November 20, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 36
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
In the Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to welcome Ms.
Amber Costello, who will be the subject of a Member's statement. She is joined
by her parents, Stewart and Sherryl Costello.
Welcome.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
In
the public gallery today, I'd like to welcome Ms. Madison Barrow, who is joined
by her parents Don and Glendene Barrow. Madison will be the subject of a
Member's statement today.
Welcome to you as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland,
Bonavista, Mount Pearl – Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi, Harbour Main and I understand the hon. Minister of Health and Community
Services, the Member for Gander, has leave to make a statement today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th
anniversary of the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire Department and the members who
have served in the past and serve today.
I want to acknowledge and say thank you to our many
volunteers as well as those over the years who have given so much to the
region's protection and well-being. The hours that each firefighter volunteers
give peace of mind to the residents of our communities and ensure them that they
have someone to rely on in the event of a fire or any type of emergency.
The Witless Bay Volunteer Firefighters have performed
many heroic and lifesaving acts over the past 40 years and are to be commended
for their dedication and commitment. There are many challenges that face first
responders today in carrying out their duties and the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire
Department have done remarkable work, and over the years have lived up to that
challenge. I also want to recognize the partners, spouses and families of the
members for their continued support.
I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me
in congratulating the Witless Bay Volunteer Fire Department on their 40th
anniversary and thank them for the past 40 years of service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Provincial scholarships were recently announced, and
I'm honoured to stand here today and recognize three bright young people from my
district who were recipients. These scholarships are awarded to high achievers
who just finished high school, are attending a post-secondary institution and
are based on results from public exams. Ultimately, it's the culmination of
years of hard work and dedication as it relates to their secondary education.
The Electoral District Scholarship, valued at $1,000,
is awarded to three high school graduates in each district who achieve the
highest Department of Education and Early Childhood Development scholarship
score.
In the District of Bonavista, Stacie Abbott and Lauren
O'Driscoll of St. Mark's School and Brittany Pitt of Heritage Collegiate were
the recipients. These three young women and future leaders have certainly done
their schools and communities proud. I'm sure that they will go on and do
amazing things in life.
I ask that you join me in congratulating them and
wishing them success in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Mr.
Speaker, it's my privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the
tremendous success which was the 29th Annual Mount Pearl City Days celebrations.
Once again this year, the festivities included various
activities for citizens of all ages and interests including: a family outdoor
movie night, a pig roast, a picnic in the park, a senior's afternoon tea, a
classic car and motorcycle show, a drive-in movie and a community breakfast. A
new addition to the festival this year was Neveah's lemonade stand in support of
children who are battling cancer.
As in past years, the festival culminated with the big
birthday bash, which saw thousands of residents and visitors gather at the Ruth
Avenue Sportsplex to participate in fun activities, games of chance and take in
some of the best entertainment that Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer,
including the Masterless Men and the Navigators.
Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you can appreciate, any
festival of this magnitude would not be possible were it not for the hard work
and co-operation of a number of community partners.
I would therefore ask all Members of this hon. House to
join me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the City Days Advisory
Committee, the various community groups and organizations, community sponsors
and all of the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success
story which was City Days 2017.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the
success of Labrador West's 14th Annual Alvin Parrill Hockey Tournament.
Even Mother Nature wasn't going to put a damper on the
47 hockey teams and 600 players that gathered in Lab West from all over Labrador
and Quebec, despite the 45 centimetres of snow that fell in less than 48 hours.
This is the only tournament in the province that
includes every division and there were lots of great memories made during the
long weekend.
The winners in each division got a banner to take home
and hang in their arena. This year the banners went as follows: Midget,
Churchill Falls; under 20 female, Lab West; Bantam, Lab West; Peewee, Goose Bay;
and Atom, Goose Bay. There was an MVP award given to one player on each team for
every game played who worked very hard and never gave up, despite the outcome.
The planning behind such an event comes from countless
hours of hard work and commitment from a great group of organizers and, without
them, this event would never happen.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in thanking them for
their dedication, year after year, to make this event a huge success and
congratulations to all teams.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to rise
to congratulate a young constituent who has had recent success in provincial
debating.
Grade 12 student
John Harris participated three weeks ago in a debate organized by the Roderick
J. White Foundation for Science and Reason in Society, or SARIS, a local
education and advocacy group. SARIS is a charitable organization based on
advocating for evidence-based reasoning in all aspects of public life.
John Harris and his
debating partner, Hannah Breckinridge, first competed against 10 other teams at
an invitational tournament, organized by the Newfoundland and Labrador debate
union, in order to qualify for the SARIS debate and lecture. The championship
topic the two qualifying teams debated was: Should Prison be Punitive?
These top two teams
debated in front of a live audience at Memorial University on a serious and
challenging topic. John's team ultimately placed second, and all four youth
participants took home scholarship prize money from SARIS.
Congratulations to
John Harris and the other student debaters: Hannah Breckinridge, Henry La
Prairie and Luke Battcock, who participated in the tournament and SARIS debate.
I ask all hon.
Members to join me in congratulating these young people on their success and
wish them the best in their future debating careers.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of
Harbour Main.
MS. PARSLEY:
I rise in this hon. House to recognize
Amber Costello, a young woman from my district who was presented with the Future
Leader Award at the 2017-2018 Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador
Scholarship Program gala held at the Holy Heart Theatre in St. John's last
evening.
Amber is the
daughter of Stewart and Sherryl Costello of Conception Harbour and the
granddaughter of the late Wilf Doyle, the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian
to cut a record.
The Future Leader
Award recognizes a participant who has faced obstacles and,
despite these challenges, has continued to succeed. The award carries with it a
$500 scholarship.
Mr. Speaker, despite living with a learning disability,
14-year-old Amber, a student at Roncalli Central High School in Avondale, works
extremely hard to maintain an honours average. Within her community she is a
volunteer, gives countless hours to St. Anne's parish and Woodford's Comfort
Manor.
I had the privilege of attending the Miss Achievement
awards gala, which awarded nearly $10,000 in scholarships to many exceptional
young women like Amber.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me
in congratulating Amber Costello on her accomplishments and wish her every
success in her future endeavors.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I
don't get to say this very often: The hon. the Member for the District of
Gander.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues.
I rise in this Hon. House today to recognize the
achievements of constituent Madison Barrow of Gambo. Madison is the daughter of
Don and Glendene Barrow and is currently a grade ten student at Smallwood
Academy.
Madison is an Encounters with Canada alumni and was
invited to apply to be one of the Government of Canada youth delegates for the
100th Anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. This application included
writing an essay and she chose to write about her great-great-grandfather
Eleazar Saunders who was wounded during the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917. She
was chosen to participate in the journey, along with four other youth from
across Canada.
The first leg of her trip took her to Ottawa where she
read at the National War Museum's remembrance candlelight vigil. She then
travelled to Lille, France to attend the 100th Passchendaele Anniversary in
Ypres, Belgium.
Madison participated in a variety of ceremonies
including: the Last Post ceremony at Menin Gate Memorial; the Ceremony of
Remembrance at the St. Julien Canadian Memorial; Sunset Ceremony and Vigil at
Passchendaele Canadian Memorial; a ceremony at the John McCrae Memorial; and a
ceremony at Hill 62 Canadian Memorial, where she shared her essay.
Madison was also one of the Newfoundland and Labrador
ambassadors that went to Beaumont-Hamel in 2016 to commemorate the anniversary
of that battle. She was selected at a Heritage Fair because of her project about
her great-great-grandfather.
Madison has a keen interest in the history of World War
I and II as a result of her grade eight social studies teacher, Ms. Joanne
Broders. She has a great respect for our veterans past and present who served to
protect our country.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms.
