rank second in the country so
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Order, please!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, today the
Minister of Health started debate on his new
Prescription Monitoring Act, giving
Members of this House less than 24 hours – less than 24 hours – for thorough
review and consultation with relevant interested parties. This bill has serious
implications for privacy rights, health care providers and patients. This is an
affront to our democratic process.
Significant key organizations have not been consulted directly on the bill. The
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association even issued a news release of
their concerns.
I ask
the minister: Will he table a list of organizations that he said were consulted
on the actual proposed Prescription
Monitoring Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to
stand up and answer the first part of the question from the Member opposite
calling the briefing process an affront to democracy.
Now,
what I would suggest is first of all you may want to check with your colleague
who didn't share those sentiments yesterday when I spoke to her about that. The
second thing I would say is that the Members opposite get a full briefing from
departmental officials who will answer any question. If they have further
questions, they just need to ask.
The fact
is that this debate won't just take today; it won't just take tomorrow. We will
take all the time we need to answer all the questions. And what I would say to
the last part – it's not my bill, but I'd say to the minister it's a very good
bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre for a very quick question, please.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, it's not about
the briefing but about the time before debate starts, and he knows that. This
bill would have been referred to the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner for review.
Can the
minister tell us if the Privacy Commissioner had any concerns about this
legislation, and what has been done about those concerns?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services for a quick response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
Two things: one, the list of
people with whom we consulted was extensive and it includes all those people
who've made press releases today, just to set the record straight. The second
bit around the OIPC, their recommendations are incorporated in the bill.
If the
Member opposite had listened to my speech this morning, I actually referenced
that fact. His input is in there. That's why it's all encased in the
Personal Health Information Act and
PHIA. They weren't listening, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I rise
on Standing Order 49, Mr. Speaker, and I refer to O'Brien and Bosc under
unparliamentary language. It refers to the use of offensive, provocative or
threatening language in the House, and it also refers to the long-standing
tradition of respect for integrity of Members. Personal attacks, insults and
obscenities are not in order.
I refer
to two comments made by the Minister of Finance in succession during Question
Period today when he questioned the honesty of a Member of this House, namely
myself, and actually named me in such way. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Member
apologize and withdraw those comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I'll stand and speak to
the point of order. I believe the Member opposite referenced the Standing Order
and said something about offensive or threatening comments by the Member. I
certainly don't recall hearing anything offensive or threatening.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, I hear the Member
talking over there while I'm speaking. What I would suggest is he has every
opportunity to stand and speak to his point of order when it's his turn, so I
would suggest to the Member – again, I just heard him say something out of
earshot. I'm going to sit down and let him say it on the record and then I'll
continue the point of order. Please speak when it's your turn.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I never uttered a word or a
sound, Mr. Speaker. He seems to be referring to me, but I never uttered a word
or –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I never
uttered a word or a sound while he was on his feet a moment ago, but I'll be
more than happy to respond to his comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I get confused and maybe it
was the Member for Cape St. Francis that was over having something to say while
his leader was talking. What I would suggest is I would like a reiteration from
the Member opposite about the offensive or threatening comments that he alleges
were made by the Minister of Finance.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
words are unparliamentary so I hesitate to repeat them, but I certainly will.
Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago the Government House Leader commented on
interruptions while he was on his feet and then I get a display like that from
Members of the government who are supposed to be leading this province.
Mr.
Speaker, his comments were: have never been honest and not being honest with the
people of the province. What I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is those comments are
clearly unparliamentary. It is against the long-standing traditions of this
House to use such language and I ask that the Minister of Finance should rise in
his place, apologize and withdraw the comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps
I have a different interpretation of the comments made by the Minister of
Finance. I agree with what the Member is saying. It is one thing to make
accusations and to call somebody a name, maybe to suggest that somebody is a
lair, but also there's nothing unparliamentary about suggesting that a Member is
being less than honest, if that is indeed the case.
What I
would suggest is that I'm going to have to leave it to the judgment of the
Speaker to review the comments in the context that they were made. Certainly, I
don't think the Member made any unparliamentary comments.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the comments weren't suggestions; they were direct statements. Under
O'Brien and Bosc it refers to the language or the tradition, the integrity of
Members. It also indicates that if the words used or phrase used were
provocative in nature – provocative means to create a discussion or debate, then
it's unparliamentary, and that's exactly what happened.
It's
clearly a tradition in this House, Mr. Speaker, that to make such statements is
unparliamentary and I stand by my request that it be ruled that way, Sir, by you
and that he apologize and withdraw the comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
appreciate the commentary by both sides of the House and I'm going to take that
matter under advisement. We will review
Hansard and report back to this hon. House.
Thank
you very much.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday during
Question Period, I referenced a letter that was sent to industry concerning the
generic oil royalty regime. I would like to table those documents.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I've been asked
in this hon. House the total amount spent with Wood Mackenzie by the Department
of Natural Resources since I became minister in January of 2016. So from January
2016 until now a total of $20,000 has been paid to Wood Mackenzie.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland
and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education
because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and
WHEREAS
from 1964 to 2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a
full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf
and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only
a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of
hearing children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate, complete and thorough
assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a
committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of
deaf and hard of hearing education and to accept the recommendations of these
experts, and in the interim take measures to honour the support commitments made
to all current and future students upon closure of the Newfoundland School for
the Deaf in 2010, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are
provided with access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates, as
well as access to sign language.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I stand and offer well over 100 signatures here from
different parts of the province; from St. John's, from Gander I notice, and
Glenwood areas around Gander, Musgravetown, Lethbridge, Canning's Cove. From all
over the Eastern part of the province, Mr. Speaker, into the Central part,
people showing their concern for what's happening to our deaf and hard of
hearing children.
We'll
note that at the end of the petition it speaks to the need for sign language for
these children, which is their language, Mr. Speaker. For a long time the
teaching of sign languages to deaf and hard of hearing students has been
restricted on the grounds that it would impede these children from learning a
spoken language.
This is
a recognized language of the deaf, Mr. Speaker. Many people who are deaf cannot
speak a spoken language; they have to have their own language. This is now being
denied them.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
there has been an identified lack of mental health services in our province's K
to 12 school system; and
WHEREAS
the lack is having a significant impact on both students and teachers; and
WHEREAS
left unchecked, matters can and, in many cases, will develop into more serious
issues;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to increase mental health services and programs
in our province's K to 12 school system.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I got to present this same petition last Thursday. Since then, I've had
a multitude of individuals contact me, some professionals, some retired
professionals, particularly some parents.
I had
one agency that deals with issues around mental health saying that there's a
significant correlation between lack of services in our school system and the
impacts it has on citizens in later years in their life, particularly around
mental health. They proactively support us taking a proactive approach at an
early age versus a reactive approach later in life, and for a number of reasons:
one, the quality of life for these individuals and their families; their ability
to be engaged in the community and be productive citizens; what it adds to the
economy and the benefits from all of those engaged citizens as part of the
process.
They're
saying this is not a very expensive, encompassing process. What it is here is a
coordinated effort that's needed between the Department of Education, the school
district and the administration and agencies out there that have the expertise
to do that.
Some of
these agencies are in-house. They are through Eastern Health or the regional
health authorities. They're through the Department of Health itself. There are
other departments of child, youth and family services. There are a number of
line departments that have expertise and have programs. There are not-for-profit
agencies out there that do due diligence and yeoman service to be able to offer
service in that.
What
they're suggesting – and it makes sense the more I look at it, and coming from a
bureaucratic background. It's much easier if we collectively address a
particular issue here than it is to be in our own little separate silos, working
independently trying to solve the little component of that particular issue that
we're aware of or that we think that's our expertise. Coming together would be a
much more positive approach to doing what we need to do.
In this
case, it makes sense from every aspect. If we can do it and do some
interventions early, get the proper supports in play that are necessary, get the
proper training for those who are dealing on a day-to-day basis with identifying
some of the potential mental health issues that young people may be facing in
life itself, identify the supports that are necessary and help coordinate that
in our school system, what better way to do it than with a captive audience with
people who are supportive of our education system?
Mr.
Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to speak to this again, as this is an issue
that won't go away until we start addressing it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial drug program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016; and
WHEREAS
many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;
and
WHEREAS
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition, as you know, is based on
Budget 2016. We still talk about it, but it has a real impact on a
lot of people, seniors and low-income individuals in our districts.
I think
most Members in this House have probably dealt with one or more cases. It's very
sad situations when people are requiring this dental work. It's not for cosmetic
purposes a lot of times. These are very serious situations and probably a bit
more serious than most people realize.
I spoke
in this House on a situation in my colleague from Topsail – Paradise, his
district actually the lady was from, but it became a more public issue. I've
dealt with other less public ones. It's a very difficult conversation because
they need implants or they need specialized work with their teeth. It affects
their eating. It affects their facial – this one lady, her jaw was moved. It's
all affected. It's a huge impact on their overall health. It's no longer this
dental – you're not going to an orthodontist to get your teeth straightened.
This can be a serious health impact on those individuals.
It's
been removed, and it was removed as a budgetary item in 2016. There's been a lot
of outcry over this. We continue to ask the government to consider reinstating
it because there's been no change. Every case is viewed individually. Everyone
has to go in, basically, on bended knee and beg the department for some
assistance or some leeway. Most times there is very little help that comes out,
unless they really push it and push it and push it. Then it's only a portion of
the cost.
The end
result of all of this is you have seniors who are struggling, who have serious
health issues as a result of their dental needs. We think government should
really consider, this one in particular, to reinstate it.