Madison Barrow of Gambo while concluding with Madison's own words: “May we be
challenged by our Veterans' devotion to give our best to our families and
country as well.”
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize November 20 as National
Child Day, a celebration of children's rights.
Members of this House of Assembly are wearing blue
ribbons today to recognize National Child Day, which commemorates Canada's
adoption of two documents focused on children's rights: the United Nations
Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
National Child Day demonstrates our commitment to
ensuring all children are treated with dignity and respect. This commitment
includes the opportunity for children to have a voice, to be protected from
harm, to be provided with their basic needs, and to have every opportunity to
reach their full potential.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to
celebrate National Child Day with children and early childhood educators at
Family and Child Care Connections. The centre is a community-based, non-profit
early learning family resource that provides a variety of programs, services and
supports to parents, family home child care providers and others.
Our government is committed to enhancing access to
exceptional and affordable early learning and child care opportunities during
these important early years of development.
Mr. Speaker, I ask parents, early childhood educators,
teachers and other community members to remain ever mindful of the commitments
that are celebrated on National Child Day. Working together, we can ensure the
rights of children are respected, that each child has access to the endless
opportunities around them, and that children are recognized as important members
of our community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. This side of the House would also like to acknowledge November 20 as
National Child Day. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration of Rights of
the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are an
invaluable testament to the fact that as a society it is incumbent that we give
advice to those who are vulnerable, and we ensure that children are provided
with their basic needs and protected from harm.
All 40 Members of the House may quite often disagree on
public policy and the way in which it is administered, but I'm confident each
and every one of us will always ensure the children of Newfoundland and Labrador
are treated with dignity and respect.
The spirit of National Child Day must be acknowledged
and celebrated every day by governments and legislators so that all children of
Newfoundland and Labrador have increased opportunity to reach their full
potential.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. I'm pleased to commend the work of Family and Child Care Connections
in supporting families and child care providers.
Government says it is committed to ensuring that
children are treated with dignity and respect, that their needs are met and that
they can reach their potential, but I ask what is government doing about the
large number of food bank users in this province who are children; about child
poverty; about child care that is available only to a minority of those who need
it; and about the lack of respect for the rights of deaf and hard of hearing
children in the province, which is covered by the UN convention, Mr. Speaker?
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Workforce Innovation Centre at College of the North
Atlantic's Corner Brook campus supports innovative research and projects to help
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gain and maintain sustainable employment. Four
inaugural projects have now been selected to share more than $1.7 million in
funding.
These projects were selected based on their alignment
with our government's vision for private sector job creation and economic
development in The Way Forward and our
Immigration Action Plan. Priority was also given to projects that address
emerging issues and support the ongoing efforts of the Cabinet Committee on
Jobs, especially building a skilled aquaculture, agriculture and technology
workforce.
Mr. Speaker, the Genesis Centre will explore ways to
increase the number of female and immigrant technology entrepreneurs;
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador will support rural workers who wish to
transition to the tourism sector; the Social Research and Demonstration
Corporation will deliver an innovative aquaculture training model for
entry-level positions; and the Association for New Canadians, in partnership
with Memorial University's Grenfell Campus, will implement a program connecting
refugees with agriculture employment opportunities.
By tapping into the passion, ingenuity and exciting new
ideas of these partners, the Workforce Innovation Centre will help us build a
stronger, more diversified economy and an even brighter future for 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.
Mr. Speaker, the minister stood today and provided some
basic information on the Workforce Innovation Centre, for which I hope will
produce positive results. I'd like to focus my response – the minister claims
this was brought about because of the Liberal government's vision for private
sector job creation, economic development and the Immigration Action Plan.
Before the minister begins to beat his chest about
these economic initiatives, it should be noted that the actions taken by the
Liberals have put the economy into a tailspin. Their own numbers confirm it. The
number of private sector jobs has plummeted, there are fewer opportunities for
new graduates and the province is no longer viewed by immigrants as an
attractive place to live compared to only a couple of years prior.
As a person who loves this province, I want nothing
more than to see it succeed and I wish the Workforce Innovation Centre the very
best. I also wish to acknowledge the minister in trying to resuscitate an
economy that was smothered by his own Liberal government.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. Diversifying the economy is critical to the future of Newfoundland
and Labrador and we're glad to see these long, overdue investments, particularly
the focus on supporting women, rural communities, immigrants and refugees;
however, in the state that we are in, these initiatives alone won't be enough to
address out-migration of young people from our province.
I have to ask the minister: What is government doing to
encourage young people here and now to stay, work and live in the wonderful
province that we have?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mothers
Against Drunk Driving on the 30th anniversary of their Project Red Ribbon
Campaign.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Throughout November and December, MADD will distribute millions of red ribbons
across the country. These ribbons serve to raise awareness of the terrible cost
of impaired driving and honour the memory of those who have been killed or
injured in impaired driving crashes.
It is important to remember that illegal and
prescription drugs, as well as alcohol, can impair a driver's ability to safely
operate a motorized vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, these deaths and injuries are entirely
preventable and we all have a role to play in reducing these statistics.
This morning the Minister of Justice and Public Safety,
the Speaker of the House of Assembly and I attended the provincial launch of
this year's campaign at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Headquarters.
This year, RNC officers will show their support for
Project Red Ribbon by lacing up their boots with red MADD Canada laces.
I commend MADD for their dedication to Project Red
Ribbon over the past 30 years and for their valuable contribution to this most
important cause.
I encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and my
colleagues in this hon. House to participate in the 2017 campaign.
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 an advance copy of her
statement. Mr. Speaker, we also congratulate Mothers Against Drunk Driving on
their 30th anniversary on the Project Red Ribbon Campaign.
Last week, we stood to remember victims of road crashes
and issues involved in road safety is certainly on the minds of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and so it should be. As I said last week, road
safety is a shared responsibility and we all must do our part.
I want to thank MADD for all the work that it has done
and continues to do in raising awareness on a very important issue. I also want
to thank the RNC officers for their support of this year's Project Red Ribbon
Campaign.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement. I join in thanking Mothers Against Drunk Driving for this annual
effort to raise awareness of the damage caused by impaired driving.
The minister reminds us that deaths and injuries are
preventable and we all have a role to play, but she didn't tell us what
government's role will be in the future to increase road safety. There is more
to prevention, Mr. Speaker, I say, than just attending an annual event.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he will commit here
today to the Muskrat Falls inquiry being completed and a report made public
before the next general election.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, when you put together the terms of reference as
something as broad and as far-reaching with such an impact as a terms of
reference about the inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker, you
speak with the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner established a date,
that being December 31, 2019. That was at the request of the Commissioner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that Members opposite, the PC
Party, the leader and all the other MHAs over there with the PC Party, they are
used to directing people that should have their say, people like the PUB when
they kicked them out of this process in March of 2012. When they asked for
simply 90 days, they kicked them out, they shut it down. Mr. Speaker, we want to
let the Commissioner have his say. The date was put in place by him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier, then: You're saying this was the
decision of the Commissioner; did you consult with anyone else about having the
possibility of the inquiry and the report completed before the next provincial
election?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr.
Speaker, I take exception with the fact that he would question the advice of
someone like Judge Richard LeBlanc. That is what he is saying there, Mr.
Speaker. We've given the judge the time that he asked for, Mr. Speaker, for us
to interfere in this established process.
Now, there's information that they might have, that
they probably don't even need an inquiry about, so come on with it. I asked you
for information on September 26, 2015; you weren't willing to come with it then.
What is it that you were hiding then that you'd like to make public right now?
Mr. Speaker, we've waited two years for you to come
clean on the Muskrat Falls Project and you haven't done it. The inquiry is in
place. We will get the answers as –
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.
This coming from the Premier of the province who hid
oversight reports for 18 months.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, 18 months under his watch, he intentionally hid oversight reports from
the Oversight Committee. He's delaying. The report will now be delayed until
after the next general election.
Premier, I can tell you I have nothing to hide, and if
you want the people to know what's happening, make sure the inquiry happens and
it's delivered before the next general election.
Will you do that, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, you know what? I have nothing to hide, that I can
guarantee you. I've been speaking out on this project when it wasn't popular to
speak out on this project. When they were lining up like lemmings to lead people
to doubling of electricity rates in this province.
Is that the legacy you still continue to stand behind?
Are you now still saying that this is the best, that this is the legacy? This is
the best project for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, the doubling of
electricity rates at a time when you said you were flush with cash? Did you put
the money into the right project, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member opposite? Is he
still proud of the project that he sanctioned?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
Well, let's find out and get on with the inquiry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
In
May of this year, we asked for a review done on the project. In June, the
Premier finally spoke to it and said we can't do this now because it's going to
disturb the project. Now, all of a sudden, on the eve of a by-election,
interestingly enough, he announces he's going to hold the inquiry not to start
until 2018, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, 18 months they hid information. Why is it
your inquiry does not include anything that's happened over the last two years?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I will tell you right now, I for one will be glad
to sit in front of the Commissioner and speak about my experience on the Muskrat
Falls Project prior to becoming Premier and while being Premier, Mr. Speaker. So
let's make that very clear.
Now, I would say to the Member opposite, what he should
do is read the terms of reference of the inquiry. It goes back prior to 2012 and
it goes on beyond that, Mr. Speaker.
I will comply. I will be more than willing to sit in
front of the Commissioner and discuss my experience from the beginning to the
end of this project. That you can guarantee.
Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to know is the Cabinet
confidences that may be required. Are they willing to put that information out
there, Mr. Speaker, because they hide it in the past?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier wants to talk about the terms of reference.
I'm fine to discuss the terms of reference.
Who developed the terms of reference, Premier?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It wasn't the Members opposite. They had all kinds of
opportunity to have public input into the Muskrat Falls Project. Let's not
forget, Mr. Speaker, this is the same crowd that kicked the PUB out. They told
the people of the province: We have preplanning done, pre-engineering done, no
worries about cost overruns, don't worry about scheduling. They said they had
that all under control, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I tell you right now, the project speaks for
itself. It's over schedule. It's over budget, and it's not on the backs of the
men and women. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are doing exactly what they've
been asked to do. It's not about them.
This project is having an impact on both present and
future generations, Mr. Speaker. We are pleased today to call this inquiry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier either forgot or intentionally neglected to
answer the question.
It was very simple: Who developed the terms of
reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the terms of reference was put in place by
Justice LaBlanc. There were some discussions that were had with the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety. So these are the terms of reference that were put in
place as a result of those meetings. As quickly as we could get those terms of
reference out there, we did so.
Now, I want to address going back a few questions. Mr.
Speaker, in June of 2016, this project was 48 per cent complete. As of September
30, 2017, just 14 or 15 months later, the project is now 85 per cent complete.
The transmission line is virtually complete. It is now in the position to
actually do this inquiry so we can get the information that people of this
province deservedly need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a briefing provided to the Opposition after we heard
this announcement was taking place, we requested it. We just received it a short
time before Question Period started today. Officials advise that the Department
of Natural Resources drafted the terms of reference for the inquiry. The Premier
is saying today it was Justice LeBlanc who drafted the terms.
Premier, can you clarify that? Was it the Justice who
drafted it, or was it actually the Department of Natural Resources that provided
direction on it?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm happy to stand here and speak to the terms of
reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry, something that's been asked for by the
people of this province.
I can say here in the House that there are a number of
parties that had a say in this, including individuals within the Department of
Natural Resources, the Department of Justice, all throughout government; but, at
the end of the day, Justice LeBlanc would have also been involved in this
process when it comes to the terms of reference.
What I can say, there were some exclusions. Nalcor was
not consulted throughout this process and neither were the PC Party.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to clarify: Is the minister saying that the
Department of Natural Resources did have input and was part of the process of
developing those terms of reference?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the Department of Natural Resources would have had
some input into the terms of reference, as well as the other parties that I
named.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
So,
Mr. Speaker, we have input from the Department of Natural Resources, the current
minister has been a minister for two years. It's the same minister who has been
identified in the terms of reference as the minister responsible for the inquiry
and it's the same minister who has made significant policy decisions about
Muskrat Falls over the last two years.
I ask the Premier: Do you see a possibility of a
conflict happening here? Maybe your minister may become a witness in this
inquiry.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, what we have here I think is a very broad
terms of reference.
I've said on numerous occasions, and the Premier said
it today: When it comes to an inquiry, we want the facts. What happened? The
second part we want is to ensure that the recommendations throughout will help
avoid a situation like this happening again in the future. That's what happens
in an absolute inquiry.
I can guarantee you, first of all, that the inquiry is
independent. That's why it's not led by government; that's why it's led by a
Justice. The second part is that I can guarantee you, everybody on this side
would be ready to appear if compelled and put any evidence there, and I hope the
Members on the other side would be prepared to do the same.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the minister has confirmed that the Minister of
Natural Resources, who's been identified as the minister responsible for the
inquiry, the same minister who has made significant policy decisions over
Muskrat Falls, the same minister who led the department full of staff, who has
had total involvement with Muskrat Falls since the very beginning, is also a
minister who Member's opposite say will testify.
My question was: Do they not see a conflict of
interest?
Couldn't a different minister, other than the one who
has been so closely involved with this over the last two years, have been the
minister responsible and also someone other than her having been who drafted the
terms of reference?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I appreciate the questions from the Members
opposite. What I would point out, there's one significant factor that he forgot
in the line of questioning: that the current Minister of Natural Resources was
certainly not involved in the sanction of Muskrat Falls as opposed to the
Members on the other side.
At the end of the day, the
Public Inquires Act allows for the justice of this independent
inquiry to compel everybody – everybody – to appear, to give testimony, for the
release of documents so that, at the end of the day, all the facts of this
matter will be known. This will be an independent inquiry that's quite broad so
that the people of this province get the full disclosure on what happened.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the minister doesn't want to speak to it if it's a
conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest or not, but I'll ask this
because when I had the short period of time I had to look through the terms of
reference once they were released this afternoon – and the Premier was heckling
across here: It does include the last two years.
Does the scope of the inquiry include management and
leadership of the project over the last two years or does it not?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to the Member opposite that the good news
is that we have Question Period again tomorrow and the day after, so we'll be
happy to take questions on this absolutely every day because that's what the
people of the province demand. It's too bad that they weren't more forthcoming
with answers when they were sitting on this side of the House.
What I would point out, though, is that under the terms
of reference, it talks about the fact that everything will come out, including
reliable estimates of the cost to the conclusion of the project – to the
conclusion of the project. We're talking about the beginning right to the end;
everything needs to come out into the light of day.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Reliable estimates to the conclusion of the project
apparently involve the decision and policy decisions made by that government
since they've been in power or by Nalcor since they've been in power. Let's not
forget, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year their Premier's handpicked CEO, the new
CEO of Nalcor, announced no more surprises and, three months later, had an
additional billion dollars added on to the cost.
Will that be part of the scope of the project?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, let me make this extremely clear to the Member
of the opposite side, as well as to all the people of the province. This inquiry
and its terms of reference, which will be led independently by Justice LeBlanc,
will have the power to compel anybody and everybody, to compel all of the
evidence. We want absolutely every shred of information from the time that this
was thought up until the time it's completed to come into the light of day under
the watch of Justice Richard LeBlanc.