Thank
you very much.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
This
being Wednesday, I now call on the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay to
introduce the resolution standing in his name, Motion 6.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to rise today and speak to this private Member's motion. The motion
reads: I move, and seconded by the hon. Member for St. George's – Humber:
WHEREAS
safety for all students is an important priority; and
WHEREAS
speeding in school zones is still a prevalent issue within the province; and
WHEREAS
according to the World Health Organization, setting and enforcing speed limits
are two of the most effective measures in reducing road traffic injuries;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador in setting a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per
hour in school zones.
As I
said in my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise to this
private Member's motion. For those who are listening at home, private Members'
motions are exactly that: an opportunity for a Member of this hon. House to rise
in his or her place to speak to something of importance, whether it be on behalf
of their government, on behalf of the province, or certainly on behalf of the
district that one would reside in and represent.
I chose
the private Member's motion based on all three. I think this private Member's
motion, if you read into it, it's a very simple motion but can have profound
effects on the safety of children in school zones.
Mr.
Speaker, I guess when you look at it – I'm certainly very passionate about
safety. When you look at the motion that I'm putting forth respectfully today
for Members to hear, it's probably timely given the amendments that we just made
to the Highway Traffic Act under the
Minister of Service NL. I think she and her department did some fabulous work in
presenting those amendments and I'd like to say and go on record that I have
certainly the support – I've had the opportunity to speak to that minister. I
have her support as well as I have, I'd like to think, the support of my
Ministers of Transportation and Works, Justice, Education and Early Childhood
Development, all of whose departments deal with the issue that we have before us
today or the motion that we have before us today.
I have
to say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to my own district, I've had the opportunity to
sit in meetings with parents, constituents, school boards and actually with the
members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who – my home community and,
actually, my full district are under the jurisdiction of the RCMP.
I talked
earlier on, Mr. Speaker, about being passionate about safety because it was a
big part of who I was or what I was in my early working career. I spent some
time as a proud member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and obviously had
the opportunity to deal with some of this first-hand, especially speeding and,
certainly, the safety in around school zones.
The
rationale behind this Member's statement is ensuring the safety of all students.
It's an important consideration for our government. The 30 kilometres per hour
school zone speed limit will certainly help to ensure student safety across the
province.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to mention the fact that speed limits in school zones are
lower for an important reason: to ensure student safety. We all know that school
zones, from September to June, are very busy areas at certain times of the day.
When you look at people who are even going out and buying homes today, I mean
everybody seems to want to buy a home in and around recreational facilities and
educational facilities. They're high-traffic areas and we need to ensure the
safety of the people who are using those areas.
Mr.
Speaker, a York University and Hospital for Sick Children study finds children
face an increased chance of injury near schools during morning rush hour due to
parents' dangerous driving. Parents and school buses are dropping off and
picking up children and crossing guards are directing traffic. I just want to go
back to my earlier comment; I mentioned the fact that purchasers who are ready
to purchase a home, like to purchase it in around educational and recreational
facilities.
We find
– at least I find in my own area, probably not as much in urban, but I know in a
lot of the rural districts, children have a tendency to walk to school. As you
get older, you see more children who are walking to school and, therefore,
there's cause for more safety issues when you see so many children.
Mr.
Speaker, when children are struck by vehicles, their injuries often result in
life-threatening or permanent damage. The faster a vehicle is moving, the
greater the impact and the more devastating the results. Pedestrian-related
injuries contributed to almost 12 per cent of all injury-related deaths of
children younger than 14 years of age. On average, 30 child pedestrians younger
than 14 years are killed and 2,412 are injured each year, Mr. Speaker. Children
aged five to 14 years are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related deaths.
Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidents of pedestrian-related
injuries.
They
often have difficulty judging the speed and distance of cars and believe if they
can see a car that the driver can see them. And that's not always the fact, Mr.
Speaker. As well, children often assume a car can stop instantly; they have a
limited peripheral vision and have a limited sense of danger.
And I
just want to highlight an incident that actually happened to me in my hometown
in 1990. I had just not long left the police force and moved back to my hometown
to work for our family business. I'll never forget it, Mr. Speaker. The incident
happened at a school bus stop not far from my home. I want to go back – I'm
using this incident because of the comment that I just made that children often
assume that a car can stop instantly.
Anyway,
I had an opportunity to witness an accident where a child was actually knocked
down at a school bus zone in my hometown. I ran towards the child, Mr. Speaker,
and actually my oldest daughter was at the bus stop, a grade one student at the
time, and I remember seeing a Barbie bookbag underneath the car. I'll never
forget it. It's a memory that will stay with me for the rest of my life.
I went
to the child, and certainly thinking it was my daughter because she carried a
Barbie bookbag, but it was her best friend. Luckily for that child, Mr. Speaker,
she had injuries but they weren't life threatening. I certainly bring myself
back to this on a continual basis.
I
remember picking up that bookbag, Mr. Speaker, and taking it with me as the
ambulance took the young child away. I kept that bookbag for a long time. In
fact, when that child graduated grade 12, I presented her with her bookbag that
she had when she was in grade kindergarten. I kept it all those years, Mr.
Speaker. Like I said, it had a profound effect on me and this is why this bill
is so important to me, this private Member's motion is so important to me.
All of
these factors, Mr. Speaker, that I had mentioned can result in devastating
accidents that can be avoided with increased care and reduced speed. Over a
five-year period, Mr. Speaker, in the City of Edmonton, Alberta, there were 176
injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector or
local roadways.
Interesting statistics: 37 per cent of those collisions occurred in areas that
were designated playground zones; 20 per cent of those injured in those 65
collisions required hospitalization; and 99 per cent of the 65 injury collisions
happened between 7:30 a.m. and 9 a.m., exactly when we either send or bring our
children to school.
According to the World Health Organizations, speed has been identified as a key
risk factor in road-traffic injuries, influencing both the risk of a road crash
as well as the severity of the injuries that result from crashes.
Canada's
Safety Council, Mr. Speaker, also states that speed is a factor in 30 per cent
of fatal crashes and 12 per cent of all crashes. Controlling vehicle speed can
prevent crashes happening and can reduce the impact when they do occur,
lessening the severity of injuries sustained by the victims. The higher the
speed of the vehicle, the shorter the time a driver has to stop and avoid a
crash.
Interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, a car travelling at 50 kilometres an hour will
typically require 13 metres in which to stop, while a car travelling at 40
kilometres an hour, 10 kilometres less, will stop in less than 8.5 metres. An
increase in average speed of one kilometre per hour typically results in a 3 per
cent higher risk of a crash involving injury with a 4 per cent to 5 per cent
increase of crashes that result in fatalities.
I want
to talk to a bit about, when I was reading some of these stats and talking about
stopping times, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that when we send our
children to school, we send them from September to June. Mr. Speaker, I'd
certainly like to highlight the province in which we live, Newfoundland and
Labrador, of which we get six months of winter. The six months of winter are
actually six months that our children, our grandchildren, our friends' children,
our students are in school or going to school.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at road conditions, road conditions within
municipalities, some of our municipalities are better equipped to offer better
road conditions than others on a timely basis. Certainly, one would have to
think that when we look at the fact that we are going through winter months, the
likeliness of an accident involving road conditions is more prevalent during
that time of the year.
I wanted
to highlight and to, I guess, demonstrate my desire – we talked earlier on about
the inspections of vehicles. I guess when you look at what we're talking about
here, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at vehicles, we're looking at faulty equipment,
and the two most prevalent would be brakes and tires. I certainly want to
highlight that as well.
Probably, Mr. Speaker, in the essence of – I don't have a whole lot of time
here. I look forward to the debate. I'll continue on with my part of the
statement in my next opportunity to stand and speak to it, but I certainly want
to listen to my friends across.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much.
By the
way, a good job by the Member across the way for Baie Verte – Springdale – or
Baie Verte – Green Bay, I'm sorry; we used to call it Baie Verte – Springdale at
one time. This is a very important motion here today that the Member is bringing
in.
I'd say
that everybody in this House, especially parents of young children in
Newfoundland and Labrador, understand the safety issues of sending a child to
school. Understand that in the morning, you hope that when your child is either
on the way to school or gets off a school bus or is driven by a parent, that
child arrives at the school safe and sound, as we would say.
We have
to do everything in our possible way to make sure the safety of our children is
foremost. I know being a poppy now, I have two little grandchildren that I know
when they go to school, I'm looking forward to it, but I know one thing, it will
be a concern of mine that they get there safe and sound. That's very important.
I think
I'll say to the Member: I think that's the gist of your motion today and that's
the reason why you're bringing it in. Any time we have an opportunity to do
anything to make safety, and the safety of our children in particular, a part of
what we're doing as legislators, it's very important.
Part of
the WHEREAS here is about speeding in school zones; I'll give some examples now
when I do speak on notes, but just off the cuff here in the first of it, I'd
just like to say that's a responsibility of all of us.
The
minister brought in a Ministerial Statement today about this being the
remembrance day for road crashes in our province. It's a national day, actually,
right across Canada. Everyone is looking at today and recognizing the families,
the individuals and the communities.
In our
province over the last number of months, over the last year, really, in
particular – and I know it happens year after year but we're hearing more about
it, about families. I can only imagine what devastation of a child going to
school or anything like that.
This is
a very important motion. It's very important that we put it out there and people
know we're talking about it because that's what slows people down.
As the
Member also quoted from the World Health Organization, it says: “Setting and
enforcing speed limits are two of the most effective measures in reducing road
traffic injuries.” I would say also deaths, because we have to reduce them. It's
important that we make these changes.
Last
night on the way home, after the Member put this motion forward, I went through
my school areas, just to have a look and see what the actual speed limit was and
it was 30 kilometres an hour. I was glad of that. I also spoke to different
officials and I called the Town of Torbay in particular and talked to the mayor
– I knew it anyway – just to make sure. That was a request from the municipality
to the Department of Transportation and Works. The municipality requested that
the speed limit – the speed limit in the area was 50, then it got reduced down
by going to the minister's office and asking them to reduce, and they did do
that.