I say to the Member opposite, Nalcor, this government,
your government, everything should be scrutinized.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister if the Commissioner is able to add
to the scope of the inquiry, if the Commissioner sees fit to do so.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I stated earlier in my questioning, the Commissioner
of this inquiry, Justice Richard LeBlanc, was actually consulted upon these
terms of reference. These would not have gone forward unless he felt that this
was all encompassing, whether it was broad enough to take in all the factors, as
well as the date – this was not a date that was picked by this government; it's
a date in which the Commissioner feels comfortable that they can get all the
information done and to get this inquiry done in a full fashion.
So what I would suggest to the Member opposite, again,
this is a very broad terms of reference for a very broad project and, at the end
of the day, there will be independence so that he can get all of the information
and all the answers that he and the people of this province need.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's too bad the government didn't move on this back in
May when it was first asked for and there would have been no trouble to have it
completed before the next general election, if that was the case, Mr. Speaker.
So my question was if the Commissioner can add to the
scope of the inquiry. That was the question that I asked, if he's able to do
that, because there are times when something will come up during the inquiry
which may lead the Commissioner down a road that wasn't previously seen or
anticipated. If that were to happen, can the Commissioner add to the scope of
the inquiry? That's the question, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The terms of reference, there was consultation with
Justice LeBlanc. This will be done independently; this will be done to allow the
justice to get all the information that they need.
Again, the terms were specifically drafted to be broad
enough to allow for all concerns to be brought forward. What I would say is it's
awfully low that the Member on the other side, his only concern is that this be
done before the next election. It's too bad that they didn't think about the
people of this province and not their own election prospects.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know, the minister is trying to say my only
concern – we have a lot more concerns than what he's pointing out there. The
Premier himself identified this as attached to politics in the very beginning,
so I can't help but wonder. They announced it on the eve of a by-election when
it's not going to start until 2018. The Commissioner wasn't available to attend
their announcement today and they're not going to have it finished until after
the next general election, so we can't help but wonder – especially when he
raised it in his own press conference, Mr. Speaker.
My understanding is the Commissioner can add to the
scope of a public inquiry, but he would have to go through Cabinet to ask for
that. My question is: If the Commissioner asked to broaden the scope of the
inquiry, will the government commit to making sure the public is aware of that
request?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is unfortunate that Justice LeBlanc couldn't be here
today. Unfortunately, he is actually down handling court matters and we didn't
want to take away from that.
This is something that we've been working diligently on
to go out there for the people of this province. They've been asking a lot of
questions and up until two years ago, they certainly weren't getting any
answers.
We want all the facts out there. We want all the
information out there. We're willing to do what we can on this end to get that
information out there because what's the point of doing an inquiry that doesn't
answer the questions that the people have?
The question I have for the Member opposite: Is he
willing to make sure that he puts all the information that he knows about in
front of the Commissioner?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
First and final warning, I remind all hon. Members I
will not tolerate interruptions when I've identified a Member to speak, please.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are about the scope of the inquiry. In my
first review of this today, and we will have more time to review it in the
coming days, later today and in the coming days, was about advancing the scope
of the inquiry if the Commissioner so desires. Members opposite are not asking
that.
The inquiry regulations do not lay out clearly that
they'll review all the decisions and policy decisions made over the last two
years.
I ask the Premier of the province: Will you make sure a
full review of all decisions made over the last two years is included as part of
your inquiry?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm certainly happy to have someone of the calibre of
Justice LeBlanc handling this because anybody that knows him knows of his
thoroughness, knows how he is going to want all the information out there.
What I can say in case there's any – I thought there
was some clarity over the last number of answers that the Premier and I have
given. We're going to put absolutely everything we are asked and more in front
of the Commissioner from the last two years. We have nothing to hide. I'm
wondering if politicians on the other side and from previous will make sure that
they do the same.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you Members on this side of the House, current and
previous, will do everything we can to support and assist this inquiry and all
the work that it does. I can assure you of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
As
I've said many, many times, I have nothing to hide. I asked for this inquiry
back in May when the Premier was dodging it. It's not until five months later
they finally call an inquiry, and interestingly enough the results are not going
to be back until a couple months past the next general election, Mr. Speaker, so
I can't help but ask about it.
The terms of reference don't clearly outline decisions
made over the last two years. Why is that, Premier?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I'm hearing an echo because it's the same
question that was just asked and I'm pretty confident that we gave an answer.
The terms of reference are sufficiently broad to ensure
that everything that needs to be in front of the Commissioner, in front of the
people of this province, will be out there. This is not something that's going
to be, as with the previous administration, done under the cloak of darkness.
This is going to be done out there and televised right out in the public eye.
We are certainly happy to release Cabinet confidence as
it relates to this process to ensure that this administration's decisions are
put out there in the clear. I hope that the Members on the opposite, including
those that were around for sanction and before, will ensure that all that
information is put in front of the Commissioner, too.
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.
On Thursday, in the House of Assembly, the Minister of
Health blamed communications for the cancellation of cancer treatments last week
in Grand Falls-Windsor. He stated that the error was rectified. Just one day
later, on Friday, only one nurse was on staff when a patient showed up for
treatment, and treatment was delayed yet again.
I ask the minister: How can you blame communications
when staffing appears to be the issue?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
If the Member opposite had fact checked he would find
that the patient in question arrived early for their appointment and began their
treatment exactly at the appointed hour and was assessed on time. There were no
challenges with staff. The place was staffed fully, and no one was cancelled on
either day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not our understanding and it's definitely not the
media's understanding of what went on last Friday.
The Department of Health noted last week that it was
reviewing workflow and a model of nursing practices to be created.
Why did the minister blame it on communications issues
when his own department clearly states it's a staffing issue?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I referenced in the House last week, Eastern Health,
who run the cancer care program, were asked to investigate. There was no problem
with staffing on that day. The unit was fully staffed. We have gone back with
the assistance of the union to inquire about the communication error. That has
been rectified and will not happen again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
His own department confirmed what the cancer patients
had said was correct, yet the minister still tries to blame the situation on
everything and everyone else.
Does the minister feel that a core staffing review is
required in our health care system?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much for the question. We continue to
work with the Registered Nurses' Union around staffing. One of our challenges is
– whilst we have a very valuable contribution from nurses, we're blessed with
them, and we actually have more per capita than any other jurisdiction in
Canada, our challenge is to get best value for them. We are committed with them
and have joined with them on a workforce review management strategy and that's
actually in the process of being worked through as we speak, 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.
My understanding from last week's incident was that a
nurse had to be sent from Gander to help to do treatment in Grand Falls-Windsor.
How can cancer patients have confidence that staffing
shortages won't continue to be a constant issue when it comes to cancer
treatments?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Cancer chemotherapy is administered by nurses who
receive extra training. The program is run by Eastern Health on a provincial
basis. It is not at all unusual for staff to go from one centre to another.
Just in case the Member opposite gets worried, I'll
warn him now, there is a staff member from Eastern Health going out there next
week for further training for the staff in Grand Falls. So before he blames us
for having staffing issues out there, this is an education piece and it's part
of routine activity in the health care system, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
So,
Mr. Speaker, what this sounds like is that we have a funding issue here for
Central Health versus Eastern Health, not an education issue here.
Last week, patients began to speak out against the
minister's statement. Has the minister personally contacted the patients
impacted and personally apologized for his department causing them undo stress?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Just to correct a factual inaccuracy, Mr. Speaker, this entire program, wherever
it is located in the province, is actually funded through Eastern Health.
As to the individuals concerned, certainly my staff and
Eastern Health staff have reached out on more than one occasion to the
individuals involved.
The issue around last week in Grand Falls was one of
communication, not staffing. There is no suggestion that the system is
inadequately funded or inadequately provided for in any way. If there are any
future concerns by patients and their family, I'll be happy to hear them, 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.
A forensic audit of the Muskrat Falls Project is key to
understanding what has gone wrong.