So just
to let the municipalities know out there that there is a way – if any of you
have a major concern that the speed limit is too high in school zones, the
opportunity to approach the minister's office, you can get it reduced down to
30. That's what they did in these areas.
The
other thing I was interested in last night as I drove through, there are two
schools in my district that are on byroads. They're not really on the provincial
road, but they're on side roads. They're not up far enough to – actually one is
probably about 500 feet and the other one is probably a couple thousand feet, so
if there's someone speeding on those roads, they shouldn't. There should be
enforcement there to make sure that they don't do it, but they're very short
distances.
To the
Member, I think we should define a school zone also because it's very important
that people know that you're in a school zone. Sometimes the school is not right
out on the main drag; it's up off to the side a little bit. But again, we have
so many young children walking back and forth to get to school. So the zone
itself, we should make sure that the provincial road part of that zone should
also be – and let people know how far it is and the distance for different
school zones.
This
also has to be done through Cabinet, I would imagine, and an amendment will have
to come to the Highway Traffic Act, I
do believe, to change the speed limits, to make it go down. I believe in 2007 –
I could be corrected – that there was an amendment that came through that
reduced it down to 50 kilometres in zones.
I'll
give an example now of schools in my area, just an example of how important this
is. There's a new school opened in Torbay and previous, the children in that
area, they all took a school bus. So you're talking kids in grade four, five and
six. Actually, no, it's five, six and seven. So these kids were used to getting
on a bus, running up and getting on a bus; now all of a sudden they have to walk
to school. So it's something that they have to get used to.
As
drivers in the province, we have to take notice of that, too. This is a new area
– and I really have to applaud the Town of Torbay for what they did in this area
because the new school opened and there was a major concern from the parents
having to cross Torbay Road. Torbay Road has 17,000 cars a day travelling along
it. What the Town of Torbay did – and actually to my colleague here, the Town
Portugal Cove-St. Philip's used the same person; they hired the commissioners.
So in the mornings now in the school, because the school is a little bit off the
main drag, like I said, the commissioner is there with the lights flashing. It's
another way to show people that you're in a school zone. It's very important
that they do that.
Not only
did they do that, through the Minister of Transportation and Works, I approached
him and we did a crosswalk across a provincial road. The government doesn't put
in crosswalks, but they will allow – again, for other municipalities in the
province – municipalities to do that, to give them permission to put crosswalks
across.
Also in
that particular area, they have some signage up. It's good signage, I have to
say. Signage is very important, as you know. They have an electronic sign. It's
amazing. I'm like everybody else, you come upon an electronic sign and the very
first thing you'll do when you see an electronic sign is look at your speed
limit, see what I'm doing. So if you're in a 30-kilometre zone or 50-kilometre
zone and you see one of those electronic signs – and I'm sure every Member in
the place is similar to what I am, the very first thing I'll do is look down and
see what speed I'm going. So they work – they work – so that's another way of
showing how things work.
Again,
congratulations to the Town of Torbay for doing that because it's very important
that the town realizes the importance of safety in school zones.
Now, the
only other thing – I know in the legislation that was passed a while ago under
the Highway Traffic Act, sometimes
you'll see that communities will have an issue, not only communities,
businesses, people trying to get to work and why are we going through a school
zone in the summer months, for example, or we're going through a school zone at
7 o'clock in the evening when there's no school. They're out for the summer or
they're gone in the evenings, the buses are all gone and everything else, but I
know in most rural communities – and I know in my district a lot of things
happen in the school zones in the schools, whether it's in the summertime. I
know that there's a couple of communities down there that if it's a rainy day,
for example, the summer program gets moved up to the gymnasium.
And
you'll always see in the evening, it may be a band practice, it could be a
soccer game. Usually you'll see your schools are built around recreation
facilities. So I believe and I hope it will be part of the legislation that it
is always maintained. Because I believe that schools in most communities are
really the hub of our community. I think that in those areas whether it's a
soccer game or it's a band practice, or you'll usually see the Scouts and the
Cubs and the Beavers and the Girl Guides and everyone, that's probably what they
use too as those areas. I just wanted to mention that to the Member.
I also
just want to speak a little bit on signage. I know the City of St. John's and
CBS and Mount Pearl do a fine job of the signage that shows crosswalks. The
Torbay town council has also, actually at MNL, approached the minister and
requested for a flashing light that comes on in the mornings. And they're
willing to put it in there, for a flashing light, so that people that come up –
anything at all, again, they got the signage there, the electronic signage,
there are lots of signs there and there's a crosswalk. But they figured this
flashing light, when any children are crossing the thing, would also help. Any
measures that can be done – and I believe they're going to write a letter to the
minister and I believe that the minister also told them that they will allow
them to do it. So it's important.
The
biggest thing, though, I look at and while we put in the rules and regulations
for this, and why we'll have the speed limits – not in my area because this,
like I said, most of my schools are a 30-kilometre zone. But the biggest
deterrent from anybody speeding is basically having enforcement in place. It's
so important that we do have that enforcement in place.
I got to
commend RNC because there's occasions – and I'm sure with either the RCMP or
RNC, they're like myself, they'll get complaints in their communities about
speeding on a certain road or speeding going into a community or speeding coming
out of the community. I've got a really good relationship with the RNC and I'll
call – actually the Member who presented this is a former member of the RNC and
know a lot of the people that I would call.
Listen,
we understand their resources are stretched right to the limit, but sometimes
what you'll see is that if you get the RNC – just talking to the RNC now because
they're the ones in my district – to have a presence in that place for a couple
of mornings, if you know people are going to work too fast and stuff like that,
they don't even need to give tickets, honestly. If people know the RNC – it's
another way to slow people down. That's the biggest thing we have to do, but the
presence of any law enforcement, I think, plays the biggest role in anything of
slowing people down. That's where we have to be.
We have
to educate people. I don't know how much more you can educate people with the
signage and everything else we have in place. We also have to work with our law
enforcement agencies and make sure their presence – like you said, when you're
looking at children going to school, you're looking at probably 7:30 to 9
o'clock, and in the evening again, depending on the school, probably 2:30 to
3:30, but the presence of law enforcement really plays a huge role in that.
That's a big part of it.
I think
it was a VOCM story; I'm not sure, whatever. It really bugged me this year when
I saw that there are people actually passing school buses. Honestly, they're not
in our school zones, no matter what. The one thing you do when you put a child
on the bus, you hope that people have respect enough that when they see the
bus's lights flashing, they see that arm coming out, that you stop.
They're
little children; they're excited about getting out of school. I probably used to
be the most excited person ever to get out of school running across to be able
to do whatever I had to do. I know all the little children today are excited
about getting home.
Please,
anybody coming up behind a bus, don't pass that bus. It's so wrong. They're not
looking. They do not look and they're excited about getting home, whether they
have a hockey game or they're going to Girl Guides, or they could be out just
playing in the snow or whatever. It's a time of evening where they're excited
and they want to get home.
For
anybody to do that, it's wrong. If anybody sees it, take down their licence
plate number and report them. It's unbelievable that someone would do it. I saw
the VOCM story and I was just blown away that people actually did that. I know
whenever I see a school bus, the one thing I look at is to make sure those
lights are flashing or whatever.
I notice
my time is gone. I'd love to speak on this for another 15 minutes if I could.
It's very important and I really believe that anything we can do to make our
children going to school safer, we have to do it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Like the
previous two Members have spoken, I'm certainly pleased to stand in this House
today and speak in favour of the private Member's resolution which aims to set
the maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres in school zones.
I thank
the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay for bringing this forward. I think we're
all going to be surprised if we all don't agree that this is the right move that
we're talking about today.
Mr.
Speaker, we all know the zones around our schools right across this province are
very busy and often very hectic. We know that, where possible, parents are
dropping off their kids to school while they're on their way to work. This, in
addition to the number of school buses we have that are arriving at our schools
each morning, further increases the congestion that students and teachers and
support staff and visitors experience each and every day.
Even
when we think about some of our K to 12 schools, as our young people are of age
and getting their own driver's licence, they are also driving to our schools
which further complicates that congestion that students experience when they're
trying to get to class.
My
comments today, Mr. Speaker, I'll preface by saying that I was a former school
board trustee. So I spent a lot of time in the schools in the old Vista school
district. I had some first-hand experience of what was really happening as kids
are trying to arrive to school, and as everybody else is trying to get to
school, all at the same time. Of course, those traffic congestions further
complicates the safety that is happening around our schools.
Mr.
Speaker, the public would be certainly aware that since we formed government in
November of 2015, we've taken a hard stance on road safety in this province. As
a rural MHA, I travel my own district, the District of Terra Nova. I've
certainly seen some bizarre behaviours, and I know that's a bit of a choice
word, but I have seen bizarre behaviours of some drivers. I do stress that some
drivers on our roadways do some very strange and odd things. They pass on
double-solid lines, they head out into oncoming traffic, they pass on blind
hills. I'm sure all of us here today have witnessed many of those things that
really put others at risk because of those poor driving habits.
Just a
few days ago in this House, the Minister of Service NL introduced Bill 13, which
proposed amendments to the Highway Traffic
Act. These amendments aim to further improve public safety. An increasing
compliance of those are drivers who drive without a valid licence, who fail to
provide proof of insurance, who have illegal vehicle modifications or, in the
winter, fail to keep their cars and their trucks free of snow and ice, further
impacting the drivers visibility. Of course, some of those same vehicles are
arriving at our schools and that puts many of our students at risk.
As a
government, our interest in road safety and the safety of our citizens is
paramount. That's why we've been taking these bold steps with new legislation
that has come forward. While today we're talking about the private Member's
resolution, we're hopeful that this will also turn into some legislative changes
in the time to come.
Just a
few short months ago, amendments were also made to the
Highway Traffic Act to strengthen the impaired driving laws.
Amendments expanded on the vehicle impound program, making it mandatory for a
peace officer or a police officer to order the vehicle of an impaired driver to
be impounded. It is our hope that, by doing so, we will further reduce the
ability of an impaired driver to commit repeated impaired driving offences.
Mr.
Speaker, in that legislation, we also included that drivers less than 22 years
of age would be required to maintain a blood alcohol content of zero per cent. I
raise these things today because as we talk about this private Member's
resolution, all the things that we've done to date have been with the aim of
improving the safety of our communities, our schools and improving the lives of
the people that we serve.
Mr.
Speaker, we cannot take any chances. We must be vigilant in our approach to
public safety. Introducing changes to the legislation and laws that govern us
will only improve how we act and make us more responsible to ourselves and to
each other.
This
private Member's resolution is another step in the right direction. While we
have started to address the safety of our public roadways and our highways, we
must also turn our attention to the safety around our schools. There are 258
schools in this province, Mr. Speaker. In thinking about the composition of
these schools, we have to remind ourselves that our schools today are also
changing. In rural communities, students are travelling from other community to
get a good, quality education. Many of these buildings are K-12 schools, which
mean we have children of all ages.
In our
urban schools and in, I would argue, many of our 20 growth centres around this
province, we have heavily populated schools. Today, many of the students
attending these schools also lead complex lives. That further likely complicates
the safety of everybody who goes to these buildings, all of which makes the need
for better safety measures so critical at this time.
I'm
reminded of the challenges of a particular school in my district: Riverside
Elementary. There are 725 students and I know the Member for Conception Bay East
– Bell Island has stood in this House and talked about that school on many
occasions. I, too, have been to that school on many occasions.
This
school is located in a small neighbourhood. There's a narrow roadway that leads
to the school. There's a narrow roadway that leads away from the school and
there are houses that line each side of those roads. It's a residential area. In
the morning, we have parents who drop off their kids. We have buses that are
coming. We have visitors to the school, and safety has been a significant issue.
There's
a parent group that's been ongoing for the last couple of years that I'm aware
of and one of the things they asked me about recently was could there be some
safety monitors or could there be some crosswalks installed to further improve
the safety of the students who are attending that school.
Now,
while it's already been referenced, that typically is not the responsibility of
government, if within a municipality that could be addressed. So on their
behalf, I've gone to the local municipality and now this group is encouraged to
write to the municipality and ask them if they could put in a crosswalk. So
others are starting to recognize that we need to improve the safety around our
schools.
As you
can imagine, that school itself is a very busy place. In busy places when we are
often distracted by the challenge of getting to work on time, arguing with our
kids about homework that's not completed and trying to sort out another busy day
for any family, the attention to a child crossing the road can be missed.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that's when accidents occur.
We know
that when a child is struck by a vehicle the injuries to that child can often be
life-threatening and may cause permanent damage. The faster the vehicle is
moving the greater impact and the more devastating are the results. None of us
ever want to witness a situation like that.
Just
thinking, for a moment, about a close call that you've had and I'm going to take
us a little bit away from thinking about a chid being struck, but things that
become very real to us: moose-vehicle collisions. You think about an accident
scene when the driver was not lucky enough to escape hitting a moose, thinking
about the loss of life or the serious injury that has taken place. We often say
to ourselves that high speed is a contributor in such of those accidents.
Mr.
Speaker, we often hear the message on the radio and the television reminding us
to slow down at night and to have your moose eyes on. We also need to slow down
in our school zones so that we give children, our children, every possible
chance to arrive at school and to return home each and every day free of harm.
On
average 2,412 students are injured and 30 child pedestrians younger than the age
of 14 are killed every year. Moreover, children between the ages of five and 14
are at the greatest risk of pedestrian-related deaths. That's a staggering
number. If we look closer at this age cohort, children between the ages of 10
and 14 have the highest incidents of pedestrian-related deaths.
We may
ask ourselves: Why does this happen? Studies show that children in this age
group have difficulty judging the speed and the distance of an oncoming car;
therefore, they often make mistakes and feel that they can get out of the way in
time. Think back when you were young, you were playing in the streets and you
saw an oncoming car, you thought I've got lots of time. Drivers are driving
faster these days; the time adjustment and the anticipation are no longer there.
Children
who fall in this age group also believe that if they can see the driver, the
driver can see them. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Drivers, too, have a
lot on the go. They are distracted by many things: sounds on the radio,
conversations with other people in the vehicle, slippery road conditions, as has
been referenced already, and the list goes on. All of these things add to the
safety of our children.
According to the World Health Organization, speed has been identified as a key
factor in road-traffic injuries, influencing both the risk of a road crash, as
well as the severity of the injuries that result from the crash. The Canada
Safety Council also states that speed is a factor in 30 per cent of fatal
crashes and 12 per cent of all crashes.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, 15 minutes is not going to do me, as the Member opposite also said. I
still have some pages to go, so surprise, surprise. I'm just going to move on
and say that when we think about what's happening across other jurisdictions, we
see that other provinces have already moved to reduce the speed in our school
zones to 30 kilometres an hour. We see as well that is happening within some
municipalities in this province. Other jurisdictions, other provinces that still
have 50 kilometres an hour are making considerations, or have considerations to
reduce it to 30 kilometres an hour within municipalities or if children are
present.
The
private Member's resolution today speaks to our need to move to 30 kilometres
per hour, and I think that is the right move for us to do for the safety of all
our kids. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I reiterate that this is a move
in the right direction. School zones are busy places. Children, by their nature,
are often distracted and can be unpredictable in their behaviour, even if that
behaviour impacts their safety. We must take some steps to further ensure their
safety. So I'd certainly be voting in favour of this resolution today and I'd
suspect all Members in this House will do the same.
Thank
you so much for the opportunity to stand and speak to this resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
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 in support – and I want to make that very
clear upfront – of this private Member's resolution that has been put forward by
the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay and seconded by the Member for St.
George's – Humber.
This is
indeed a very important issue and it hits home for all of us because all of us,
somewhere along the way, have a school in our district. Some are a little bit
more fortunate that it's on the rural roads where it is in the municipality
where the municipality has the control over the speeds.
What I
will say is speed is dangerous, speed injures, but more particularly, speed
kills. And that's the danger here. All of that is senseless when it's not
necessary. We have an ability to stop that. We have the ability to curb the
safety factor here and the danger we put our young students in front of. We can
do that starting with things like this.
A
private Member's resolution is an opportunity to bring it to the forefront, but
it has to be taken to the next level. We need to change the
Highway Traffic Act to reflect that the change can be made
without being too encompassing for a particular area. It can be done without
having to take a long time frame to ensure that the process is put in play. We
can learn from places we've already done it.
My hon. colleague here for Cape St. Francis has talked
about while he has a main thoroughfare that's a provincial road, they did find a
way, in co-operation with the municipality, the province and the department, to
put a crosswalk there, to put proper lighting, to put proper signage. That's
what this becomes, the most important thing.
When I was minister of Transportation and Works – in the
last few months when we were seriously looking at how we could do this – in some
schools we implemented this and worked with the municipalities. Some of the data
shows – and rightfully so, I mean I question every bit of data, too. But if
somebody can show me the evidence, then we have to take that into account and
realize we have to find alternate ways or accommodating ways to ensure that
safety is paramount here.
In some cases, our engineering officials would explain and
look at the Transportation Act of Canada and the research that they do
concerning speed bumps, reduction of speeds, coming from one speed zone to
another speed zone and the impact that has on people suddenly stopping and a
higher correlation of rear-end accidents and what impact that has.
All the evidence after that showed if you lead into it, if
you have proper notice, proper signage, proper lighting, proper education, you
can ensure that if you could go from one speed zone to another, you minimize the
potential impact for that particular driver or group of drivers who are
distracted, who are not paying attention. When you add into that, particularly
where we're talking about where we want to impose a new regulatory process here
about speeds around school zones, then you realize that we need to even be more
proactive. We need to put more signage further, letting people know that you're
about to enter a school zone, letting people know that you're about to enter an
area where there's a reduced speed limit, having flashing lights to identify
people.
Maybe even the stationary radar signs, which a lot of our
communities have now and are a real eye-opener – because we all sometimes drive
around a little heavy footed when we're driving. Cars are made now so silent, so
easily accessible in the sense of their acceleration that you don't realize the
speed you're doing until one of these lights start flashing.
The biggest fear I get, I drive through my district in
Portugal Cove-St. Philip's and, unfortunately, it's a main provincial road, but
it's a snakepit. It goes down and up hills and it turns in and out because it
was a cow path 150 years ago and you're limited with what you can do in
straightening the road for
sightlines, in what you can do from eliminating hills and turns, but we have put
in play three of the radar detectors. Just as you go around and you don't
realize and it blinks and tells you you're doing 58 and you should be doing 50,
that blinking light, automatically, it's radar for your brain because then
automatically you can see everybody – the brake lights come on everybody's car
because they didn't realize it.
These
are not people intending to endanger anybody by speeding or intending to break
the law, but just inadvertently because the way vehicles are made – it was
mentioned by my colleague here for Terra Nova, people get distracted and they're
not paying attention to their odometers anymore and things start moving in a
different mode. What has to happen here and what we're doing here – and there's
an old cliché. In Transportation and Works it was always told to me, add 10; 50
is 60 where people think they can operate their vehicle at that speed in a safe
zone and still be able to stop properly; 40 is 50; 30 would be 40.