I ask the Premier: Why didn't he make a forensic audit
a condition of the terms of reference for the Muskrat Falls inquiry?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I know the Member opposite is very eager to get
on with this and so are we.
Mr. Speaker, if you remember back in 2012, this is a
project that was designed not to go over budget; it was not to lose schedule.
This was going to be the best thing for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker. Well, I would argue that it really turned out that way.
One of the tools – we wanted to make sure that the
terms of reference were very broad for the Commissioner and so if it was around
forensic audit, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly in section 8, it gives the
Commissioner the powers to do and use whatever tools they see fit to get to the
bottom of this problem. A forensic audit is an option and is a tool that the
Commissioner can use if they see fit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It's a tool that is essential. They should have had it
in there.
Two years ago government could have paused the Muskrat
Falls Project and conducted an inquiry – all the knowledge the Premier has
today, he had two years ago – possibly saving more than $4 billion and saving
the people from a crushing financial burden.
I ask the Premier: Why did you push just blindly on
with this project, only to begin the inquiry today?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I've said on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker,
publicly and to the Member opposite, that even two years ago, this project was a
big commitment. There were huge commitments on the supply of electricity to Nova
Scotia, who has billions of dollars that were now into the Muskrat Falls
Project. They would have been sunk in cost, Mr. Speaker.
Regardless, if it was two years ago, today or whenever,
that cost would have still been borne on the ratepayers or taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador, still borne on the taxpayers of our province. The
commitments would have been far-reaching.
The PC Party, if they did anything right, was lock up
this project and take it out of the hands of future decisions for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, by delaying an inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project for two years
after coming to power, government may have eliminated the possibility of
stopping the project.
I ask the Premier: Will he show us the evidence he used
for his two years of foot-dragging, the evidence he used to not stop the
project?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, well, I can guarantee you there has been no foot-dragging with this
administration. We had to make numerous changes, tons and tons of hours of work
that has gone into fixing many of the problems that we inherited, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Member opposite suggesting we should just walk
away from this project, exposing taxpayers and ratepayers in our province to
billions of dollars and get nothing back in return? Is that what you're
suggesting?
It still would have had to been paid. The bills were
not going to evaporate. They were not going to just disappear, Mr. Speaker. The
bills were there. The guarantees and the commitments were made by the PC Party.
Right now, we need an inquiry to get to the bottom of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier knows what I am asking for is the evidence
on what he based his decision on for not even pausing the project.
Mr. Speaker, in his news conference this morning, the
Premier said power rates will double by 2022. He's known this for quite a while,
yet nowhere today did he say what he's going to do to help mitigate this extra
financial burden.
So I ask the Premier: What is his plan to help seniors,
working families and small businesses of this province with the doubling of
their power bills?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly, on this side of the House, know the
impact of the doubling of electricity rates on our seniors and on young
families, Mr. Speaker. We also know the difficulty in people that are looking to
this province to create jobs if we are not competitive with electricity rates in
our province. That is what we are doing – we have a rate management, rate
mitigation committee that's doing work.
Mr. Speaker, in the
Budget 2016 we already announced some $210 million in rate
mitigation. We will continue to work on this. It's a few years away, but the
work must continue. We must put confidence back into the electricity system in
this province, and we must remain competitive. Doubling electricity rates are
just not acceptable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
time for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Tabling of Documents
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to the letter that the
Leader of the Opposition had sent in May to the department. The first item on
his letter was tabled in the House of Assembly in May in response to his letter.
The other items here, Mr. Speaker, that were a part of his letter I will table
today.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will move the following
private Member's resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House urges the government
to amend the school bus transportation policies to cover the transportation to
and from school of pupils who reside within the 1.6 kilometres of that school
where these pupils are primary or elementary students, and where those pupils
are secondary students whose safety may be jeopardized by the failure to provide
them with school busing.
It is seconded by the Member for Cape St. Francis.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the private Member's motion presented by
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island will be the private Member's
resolution that will be debated on Wednesday, Private Members' Day.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly in 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 provinces K-12 school system; and
WHEREAS this 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 provinces K-12 school system.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, mental health is quite a serious issue
across this province, across this country and, indeed, the issue has been
identified as a very serious one for this province. We've had a committee in
place that produced a report on mental health not too long ago. Part of the
measures that we need to undertake is ensuring that our youth have these
services available to them to help overcome some of the mental health issues
they are experiencing.
We all recognize that we're in times of fiscal
constraint, but the government magically finds money from time to time for
projects that are of interest to them from a political nature or from a hiring
point of view of people who are patrons of the party and whatnot. So we believe
that efforts should be made to find money to help the people of the province,
particularly the people who are our future, and that being our young ones.
We certainly call upon government to take this issue
very seriously for the youth of our province and to really look at improving
supports that can be provided in the K-12 system so that we have a healthier
province, healthier population and stronger leaders for tomorrow.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the 2013 risk assessment report made public in
June 2017 makes it clear that initial cost estimates and financial risks for the
Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project were understated; and
WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project is way over budget,
diverting funds from other needs and potentially doubling electricity bills, and
it has raised serious concerns about damage to the environment and downstream
communities; and
WHEREAS Nalcor and the provincial government have not
been transparent or accountable as to why the 2013 report was not previously
made public, and the people of the province are left with many unanswered
questions;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately
conduct a forensic audit of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons why I asked the
question I did today in the House of the Premier, because the people of this
province see the need for a forensic audit and I think it is absolutely
essential that a forensic audit take place. I'm very sorry that the Premier and
the Minister of Justice did not see the need to make a forensic audit an actual
part of the terms of reference. I know they give the power to the justice who is
going to run the inquiry on Muskrat Falls to do that, but it should have been
seen as something that was absolutely important to the inquiry.
I note that in this petition people are concerned about
the possibility of the doubling of the electricity rates. Well, the Premier
announced today that, in actual fact, the rates will double by 2022, so if ever
we needed something to look at, it's not just what happened in the past, but
what is this government going to do about the doubling of electricity rates.
People don't know where they're going to turn and if
this government says there be mediation put in place that people will receive
support in paying their bills, that's still money coming out of the public
pockets, Mr. Speaker.
So the need for a forensic audit, of the past and the
present, is absolutely essential to really know what the impact of this project
is going to be on the backs of people. People are already feeling it because of
the money that is going into Muskrat Falls, and money that could have been saved
if this government had stopped two years ago to really look what was happening.
People are already suffering from the loss of services.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS inshore harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador
have serious concerns about their current union representation; and
WHEREAS the inshore fish harvesters of Newfoundland and
Labrador want the right to vote on which union will represent them;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to request that the government urge the
Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Relations Board to proceed immediately to a
vote of inshore fish harvesters to decide which union will represent them.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here of approximately 60
names on this one. They're coming from places such as New Ferolle, Reefs
Harbour, Shoal Harbour, Pasadena, Port aux Choix, Shoal Cove West, Bartlett's
Harbour, Bear Cove, Bird Cove, Castor River South, Princeton, Plate Cove,
Bonavista, Little Catalina and so on, numerous communities throughout the
province.
Basically, what's being asked for in this petition,
what it comes down to is the right for these people to choose. Obviously,
they're concerned. We know there are numerous concerns in the fishery. I
certainly don't pretend to be any expert on the fishery, but I do know it is
riddled with concerns. It has been for years and continues to be. If we want to
have a successful fishery here in our province, I think it's important that
we're all singing from the same hymn book, if you will, and that we're all
united in our stance to the federal government to see improvements. The last
thing we need is division amongst our fishers.
We've seen this division now go on for quite some time.
It's not healthy for the members. It's not healthy for the industry. Basically,
all they're asking for is to get on with it, have the vote so they can move on,
one way or the other, and have a united front, whatever that should be, to best
represent the interests of the province of the fishers and so on.