You look
at your distance of your sightlines, you look at the configuration of your
roads, you look at the number of people travelling on it, the number of cars,
you look at intersections; but if you take into account that we're going to be
looking at this in school zones, multiply that by 10, the distraction factors,
the number of people who are going to be travelling, people who are in a hurry
because parents are dropping off or coming out of schools.
Normally, don't forget, schools are in our most heaviest rush-hour times, early
morning, evening times, and that has a major impact on people's attention span
and their patience. Sometimes people make really stupid mistakes, particularly
around buses.
We've
seen people cut on the inside of a bus to go around them and the dangers that
are affected to that. We know that the RNC will tell you they've given out
tickets – amazing. We all do stupid things in life, but then there are the
idiotic things that some people do. When that means you're now taking into
account a danger, an increasing danger 50-fold, because no kid is expecting
there's a car coming on the inside of a bus, nor is a bus driver, so that adds a
little bit more of an issue around that.
If we go
back to the intent of this private Member's resolution, about lowering the speed
limit, there are a multitude of reasons why I support this. One is, again as I
mentioned earlier, the unfortunate, misconceived conception is that we can add
10 to everything we do and still be safe in what we do. If that is indeed how
some people think, well 30 becomes 40. At least we have a little bit more leeway
of being able to stop. Maybe when people realize that, they'll go back to the 30
reality of stopping in those areas.
The
other big thing here is we have to prepare people; we have to let people know
what's happening. We have to let people know you're in a school zone well in
advance as they're entering it. We have to let people know, we're all about
bricks and mortar in our society, lights flashing, signs coming at us, gives us
a better understanding that what we're about to enter into is something we
should be aware of. Because we're distracted, our cognitive ability to be able
to think 10 different things at a time, we have to think about the most
important thing. As we go through a school zone, it's about safety.
Having
this here now gives municipalities the ability to work with the province and the
Department of Transportation and Works and say: Do you know what? We want to
make a safe zone. We can now collaborate on crosswalks. We can collaborate on
better signage. We can even look at better ways to doing sightlines.
I've had
municipalities approach me when I was minister and say: There's a new building
here. There's a new school going up here. Can we now cut some of these trees out
for sightlines because there's an intersection? I've always said: Look, take it
out. If it's not our land, we'll find whoever is the landowner to ensure we do
that because it's based on our centre of the road in, our 30 metres. We're going
to take that to ensure safety is paramount here.
As we
look at those types of things, we have to keep in mind the valuable asset that
we have to keep safe. Students are distracted just as much as drivers are now
with cellphones and iPads and all the things they're doing as they walk. In our
day, you walked, you may have had a stick or you kicked a can, but at least you
were looking in the right direction. Cars were louder; you could hear them
coming. There were less cars on the road. The understanding about safety and all
of that was different then.
One of
the Members here had mentioned the fact that some of the key areas now where new
schools are growing are in heavy traffic areas that didn't exist before. So the
infrastructure is not there for it. The Member for Cape St. Francis had talked
about that, the Member for Terra Nova, some of these are really right in the
midst of neighbourhoods, but now in areas where there are main thoroughfares,
where there's traffic constantly coming and going and the population has
dramatically increased.
In my
own district, we have Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, which is basically a full,
round circle. There are 55 streets in the middle of it, but there's only one
main thoroughfare to go around. As you come down Portugal Cove Road, not only do
you have the traffic of everybody who's going from St. Philip's, who may be
going to Paradise, who may be going to CBS because the Outer Ring Road is backed
up, you got people who are impatient, they're not familiar with the road
configuration and now they're passing a major school with 700 students.
You have
people coming down Thorburn Road, a major thoroughfare, who may be going
anywhere. Add in the fact that we're talking at least 600 cars a day are
travelling in one of those two directions to the Bell Island ferry. Now, when
you're on a schedule, people are even more impatient because there's a time
frame they have to meet. So, again, in those cases, their 50 might be 65. The
stopping distance from a 65 to a 50 is a big difference – higher safety factor.
You
reduce that to a 30. You let people know with flashing lights. You let people
know with prop signs in advance and you do what we all agreed here, you put
enforcement there. You give a couple people a few tickets in advance and have
that flashing light there, one of those police cars pulling somebody over, I can
guarantee you that will be a deterrent. If the deterrent about keeping kids safe
is not enough, I can guarantee you money out of their pocket will remind them of
what's at stake here. So these are all simple things that can be done, but to do
that we need to do the first thing: reduce the speed limit.
We have
a new school that we just opened in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's on Thorburn Road,
which is a main thoroughfare. While we managed to get Transportation and Works
to agree to put a crosswalk – the town put a crosswalk – we don't have flashing
lights there at this point. We do have one sign saying school zone, but to me it
needs to be back, to prepare people, with flashing lights, and the speed limit
is still 50 going through it, which is particularly a major dangerous issue
there.
We don't
have turn lanes to make it work the way we need to. We've got people coming from
CBS, Paradise, all through Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Bell Island, coming
Thorburn Road early in the morning and we got kids trying to walk across the
street. We have no sidewalks. So it's a very high-traffic, dense area with a
speed that normally is not conducive at the best of times, let alone when you're
in a school zone.
So at
least if we knocked it back to 30, gave the municipality the responsibility, or
the ability, or we as a province took on to say we're going to put additional
signage up, we're going to prepare people for what is coming and we put up our
radar detector so people would know and realize it as they're approaching it,
that not only am I doing 60 and I'm in a 50, but I'm going to be doing 60
approaching a 30 zone, at least they start slowing down, to be in that safe
zone.
There
are ways that we can mitigate any danger to our students in school zones. We
mitigate the danger to students and we're also mitigating the danger to the
drivers who are coming in any direction; and the moms and dads and aunts and
uncles and grandparents who are turning in and out, dropping off their kids and
picking them up; to the bus driver who, obviously, every day has the
responsibility of carting 50 to 200 students, depending on their routes, back
and forth to schools at any given time.
We've
heard that from the bus driver's association about speeds in school zones. We've
heard it from municipalities. We've heard it from the public interest groups
about safety. We've heard it, particularly, from engineers in municipalities
that are growing and have heavy traffic volumes, with limited road configuration
in the way of being able to address with turn lanes or lights and these types of
things. So we need to be able to find a mechanism, an immediate mechanism, which
at least starts to address that from a safety point of view. Reducing the speed
limit in school zones is ideal.
Now, I'm
going to take it a bit further and I probably would have made an amendment, but
I think if we can move this forward there are other discussions. Particularly in
my district, and I think everybody has it, I also have a major number of
daycares and preschools. Fortunate enough or unfortunate, depending on how you
look at it, in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's there are three all in maybe 400 feet
from each other on various sides of the road. It's a heavy, congested area where
there are buses stopping at given times, kids have to cross one side of the road
to get to one daycare and vice versa on the other. It's still our students.
There are schools, preschool and daycare. It's all part and parcel of it. Don't
forget, a number of our kids do after school programs at these facilities, so
they are being dropped off.
I'm in
the process now, and I'll be meeting with the Minister of Transportation and
Works, particularly in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, to ask is there any way we
can reduce the speed. This is the road that goes to the ferry, the closest to
the ferry. So you're going to have the highest volume of traffic, higher speed,
and it's a snake canyon, for want of a better phrase.
If we
can reduce that, put up proper signage, at least we know in our own minds we've
done due diligence to improve safety on those roads, and that's all we can ask.
We ask people to follow the law. We can enforce it a little bit better by having
more enforcement to send a message to those who inadvertently may not be paying
attention, or those who deliberately think they can violate safety rules and
regulations that are put in play by fining them. I know we've talked about –
there are a number of new fines that have been implemented here or going through
the House for discussion. So that's a deterrent. It's very important.
If we do
reduce the speed, we have the ability to do two things: make people aware this
is a vulnerable area, that's why the speed is down to 30. Nobody wants to travel
30 because they think 30 is crawling, but if it's based on a principle that here
you're going to have a big influx of people who may not be paying attention for
an immediate area, if you want to improve safety you could do that.
The
second is from an enforcement point of view. It's very easy to send a message to
somebody who is doing 60 and 70, and we've seen them 80 in 30 kilometre zones,
by giving them a hefty fine. I guarantee you the next time they come down and
see that flashing light and that sign, they won't be long making sure they've
gotten to the proper speed limit.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the Members who put this forward and say that I will be
definitely supporting this, and do ask that you look at how we can also
encompass daycares and preschools because safety doesn't just start at six or
16; it starts when kids are coming off buses or getting prepared to know about
getting on buses.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly is an honour to always stand in our places, of course, and represent
our great districts. I represent the strong district, I'd like to say, of
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
I would
like to commend my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay, on bringing
forward this private Member's resolution.
Mr.
Speaker, for our viewers at home, of course, our constituents who tune in to
watch, a private Member's resolution is an opportunity for a Member who is not
in the Cabinet to put forth a resolution, and to influence potential legislation
here in our House of Assembly. I will reiterate this PMR, and it is:
WHEREAS
safety for all students is an important priority; and
WHEREAS
speeding in school zones is still a prevalent issue in our province; and
WHEREAS
according to the World Health Organization, setting and enforcing speed limits
are two of the most effective measures in reducing road traffic injuries;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador in setting a maximum speed limit of 30 kms/hour in
school zones.
Mr.
Speaker, I will reiterate and review a lot of the things my colleagues have
already said here today, but we can't say enough. We can't emphasize enough
exactly how paramount and how important safety is for our young people.