That's what's being asked for here, Mr. Speaker. I was
asked to bring it forward on their behalf and that's what I'm doing.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
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 school-age children are walking to school in areas with no sidewalks, no
traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and
WHEREAS this puts the safety of these children at risk;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to ensure the safety of all children by removing
the 1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Conception Bay East –
Bell Island just made the motion, and that will be our private Member's motion
this Wednesday coming. It's an issue that affects a lot of us in this House. I
know, me personally, in my District of Conception Bay South, it is a huge issue.
It's something I've spoken on before and I'll continue to speak on it and
represent the parents who have this concern for the safety of their children
because ultimately that's what it comes down to.
Our children are our most precious resource. If we
can't provide a safe path for them to get to school, that's where the buck
should stop with any government or any person, no matter what position you're
in.
Right now, it's a policy that's been around so long. At
one time the policy worked based on the family models. My opinion is right now
this policy is outdated. It needs to be revised to reflect today's families. Two
people working, busier streets, busier lives, everything is changed, Mr.
Speaker, society has changed. There are more threats to our children.
It's something that when you look at the 1.6, a mile on
some of these roads during the wintertime. This has been an issue that's been
talked about over and over again. It's an issue that we can't – we have to keep
talking about it until we bring in effective change to provide safety for our
children because that has to be number one.
One other point, Mr. Speaker, every time this issue
comes up – and I'll say it again and be on record again. The minister was the
biggest opponent to this policy in 2015 until he became the minister. Now he's
the biggest fan of it. They need to take a serious look at this policy because
in 2015 and prior, this policy was terrible. Now all of a sudden it's not
terrible.
Mr. Speaker, I don't buy that, and I don't think most
of the people in this province buy it. I think it's time for this government and
this minister to take a serious look at this policy and do what's right and make
a safe path for our children to get to school each and every day.
Thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's certainly a privilege today to rise on behalf of
the people of Ferryland district to present a petition.
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 road on the Southern Avalon between Renews
and St. Shotts is in need of major repairs and forms a large piece in the Irish
Loop road highway system; and
WHEREAS now we have a World Heritage UNESCO site that
has increased further the volume of traffic in and out of the Southern Avalon;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to upgrade this
piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, over the past number of years we've been
able to do some upgrades in regard to this significant piece of infrastructure
leading to the Southern Avalon. As indicated in the petition, a significant part
of the Irish Loop which as we know from a tourism, commercial and economic
development is key to growth to the current period of time, but looking to the
future will play a huge role in some of the opportunities we have there to
develop.
Traditional industries like the fishing industry – the
crab industry is used in that region. For those that live there, there's no
major medical treatment facility or acute care facility in that region.
Everything comes north to St. John's to avail of the significant medical
treatment and infrastructures in place. So a highway is certainly required for
that.
As we look to the World Heritage UNESCO designation we
achieved last July, we've seen increased traffic this year as well. Looking at
economic development and opportunities from small businesses that have started
and will grow out from that, it's very important that this piece of
infrastructure be upgraded.
The current government's five-year road plan, I think,
had mention of this for 2019-2020. We believe there needs to be a look at that.
They talk about economic development in areas of opportunity where you can drive
those opportunities with investment and infrastructure. We think this is
extremely important, and we can't wait until 2019-2020. Even to start and get an
indication of a long-term plan over the next couple of years will be helpful to
start this process.
So we urge, on behalf of the residents, that this get
started, and certainly the minister revisit this and get this moved up and get
started as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of
a bill, Prescription Monitoring Act. (Bill 25)
Motion, second reading of a bill, “Prescription
Monitoring Act.” (Bill 25)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for allowing me to rise and to speak to Bill
25, Prescription Monitoring Act, as
it's referred to, An Act Respecting the Monitoring of Prescriptions in the
Province, a bill that was brought in last week and spoken to by the Minister of
Health and Community Services. There have been a couple of speakers, and I'm
going to speak to it today as well.
Mr. Speaker, the monitoring of prescription drugs is
new for Newfoundland and Labrador; however, not new for some other provinces in
Canada. A number of other provinces have already instituted similar kinds of
legislation in other jurisdictions. I think pretty much all the jurisdictions in
the country have a program, with the exception of Quebec.
The bill brings about a program for Newfoundland and
Labrador, a program that currently doesn't have here. We'll become one of four
provinces to have stand-alone legislation similar to this. Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Ontario and PEI have stand-alone acts regarding this. Other
jurisdictions have amended established legislations to include a prescription
monitoring program.
What the government is proposing here is to do
similarly what four other provinces in the country have done to have a
stand-alone type of legislation. The program is based on the input and
collection analysis of data with respect to monitored drugs in the Pharmacy
Network.
So it allows for government to identify with problem
drugs. Quite often in Canada we hear today, and these days, a problem with
opioid use, narcotic use for many years, and we know that those drugs over
decades have changed and transformed over a period of time.
We know that for prescription drugs the knowledge and
understanding, the prescribing of such drugs changes, trends change as more
studies are done and understanding is gathered. That's what happens in medicine,
Mr. Speaker. It happens with varying diseases and treatments of those diseases
where better solutions are found, testing and research occurs and continues to
occur and then you find changes in programs and how they're used and so on.
I remember clearly a few years back on the evolution of
OxyContin. OxyContin is different than other drugs because normally when drugs
and new illegal drugs become available, are produced, new chemicals are created
around the world, they quite often come into Canada through Montreal, through
Vancouver, through Toronto as major centres and then will distribute and their
networks will grow from there.
For example, you see drugs being brought in through
Vancouver, which is new drugs, new chemicals that evolve. It's not unusual for
them to come in through Vancouver and then they would spread to the West Coast
from British Columbia to Alberta and so on. In Ontario, a similar kind of
circumstance; Ontario and the great Toronto area has the highest concentration
of our population anywhere in the country, which means there are high markets
for chemicals and a variety of drugs. But when the OxyContin issue came in, it
didn't begin and circulate and catch hold like traditionally has happened in
Vancouver and Toronto and in Montreal; it was an issue here much earlier than it
was in other jurisdictions.
The problem here grew rather quickly and then there was
a number of steps that happened here which worked to try and control it, to
understand it, get a grasp on it and to contain it. Fortunately, as the years
went by, OxyContin evolved into a newer drug which was harder to abuse and to
use for abusive and for addictive measures. We also know that in our population
today there's a significant amount of use and treatment for people who have
abused opioids in Canada, who have become addicted to certain drugs and then
treatments happen to try and understand that, to help those patients, help
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with that and help them to return to non-use,
which is the goal. We know a lot of times it doesn't happen as well as people
had hoped.
The Prescription Monitoring Program is to be able to
track the usage of certain prescribed drugs. OxyContin was a prescribed drug and
became a problem here in our province and it can happen for other drugs in the
future.
One of the differences of the act here in Newfoundland
and Labrador versus what we've seen in other provinces, for example, in Ontario,
Ontario has an act they refer to as the Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act. The title of the bill itself, the
title of their legislation itself in Ontario is specific to narcotics.
Now, the bill itself allows leeway for addition of
drugs to a list of those that are being monitored, but the title of the bill
itself refers specifically to narcotics. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the bill
is simply the Prescription Monitoring Act.
As we had a look at other legislation in other
provinces, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to use my time today to and highlight some of
the differences we've seen and then what I anticipate will likely happen is when
we get to Committee stage where it's an opportunity to have a question and
answer period – not like Question Period, where we have 45 seconds, but you have
a longer period of time to ask questions and give some understanding and
background of why you're asking the question and also gives opportunity for the
minister to respond to the question. So there's more or less a discussion that
takes place as, for example, why is this a
Prescription Monitoring Act and not like what Ontario did, being a narcotic
safety act or a Narcotic Safety and
Awareness Act, as they called it.