We have
a number of school zones across our province. In the district that I represent,
of course, which is located just an hour outside of the capital city in Harbour
Grace – Port de Grave, there are a number of schools. I have Ascension
Collegiate, which is a high school, and that happens to be located on the
Conception Bay Highway. I'm happy to say the speed limit is actually 40
kilometres in this particular school zone. These are older students or mature
students, Level I, II, IIIs, grade 10 to grade 12.
Of
course, as I mention often here in this House of Assembly, my very important
school – all schools are important – but Coley's Point Primary is quite near and
dear to my heart. I'm happy to say this particular school is located off the
Conception Bay Highway, the main drag, over in Coley's Point, in the
municipality of Bay Roberts. I'm happy to say the speed limit is 30 kilometres
in Coley's Point Primary. That's our most vulnerable school population. We have
kindergarteners, kindergarten, grades one, two and three here at Coley's Point
Primary.
AN HON. MEMBER:
You should have had it years
ago.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Absolutely, and I'm happy to
say to the Member, of course, that Coley's Point Primary is committed and we
will have that school for those students in that district.
St.
Peter's School in Upper Island Cove, the community of Upper Island Cove, we also
have a school zone with a 30-kilometre limit there. St. Francis School in
Harbour Grace, I'm happy to say the speed limit there has been reduced to 40
kilometres per hour.
I will
take a minute now to talk about St. Francis School. I actually attended St.
Columbus, which is in the same parking lot on the same property as St. Francis
School. That school is located along the Conception Bay Highway. As we know,
it's a main thoroughfare throughout the Conception Bay North region for the
riding of Avalon. It's across the street; it's adjacent to the old courthouse.
Those of
you who are familiar, of course, with the courthouse, it is located on a very
dangerous turn on the Conception Bay Highway in the Town of Harbour Grace and
traffic just come by it. They're coming up from Carbonear, off the Veterans
Memorial, sometimes doing 70 kilometres. Let me tell you, not only our Members
here on this side of the House, I'm happy to see as well that the Members across
the way agree with this PMR, but parents are very adamant and very vocal about
the safety of the children in school zones.
For
example, we know the 1.6-kilometre rule is a very contentious issue across our
province, in some areas more than others. We know it was implemented years ago
by the previous administration, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning the 1.6-kilometre
rule, the busing has been eliminated in that area for our young vulnerable
children, so more children are on our roads now.
Our
school times have even changed. They're out earlier. Now with the daylight
savings time, it's actually dark when those little kids are out there. So
parents are adamant, I have to say.
I speak
with the parents from Harbour Grace regularly, and they are very adamant and
concerned about the safety of our children. They've lobbied the municipal
government of Harbour Grace, the Town of Harbour Grace for a school change. I'm
happy to say, I've been working with councillors down there and the mayor and we
have some signage in place. We just implemented those speed-radar signs. When
you're driving through a particular zone they'll flash and let you know your
speed. Parents want more. We need to take every effort we can with regard to
signage, with regard to crosswalks and even speed bumps where possible.
St.
Francis School in particular is located, as I say, along the Conception Bay
Highway, which speed bumps are not to be enforced for various reasons, but I'm
happy to say that limit has been reduced. The town has been working toward that.
We've had meetings with the Department of Municipal Affairs and Transportation
and Works. I always say by working together we achieve the greatest results. So
that certainly is great to see, but we need to do more. With this PMR today, I'm
looking forward to the support of all Members across the way. I'm confident
we're going to get that.
Again,
to talk about the signage, an individual I know was recently penalized with a
speeding ticket. Let me tell you, this person was going through the school zone
and didn't realize the speed limit had changed. So that's the question, the
signage. We need that signage there, whether it be the lights, whether it
actually be signs themselves, but not knowing until – this happened to be in the
metro region. This wasn't in the District of Harbour Grace – Port de Grace. As a
matter of fact, it was in the metro region when this happened.
Fortunately, a member of the RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was there
to pull that driver over. I was told that ticket was a minimum of $300. I was
told by the driver – and this isn't even the highest amount they'll have to pay.
The penalty, apparently, it can be upwards of $800, $900.
Then,
ironically, the same driver, within a month, was pulled over again in a
different school zone within the metro region and again another ticket
compounded with that. It's not funny, I must say, but let me tell you when
drivers are penalized with such a hefty fine it certainly will serve as a
deterrent. We have to do everything we can. It's the least we can do to protect
our young children. My colleague across the way also talked about having the
speed limit dropped and decreased where there are daycare centres, and that's
also very important.
I would
encourage motorists and drivers all across our province to be careful and to
certainly drive the proper speed according to conditions. For example, I,
myself, we talk about the Veterans Memorial, obviously this is not a school
zone, but this highway is a contentious highway. It's been making the news for
all the wrong reasons lately. I have a personal friend actually who lost their
life on that highway some years ago. There are many collisions.
Just
last night, Mr. Speaker, I left our hon. House to attend an event in my district
and I was on the Veterans Memorial. It was actually between Roche's Line and
Makinsons. We remember last night, the road conditions; it was horrible. It was
a black night, a rainy night and it was really hard to see. As we know on the
Veterans, we don't have passing lanes, which is a challenge in itself. There are
no passing lanes on the highway. We do know the speed limit is 100 kilometres
per hour. I was driving according to the conditions. I was driving about 70,
between 70 and 80, and, to my surprise, here was a moose right in my tracks,
literally about 10 feet away from my vehicle. I slammed on the brakes, of
course, I put on my emergency indicators and this moose stayed in the road.
Let me
tell you, the adrenaline, it's mind blowing. Those large animals are there and
you don't see them until it's too late. They are white on their legs and that's
how I was able to see this animal. A driver pulled out and passed me. I was
stopped abruptly on the highway and I guess a driver was impatient pulled out,
passed me and almost hit the moose, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
we can't reiterate it – we just passed some legislation, the hon. minister had
brought it in about the Highway Traffic
Act recently, but we need to do as much as we can to encourage safety and to
practise safety measures on our highways, especially in our school zones.
Mr.
Speaker, this certainly is a very positive private Members' resolution. This
should have been done, in my opinion, years ago, but I am very happy to say that
it is this government that is putting forward this private Member's resolution,
so I look forward to the co-operation of all Members on this.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take my seat and allow some of my
colleagues to get up and also speak to this very positive private Member's
resolution.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to this private Member's motion on speed reduction in
school zones. This private Member's motion calls for a reduction in school zones
to 30 kilometres per hour. I'm sure that every Member in this House sees this as
something they can support. I certainly can support it and will support it.
We have
seen so many traffic fatalities in the province in the past while. As the Member
for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave talked about Veterans Memorial, I also was on
Veterans Memorial Highway a few days ago and somebody was passing in a
no-passing zone and coming towards us and we almost got hit as well. It really
is scary. We know it's all about speed and distracted driving and sometimes,
though, also the roads themselves.
I
certainly can support this. I'm actually surprised, Mr. Speaker, that at this
point in our history this is still an issue. One would think that we already
would have tackled this issue. Although lowering speed limits is a very
important issue, particularly in school zones, the other thing, the other key
issue for this is enforcement. We can have all the legislation that we want. We
can post signs that say the speed limit is 30 kilometres an hour, but if there
is no enforcement, it is meaningless. Enforcement is a key issue to this
because, again, in this House we would support this concept. In our larger
communities, people would support this as well. As it stands today, unless
otherwise posted, the speed limit in schools in this province is 50 kilometres
per hour.
In
addition to the fines, convictions for passing a school bus while loading or
unloading children is still a serious issues in this province. It's six demerit
points. I believe we have about 12 points on our licence. If you have 12 demerit
points, you lose your licence. It's suspended. I do believe that we have to look
at: How are we going to enforce this? Without enforcement, it is meaningless.
So let's
look a little bit at why providing resources for enforcement is as important as
the measure that we are debating here today. We have been here before; we've
been debating this issue in this House before. This is not a new issue. It's an
issue that's been around for a while and ever so important.
In 2010,
before my time here in this House, the then Government Services minister raised
the fines for speeding in a school zone from a minimum of a $100 for a first
offence, up to a maximum of $1,500. So that was seven years ago, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Education at the time said he hoped that stiffer fines will curb
the speeding in school zones, adding that speeding in school zones is completely
unacceptable. I believe that those of us in this House believe that speeding in
school zones is completely unacceptable. He hoped that the higher fines would
reinforce that fact. And so here we are, seven years later, still trying to
prevent speeding in school zones.
In May
of 2016 – I was in the House – I spoke to an amendment to the
Highway Traffic Act, which brought in two measures, the second of
which was raising the minimum and maximum fines for passing a school bus and for
school zone speeding. There were three specific driving violations that were
being addressed by that legislation: speeding in a construction zone, we've all
seen the signs posted for that; speeding in a school zone; and passing a school
bus stopped with red lights flashing.
In 2009,
the English School District had a pilot project that placed 10 cameras on its
buses so that would enable the buses to take a photo of the vehicle and the
plate number so that if, in fact, a vehicle were to pass a stopped school bus
with its red flag out, that there would be a record of that car and that licence
plate. So that was a good deterrent, but this resulted in 16 charges and five
convictions. Officials were not sure how many charges there were before the
pilot project started because records were only kept for 18 months.
Again, I
believe it's not just about posting the signs or even posting the fines, but
enforcement, how are we going to make sure – because we know that it is speed
that is causing the majority of the accidents in our province and unfortunately
the fatalities in our province.
So at
the time, in 2016, I supported these amendments, but I also said I would like to
see those rules enforced 24-7. If we're in communities where there are schools
on our main streets or on our major roads in rural communities as well, why
would we not enforce that speed limit 24-7? We know that children are in
after-school activities, sometimes in the evenings, sometimes on the weekends.