So there are some nuances and changes. While we see
similarities in Ontario, we see similarities in Nova Scotia, PEI has essentially
adopted a duplicate. But what we see happened in some of those, we see pieces in
this bill before the House, Bill 25, on the
Prescription Monitoring Act. I'm going to talk about some of those
this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Under section 3 – I should back up. Section 2 is always
the section of an act that has definitions contained within it. Under section 2
of the act, electronic health record is referred to in the legislation. It “means
a province-wide record of a patient's health care history that is available
electronically.” It refers to the minister. It refers to “'monitored drug' means
a drug or class of drugs prescribed in the regulations.” It talks about personal
health information and
ties it to the
Personal Health Information Act. Personal health information means
personal health information that's defined under that particular act.
It talks about regulatory authorities being the
Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Dental Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board and a
professional regulating body prescribed as a regulatory authority in the
regulations.
When it says regulations, it generally means one of two
things. It generally means that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is
Cabinet, the Members of Cabinet can make regulations as outlined in the bill and
a specified minister can make regulations. I'm going to get to those a little
bit later because we see both of that in this particular bill.
Under section 21, the Cabinet can make regulations in
prescribing drugs or classes of drugs to be monitored, may make regulations
excluding the monitoring of certain drugs within a class of drugs that are being
monitored, and so on. And under section 22, it talks about the regulations that
the minister is able to make. “The minister may make regulations (a) prescribing
regulatory authorities for the purpose of subparagraph 2(k)(v). So he can make
regulations.
In 2(k)(v) under this, the one I just referred to, the
“professional regulating body prescribed as a regulatory authority in the
regulations.” So when it refers to regulatory authority it means – and what this
tells me is that the minister can add other regulatory agencies to the
regulations as he sits fit, and sees appropriate.
It also includes respecting the additional requirements
that are required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a dispenser may
dispense a monitored drug, respecting the information a dispenser is required to
record. It also includes respecting the Pharmacy Network regulations: the person
who may access the Pharmacy Network. It includes respecting the reports to be
produced under the act, and respecting a person with whom the minister may enter
into agreements with.
So there are some others there, a list of them there,
under section 22 and I'll be referring to some of those during my comments this
afternoon.
Section 3 lays out the objective of a program. It says:
“(1) There is established a program entitled the Prescription Monitoring
Program. (2) The object of the program is to monitor, analyze and report
information related to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs in
order to educate, support and assist.”
It goes on to say: “(a) individuals in the safe and
appropriate use of monitored drugs by identifying and reducing instances of
abuse and misuse of monitored drugs; and (b) prescribers and dispensers in
appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored drugs.”
Just to clarify that, it says: “… the program is to
monitor, analyze and report information related to the prescribing and
dispensing of monitored drugs in order to educate, support and assist (a)
individuals in the safe and appropriate use …; and (b) prescribers and
dispensers in appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored drugs.”
The object of the act is, as I referred to a minute
ago, sometimes there are changes in how drugs are prescribed and monitored, and
also there is change in the formulation of drugs, how they act. Are they fast
acting or slowly acting? Are there safeguards built into the drug to prevent
misuse of the drug?
When we compare that to what the
Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act of Ontario has said, they've
taken a different approach. They said: “The purpose of the Act is to seek to
improve the health and safety of …” – in our case it would be Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. In their case it would be Ontario, the people of Ontario. It
talks about improving the health and safety.
The first object here in Newfoundland and Labrador is
to monitor, analyze and report information. I know the minister talked about
it's not set up as a method of policing doctors and pharmacists; even though
that's an aspect of the bill, that's not the intent of it.
The very first words under 3(2) is to “… monitor,
analyze and report information .…” That's what makes it sound like policing,
whereby in Ontario, they chose to speak about improving the health and safety of
their citizens. They do that by permitting monitoring, analyzing and reporting
information.
It is a little bit of a nuance, Mr. Speaker, because
the minister – I raise it because the minister during his time in presenting the
bill referenced on a number of occasions how this mirrors or is similar to what
other jurisdictions have done, including Ontario. He's talked about Ontario at
some length, about what they've done.
What I'm suggesting to the minister is the focus
they've put on this is about health and safety of individuals, where the focus
he's put on the bill for Newfoundland and Labrador is about monitoring,
analyzing and reporting information related to prescribing and dispensing.
Somehow, you know, sometimes that puts people a little bit defensive. People who
are professional prescribers, doctors and those dispensers, the pharmacies, puts
them a little bit on the defensive.
The choice of words is interesting, Mr. Speaker. In
Ontario it also says: “contribute to and promote appropriate prescribing and
dispensing .…” In Ontario it also says: “reduce the risk of addiction and death
resulting from the abuse .…” Ontario seems to put focus on people and the use of
drugs by people, Mr. Speaker.
Under clause 4, it talks about the minister shall do.
Mr. Speaker, in some jurisdictions the legislation establishes a committee – I
don't think I have it in front of me, but a committee on oversight. In
Newfoundland and Labrador and others, it's the minister.
This one says: “The minister shall administer the
program;” the minister shall “monitor the prescribing and dispensing of
monitored drugs;” the minister shall “evaluate the effectiveness of the
program;” the minister shall “provide information, professional consultation and
assistance to the regulatory authorities relating to the prescribing and
dispensing of monitored drugs;” the minister will “monitor the use of monitored
drugs;” the minister will “educate prescribers and dispensers regarding the
appropriate prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs;” the minister will
“educate individuals on the appropriate use of monitored drugs;” the minister
will “report to regulatory authorities on new and emerging prescribing patterns
for monitored drugs;” and also, the minister will “perform any other duties
prescribed in the regulations,” which the minister can draft himself.
Mr. Speaker, the only issue here, the only concern that
we have here, the only one I'm going to raise – and I should back up a little
bit on this. I failed to identify how we've come to the understanding of these,
because we've reached out to stakeholders, Mr. Speaker. We've reached out to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, we've reached out to the
Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and we've reached out to
the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I can't remember a time when the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner himself so quickly spoke out and raised
concerns about a bill, together – separately, yet they've both done that.
So we reached out to them, and what I found out was –
we know under legislation, by the way, and the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner, there's a requirement that the government consult with the Office
of the Privacy Commissioner, particularly on matters where privacy could change
or be impacted.
There was a consultation, I'll give that to government,
and there was a consultation done with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association; however, my understanding is – and I haven't spoken to all of the
groups that are potential stakeholders here yet, but my understanding is until
we received this bill late last week – we received it, I think, on the 13th. It
was first reading on the 14th and it was second reading on the 15th, but until
this bill was actually provided to us – at the same time we were provided with
the bill, my understanding is the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association
was also, for the first time, provided with a copy of the bill.
While they did have a consultation back in October,
where there was a slide show or a deck as it's sometimes referred to, and there
were discussions about the bill, the actual bill, they never had a chance to see
the final language and the final bill until last week. I heard Robert Thompson,
who I think his title is CEO of the NLMA, speak about this publicly last week,
on Friday. We know the Privacy Commissioner has also spoken out on some concerns
as well.
We took the opportunity to consult with those people as
well, and we're still consulting with them because even over the weekend, as
they dig deeper into the bill and they consider all the potential nuances that
could happen, then they've raised more concerns. Some things they've become less
concerned about, other things they've become more concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, I should be very clear because this in no
way is a reflection – anything that I'm going to talk about this afternoon is in
no way a reflection on the current minister or the current government. This
legislation will be in place for future governments and future ministers,
whoever they may be. So it's important for us to look at it from that lens as
well.