So we must provide and instill a culture of 30 kilometres an hour in school
zones, whether it be a Saturday, whether it be a Monday morning, whether it be a
Friday night because children are occupying those schools. It gets us into that
habit that school means slow; 30 kilometres an hour in a school zone at any
time, not just during what are seen as regular school hours.
We have
seen, in some of our communities, staggered school hours for some of our
students due to population shifts, et cetera. So why not enact this legislation
to cover 24-7? There's no harm to it. It doesn't cost any more money. It puts in
the minds of drivers, habitually, in a school zone, you slow down to 30
kilometres an hour – easy. It takes the guessing out of it. Again, I believe
that the benefit of doing that would far outweigh any – I can't imagine any
negative aspect of that. It would imprint in our minds that school zones are 30
kilometres an hour.
Sometimes our kids, if they're on sports teams, they're in schools up to 6
o'clock in the evening. Sometimes it's on weekends. Sometimes, if there's a play
going on or a basketball game, our kids are in basketball tournaments at schools
and they rush out and they're excited, our kids don't necessarily look both ways
and it isn't safe. When our kids are at the school, it's not safe to have speeds
over 30 kilometres an hour; that's what we're saying. Our kids are using our
schools much later than just the actual days that they're in their classrooms.
There's
been a terrific experiment at Beaconsfield Junior High just recently where the
administration is opening the school on Friday nights. Last month, on a Friday
night, saw 225 people at the school's Open Gym Community-Building Initiative
evening. That was just this week up from 100 to 120 that they had averaged so
that's growing.
We're
seeing – particularly if government is encouraging more physical activity – more
community activism and involvement in the schools, the schools will be used and
that's a good thing, but that means our children are going to be in the school
area, in the school zone area in the evenings and the weekends. Let's keep them
safe.
If
children, during the regular school hours, know that drivers are very cautious,
that the speed limits are lower, they're a little bit more probably
laissez-faire about their own safety. So let's ensure that they are safe 24-7.
Why
would we not do that? There is no good reason not to do that. I believe that
this private Member's motion comes out of a concern for our children and a
concern for their safety. It makes sense. Let's do it. Let's make this even
stronger. Let's make our communities even safer for our children.
The
Beaconsfield Junior High school experiment showed a tremendous showing of
teachers and parent volunteers on hand to receive the students, including their
entire student council, as well as a local musician, to encourage the students.
Guidance councillor, they were all involved. Let's do it. Let's keep our kids
safe 24-7.
Today,
the government thinks this motion calling for lowering the posted speed limit
will do it, but it will only do it if it's enforced. People who speed don't slow
down because of signs. They'll slow down if they know there's enforcement and
that's what we need.
There
are a number of ways to do that enforcement. I'm not sure what the Member who
proposed this had in mind around the enforcement. Maybe he may speak to that,
the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay. It will be interesting to hear what he
might have to say about that.
It may
take some resources to our law enforcement folks in order to ensure that there
is enforcement of this because we've dealt with this issue a number of times and
here we are yet again. We had slowing down to 50 kilometres an hour in rural
areas.
So how
are we going to enforce this? It may take some additional resources. I dare say
it won't take a lot more, but we may need some and we may need some creative
ways of doing enforcement in this area.
Without
giving law enforcement agencies the resources to enforce these limits – as we
have seen from past initiatives – they are not going to be as effective as we
want them to be. The Legislature has passed measure after measure to protect
young people in their daily commute to and from their schools, but we do find
ourselves back here in the House talking about this. That's why we're doing that
today because the Member has seen a need in his community and a lot of us see
that need in our own community.
Passing
a school bus with the red lights flashing is still a serious public issue,
despite the fines and the new rules. So it's about enforcement. Wouldn't it be
interesting if there continued to be a camera on the back of every school bus to
ensure – and that if people knew.
When I
was a young girl, my cousin, Debbie, who was six years old, was killed by a
driver who passed a stopped school bus. She got off the school bus. The red flag
was out. She walked to the front. She went to cross the street and she was hit
and killed. The devastation for our family around the death of Debbie was
horrendous, and we all know that. We all know how difficult that is. We all know
how important it is to keep our children safe on the roads, whether going to and
from school or when they're doing extracurricular activities in school.
Maybe
what should happen is that the fines should be stiffer. Maybe a suspended
licence for the first offence, 12 demerit points right off the bat if you pass a
school bus that's stopped.
This
September the RNC reported it had received several complaints of drivers passing
stopped school buses on Commonwealth Avenue in Mount Pearl. It's still
happening. We have the legislation. We have the fines. It's still happening. So
what we want to do is we want to stop it from happening. What are the best ways
we can do that?
Manitoba, last year, announced between $40,000 and $60,000 to help police,
including the RCMP, in some cities conduct a targeted enforcement campaign in
designated school zones through the month of September. Maybe that's what we can
do. Do a targeted campaign in September and do a targeted campaign in January.
They recognized the need for enforcement as an essential part of protecting our
children as they go and come from school.
By all
means, let's lower the speed limits. Let's make them 24-7 so it's imprinted on
all of our minds that school zones mean 30 kilometres an hour. No ifs, ands, or
buts, at all times, but let's also give law enforcement the resources they need
to give this new law teeth.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm very happy to have been able to speak this. I
hope that the Member opposite will consider a 24-7 approach to this particular
piece of legislation.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
I made
comments earlier that I withdraw.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had a
lot written down here to say. I'm not going to have a whole lot of time to get
through it all, but if the Members across the way will indulge me, Mr. Speaker,
I'll –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
–
have a few things to say about this.
The
Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay came to me and he proposed this private
Member's motion. We've been doing the private Members' motions a little bit
differently than in the past. These motions are basically germinating with our
Members of the House; the private Members are coming up with ideas and pitching
them to their colleagues in our caucus. That's how we're prioritizing the issues
that we're bringing forward in the form of private Members' resolutions.
The
Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay came to me and asked me about this. I thought
it was a good idea to have a discussion about this. I say to the Member for St.
John's Centre who just spoke: Members, as long as you have a seconder, you're
always welcome to put in an amendment; that always makes the debate a little bit
more interesting as well. So in the future if you have suggestions, you'd like
to see the motion change, you can always make an amendment to that effect.
I heard
the Member for Cape St. Francis talking and he said his grandfather and it hit
home for me. My son is six and a half; he's in grade one. He goes to school and
it's something certainly that comes to my mind every now and then. He goes to
school in Torbay. That's the school where my wife teaches. And it shocks me
sometimes; I drop him off there some days or I go out to the school and it's
like a racetrack there in front of the school. It's amazing how people do not
adhere to the current posted speed limit in the school zone as unfortunate – and
one of these days, I keep saying, somebody is going to be injured as a result or
worse.
One of
the things that I've found to be most effective is those digital displays. That
does require more resources on behalf of municipalities or Transportation and
Works or whatever. When you see, you're driving along – the other day I remember
I was driving down in a school zone. I was approaching a school zone and one of
those clocks were up and I immediately checked my speed. I sort of thought to
myself, now that would be great if the Minister of Education got caught speeding
in a school zone. But I was able to check myself by looking at that digital
display, and that's one of the things that I think has been really, really
effective.
Again,
it all comes back to behaviour. One of the things that I learned – because we've
had a lot of discussion about busing – as Minister of Education that I didn't
know when I was a critic in Opposition, is that folks often say at the district
where they plan all the bus routes, they say – and principals and administrators
will say this as well – the buses are more full in the evenings, in the
afternoons, than they are in the mornings. And that's a behavioural thing. You
can sort of speculate as to why, but in many instances parents are not availing
of the busing that's available for their children in the mornings for whatever
reason, because of scheduling or what have you or preferences for whatever time
they leave, get things underway in their homes in the morning.
The
problem that causes is more congestion on school parking lots in the mornings,
especially as we're hitting up against the time that school is to begin. So
again, it's a behavioural thing. If we thought about those behaviours – I know
there's one school out in Paradise and I've gotten quite a bit of feedback from
concerned parents about the congestion on the parking lot because of all of
those parents showing up in their private vehicles, as they're approaching the
beginning of the school day. And that is a subject of concern.
That's
why I think reducing the speed down to something closer to 30 would make more
sense, because you already have congestion and then you have the whole business
of distracted driving. We know from research that people aren't as alert in the
mornings, so you have an additional complication there as well. We have issues
around distracted driving, period. We've been talking a lot about that
particular issue because we've had fatalities on our motorways, unfortunately a
significant number of them this year. So there are a whole variety of different
things going on here. We have the research.
The
Member for Stephenville – Port au Port came to me and said in such-and-such a
municipality over in his part of the province, the municipality has mandated
that the school zone speed be 25; that's the maximum. So we already have areas
in the province where it is lower.
I could
go on, but I see that – no, I still have time, correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes.
I think
we already have precedent in areas of the province where people are willing to
accept this, because I think that's really the thing. I'll go back to my
comments about behaviour. If you're driving – and most of us, the commuting
public if you will, who are going to work, dropping our children to school,
entering into and leaving school zones, that's our routine. We do that all the
time. So once you get acclimatized – when it comes to these digital displays,
they don't need to be permanently erected in a school zone.
If you
put it there at the beginning of the school year, you could move it around, you
could have it there periodically, people will check their behaviours against it.
We're creatures of habit. Once we get used to doing things, like slowing down to
whatever the mandated limit is, we just sort of naturally do that out of
concern.
The
whole business around the 24-7, whether that's something that should be done,
there's no question that there are school activities happening outside of
whatever the time the school day is Monday to Friday. There's no question about
that. I wonder about in the, sort of, late hours of the night or early morning
and so on, if that is practical, but who knows how much traffic there really is
in that respect.
One of
the other things that we see in the news all of the time, and it happens every
year when we start into the school year – I suppose we expect people to follow
the rules, but we have to understand in a lot of instances people move into an
area or they might get a new job or something's different in their life where
all of a sudden their commute is now in a school zone, the route includes a
school zone. This habit that people have of passing school buses – and as the
Member was saying, somebody passed on the inside of the school bus. We've known
for a long time that we have to do certain things, stop when there's a school
bus stopped and letting children off, or allowing them on. That's been an
established fact; it's been an established law for a significant amount of time.
We have
as a province, as a jurisdiction, put a whole lot of money into the retrofit of
buses, of buses that have features that help to ensure safety, like those arms
that go out that prevent children from walking in a more hazardous way around
buses. There are other features.
The
whole business around the video cameras – we've heard about video cameras on
buses, not just for this purpose for almost like a photo radar, if you will;
we've also heard about it in terms of the context of anti-bullying and so on. We
have heard calls before for video monitoring equipment.
There
was a report that was done by the previous administration that talked about
school busing and that was one thing that featured prominently in it. I guess
the question really boiled down to is there research that would indicate that
would be effective. It would be a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem
because it would be potentially a significant expense, and then whether or not
it would do what I've been suggesting, which is to encourage people to change
their behaviour in the end. That's yet to be known, but I'm certainly open to
any research that folks might have associated about that.
I guess
the other thing I would say about my own district, and my adult life I've spent
it here on the – though I've travelled the province a lot, I've spent my adult
life here in the City of St. John's, effectively, and the Northeast Avalon. With
all of the commuting that is going on today, just take Portugal Cove-St.
Philip's alone. It's a community that's grown by leaps and bounds. The same
thing goes for Torbay and the sort of adjacent areas out there, just massive
growth – Paradise. We have all those people driving down Thorburn Road, all
these additional people driving down Thorburn Road, coming down Torbay Road, so
a lot more congestion.
With all
due respect to the City of St. John's and all the sort of adjacent
municipalities in the Northeast Avalon, our motorways, our streets, city streets
are really not yet able to accommodate that significant change in commuter
traffic patterns. So you see a whole lot more traffic just by virtue of the fact
that people are going to work and taking that particular path.
Over
there by the Avalon Mall, we have two schools just right there in my district in
the Baird Subdivision, Leary's Brook Junior High and Larkhall Academy, both
there on Larkhall Street. There's a tremendous amount of traffic coming down
that road. There are a lot parents who walk with their children to school. I've
been over there and volunteering at school programs, meeting with the folks and
I see that all the time. There's a lot of traffic in the area and not everybody,
unfortunately, follows the rules.
We did
have a couple of years ago, a tragic pedestrian fatality just right there in
that area. That person was crossing the street and, unfortunately, was hit and
died as a result of the accident. That's just one example. There are lots of
other examples of that on the Northeast Avalon. I would hazard a guess that you
would see similar patterns in Mount Pearl, in Conception Bay South, all the
areas around the Northeast Avalon where you've seen a huge population
concentration over the past 12 to 15 years. So it makes sense with that.
I just
think the other thing we would have to do, should the government decide to heed
this motion, should it pass the House of Assembly today, is we would need to do
some consultation with municipalities, with other partners who are affected,
implicated in this, that we don't go and put legislation in effect without
making sure everybody is on board. That would include, like I said,
municipalities. That would also include law enforcement as well because they
have a significant stake in the game.
If you
look at what was going on over there around Topsail Road, Cornwall Avenue
earlier in the school year, once a parent was able to videotape the person who
was the offender, the police showed up and were able to – to coin a phrase –
arrest that behaviour to make sure that person stopped that. Also, it helped to
create public awareness throughout the province, but ultimately when it boils
down to it, if a digital sign or changes in the speed limit or public education
campaigns don't have the desired effect, then we have to use the penalty of
ticketing, a clampdown by law enforcement in order to make sure the rules are
followed.
I'll
just leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte – Green Bay, if he speaks now, will close the debate.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take too much time. I just want to finish off on some remarks that I
was making at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about road
safety and speeding. I was talking about winter road conditions and the need to
make sure our cars were properly fit when they're on any highway, let alone in
municipalities and school zones and the need for continued vehicle inspection is
certainly something that's important to me as well.
I just
want to add into that, Mr. Speaker, speed limits in school zones vary across
Canada. Alberta and British Columbia have set speed limits in school zones at
less than 30 kilometres an hour with additional fines applying to those who
speed in school zones.
As we
talked and listened to all Members across the floor and to my colleagues on this
side as well, I think everybody sort of reiterated that concern. I just want to
highlight some of the things my colleagues had mentioned. I'd certainly like to
thank the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Terra Nova, the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the Member for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave,
the Member for St. John's Centre and the Member for Mount Scio and the Minister
of Education and Early Childhood Development for taking the opportunity to speak
in favour of this private Member's resolution.
I want
to highlight some of the concerns that some of the Members had talked about. The
Member for Cape St. Francis had talked about defining exactly what school zones
are.
Mr.
Speaker, for those who are listening at home again, I should probably take the
opportunity to read the motion again. It says:
WHEREAS
safety for all students is an important priority; and
WHEREAS
speeding in school zones is still a prevalent issue in the province; and
WHEREAS
according to the World Health Organization, setting and enforcing speed limits
are two of the most effective measures in reducing road traffic injuries;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador in setting a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres in
school zones.
That was
the private Member's motion that was put forth. Defining school zones is
certainly important, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the larger the sign, the better
it will be for the travelling public to notice and realize that they are
entering a school zone and it's time to bring your speed down.
I
certainly liked his comment with regard to the community of Torbay in his
District of Cape St. Francis. I commend that community as well, Mr. Speaker. He
talked about hiring commissioners to go out and enforce – not actually enforce,
but to be there almost like a school zone sign person. I grew up in my own
hometown having people on crosswalks with the signage and stopping the traffic.
That was a great idea; I commend the community.
We've
heard just about every Member talk about electronic or digital display signs. I
know they have that in my own town now coming into one of the school zones. It's
still a 50-kilometre hour zone, and that's why I certainly want to see it
brought back to 30. But to highlight the comments of the Members here, the
electronic and digital sign displays certainly work.
Crosswalks: I have communities within my district that are advocating for
crosswalks. Actually, it's a main thoroughfare and I'm talking about the
community of Baie Verte. Some of the places that children and students choose to
eat are across Highway 410 in Baie Verte, which is a main thoroughfare going
through that town. I've had an opportunity to speak with the CAO, Mr. Brian
Peach, just at the MNL convention and he talked to me about the need for bigger
and larger signage, more signage and crosswalks.
Everybody here has talked about the need for enforcement. I certainly commend
members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. I can talk to my own district, Mr. Speaker. I have 42 communities in my
district. We have two detachments of the RCMP in covering off 42 communities. We
have seven community schools within those 42 and, as much as you'd like to see
police presence in all of those communities, certainly it's not possible. I do
see the need for more enforcement and that'll be part of this initiative going
forward as well.
I know
that there were some Members who spoke about lighting within school zones as
well and the need for better lighting. The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell
Island brought up the distraction factor. I certainly agree with the concept of
if you're going at 40, you think you're going at 50.
We
talked about sightlines and the impatience of drivers. I want to make mention of
the fact that if there are issues with impatience, I suggest to drivers and
parents of school-aged children, or grandparents, leave 10 minutes earlier.
Especially if you're looking out and it's a nasty day outside – I did speak
earlier on about the fact that for six months while schools are open we're into
winter months. So I'd encourage people who are taking their children to school
to leave a little earlier and make time for traffic issues, certainly in and
around metro especially, and for the rest of the province, make time for weather
issues as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly wanted to draw your attention to or draw the House's
attention to – I've had the opportunity just this week, when I introduced the
private Member's motion, to actually drive around the City of St. John's and the
City of Mount Pearl as well – three different areas that I recognized where four
lane parcels of roadway are within school zones were at Macdonald Drive, Ruth
Avenue in Mount Pearl and Mary Queen of the World in Mount Pearl, as well.
Mr.
Speaker, those are four-lane roadways. They are at 50 kilometres per hour.
Certainly, they are well signed. I did notice they are well signed, but I would
certainly recommend those school districts as well come down to the 30 kilometre
per hour zone which is what we are trying to recommend here.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to go back to one of my stories when I was in the force. I noted
that in 2014 a 15-year-old boy was struck by a car in Conception Bay South while
walking home from Frank Roberts Junior High School in Foxtrap.
I
remember I had the opportunity when the RNC took over the community of
Conception Bay South, I spent my first seven months policing in the district.
One of the first things I would do on working a 4 to 12 shift, or if I was
working an 8 to 4, that would be the last place I would go before I'd end my
shift. If I was working a 4 to 12, it would probably be the first place I would
go, and that was to the school, Queen Elizabeth high on Foxtrap Access Road, to
ensure I placed a radar there because it was an area known to the police for the
travelling public not to be recognizing the fact that they were in a school
zone. I can't remember if it was a 70 or an 80 kilometre per hour zone, coming
into a 50 kilometre per hour zone in that particular area of Conception Bay
South.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, back then you could have a field day writing tickets for
vehicles and certainly drivers who paid absolutely no attention to the fact that
they were entering a school zone. I would like to think that's after getting a
whole lot better there. Again, I commend the local forces for the work they do.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I certainly appreciated the opportunity on my own
government's behalf to bring this private Member's resolution forward. Again, I
thank all Members and all colleagues who took the opportunity to speak to this
motion today.
Mr.
Speaker, I respectfully ask for the support of the House. With that, Mr.
Speaker, I'll take my seat.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
It being Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.