If we raise a concern about an authority that the
minister may have, it's not referring personally to the current Minister of
Health. It's the position who has the authority, not the current minister. It's
the position who has the authority that raises some concern for us. So I want to
be clear and point that out. It's certainly not personal to anybody on the other
side of the House. It's really about whoever happens to be the minister of the
day.
Under clause 4 where it says the minister shall do this
and the minister shall do that, it also says under paragraph (f) that the
minister shall “educate prescribers and dispensers regarding the appropriate
prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs.”
Mr. Speaker, some organizations feel that it would be
more appropriate for the minister and the work that he does, to help develop
educational tools and information and services regarding the appropriate
prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs. They say it's not the minister's
role today to educate prescribers and dispensers. This would be outside of the
role of the minister, as it exists today, for the minister to actually be the
person to educate prescribers and dispensers.
It would be more appropriate for the minister and the
Department of Health under the direction of the minister, it would be very
appropriate for them to help develop educational tools, information and
services, other than the minister or the department actually providing that
education.
Also, under clause 4 of the bill, further to that, that
the bill could also include that it develop a prescriber portal that permits
prescribers to compare their prescribing activity to peer groups.
Mr. Speaker, we know today, and the minister talked
about this when the bill was launched last week – I think his words were that
every physician, privately fee-for-service doctor and others besides, the ones
that are salary doctors as well, have access to electronic health records. I
believe the minister said there were five that they knew of in the province who
don't have a computer or an iPad, I think is what he referred to. There are only
five in the province and all the rest of them do. Knowing that this access is
available, then there may be another opportunity here to enshrine in legislation
another opportunity.
The minister even talked about – and I remember
listening to the dialogue at his press conference – what about the doctors who
don't have electronic sources available to them; they're not connected to
electronic health records. The minister made a point of saying that if you're
progressive in medicine – I'm not trying to put words in this mouth, but my
understanding from the answer was if you're progressive in medicine and so on,
then it's the right thing to do. I don't disagree with that. That you subscribe
to the advancement of technology and have that available to you as you do your
job practising medicine.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, if there was a
prescriber portal that permitted prescribers to compare their activity to peer
groups that it would be advantageous to have such a portal. What we mean by that
is if physicians are saying I want to have a look to see how I'm doing with this
compared to other doctors, they'd be able to do that.
That's under section 4. Section 5 lays out a number of
areas that the minister may. Section 6 talks about delegating his authority – “…
may delegate, in writing, any power or duty conferred on him or her under this
Act to a custodian under the Personal
Health Information Act.” Again, I point out here he may do that; he doesn't
have to do that. He may do that or she may do that, whoever the minister happens
to be at the time.
“A delegate referred to in subsection (1) shall comply
with all the requirements and have all of the authorities of a custodian under
the Personal Health Information Act,
unless otherwise stated in this
Act.”
I heard the
minister talking about Newfoundland and Labrador health information services,
but the act does not specify that they will be the custodians or the ones
leading this particular monitoring program as a regulatory authority. Because
that's really what it is. When you begin to monitor prescribers and you monitor
dispensers, then you become a regulator of those programs. The College of
Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador
is a regulator when you compare them to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association being a peer group as a
professional association representing doctors in the province.
But Newfoundland and Labrador health information
services has been an independent branch of the health care operation that
collects and disseminates data and do very complex matters regarding health
information and provides those services to anybody who picks up the phone and
calls them, pretty much, they will try to ascertain the information that you're
looking for.
What this bill is about, as we saw back in section 3,
is monitoring, analyzing and reporting information related to the prescribing of
drugs and dispensing of monitored drugs in order to educate, support and assist.
So it brings on a little different flavour to what Newfoundland and Labrador
Centre for Health Information – some refer to NLCHI – have traditionally done.
It's a little bit different than that.
If we go on to section 7, “(1) A prescriber who
prescribes a monitored drug shall record the information prescribed in the
regulations on the prescription. (2) Before issuing a prescription for a
monitored drug a prescribers shall (a) review the patient medication file …” –
and this is when it comes down to technology, so prescriber has to review the
medical profile of the electronic health record – “and (b) report in the manner
prescribed in the regulations that the patient medication profile in the
electronic health record was reviewed before the prescription was issued. I'm
going to come back to this, Mr. Speaker.
“A dispenser who dispenses a monitored drug shall
record the information prescribed in the regulations.” And also in section 8,
Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: “Before dispensing a monitored drug the
dispenser shall (a) review the patient medication profile in the electronic
health record” – or EHR, as it's sometimes referred – “relating to the
individual for whom the monitored drug is being dispensed; and (b) ensure that
any identity verification requirements prescribed in the regulations are
satisfied.” So, Mr. Speaker, I raise that because there's going to be some
discussion from me this afternoon.
“A dispenser shall ensure that each time a monitored
drug is dispensed it is recorded in the pharmacy network in accordance with the
regulations.” Again, we haven't seen that yet. There are duties here of the
regulatory authority and then the collection and disclosure of information under
clause 10.
Under clause 10, “Where it is reasonably necessary to
achieve the objects of the program, the minister may collect, use and store
information in accordance with this Act and the regulations.” A very important
clause, Mr. Speaker, for people to understand, section 10, where it is
reasonably necessary to achieve the objects of the program – remember the
objects are to monitor, analyze and report information related to prescribing
and dispensing.
So the minister is to collect this and use and store
the information in accordance with the act. “Upon the request of the minister, a
prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose to the minister any
information the minister reasonably requires to achieve the objects of the
program.”
I'm going to stop at that one, Mr. Speaker. I'm going
to stop here at 10(2): “Upon the request of the minister, a prescriber,
dispenser or other person shall disclose to the minister any information the
minister reasonably requires to achieve the objects of the program.” So I'm
going to stop at that one. It's a fairly significant power that the minister has
under this act. These are one of these sections that starts to broach on that in
that area.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has great power and when he
requests so a prescriber, dispenser or other person shall disclose to the
minister any information the minister reasonably requires to achieve the
objectives. When we talked to the Medical Association on this one, they talked
about determining compliance with the act, or misuse of the act, or abuse or
diversion of monitored drugs, not just the objectives of the programs.
The objectives of the program I've talked about,
they're very broad, very high level – very broad and very high level. Normally
when these types of oversights are added, it becomes about non-compliance with
the act, not about a high level of achieving the objects of the program, which
are inconsistent with what Ontario has. Ontario has already stated their objects
of the program are people's health and well-being, but Newfoundland and
Labrador's objects of the program are about monitoring and capturing
information, and then sharing that information.
The Medical Association has raised a concern, and I
don't disagree with them because with this particular section under 10(2), it
should be about determining compliance with the act or the misuse, abuse or
diversion of monitored drugs. So I'm sure in Committee we will talk about that
one further. I notice the minister is feverously writing notes over there and
I'm sure we'll have some discussion on it.
The good thing about this process, Mr. Speaker, as we
raised some of these matters today the minister, I know, has the opportunity
then to consider them, talk to his officials about it and so on. So it's an
opportunity for him to do that before we get to Committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, under 10(4):
“Where
the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a prescriber or dispenser is
acting in a manner inconsistent with the objects of the program, he or she may
disclose information to the appropriate regulatory authority regarding the
manner in which the prescriber or dispenser is acting inconsistently with the
objects of the program.”
So very similar to my last comment is objects are very
broad ranging, but it should be about compliance with the act. What this does
not include here is: “Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a
prescriber or dispenser is acting in a manner inconsistent with the objects of
the program ....” That's pretty broad, Mr. Speaker, because the prescriber or
the dispenser may be very much in compliance with the legislation, but if they
are not consistent with the objects of the program or may be seen, then the
minister has very powerful grounds.
So where he believes on reasonable grounds that the
prescriber or dispenser has contravened the act, we believe would be more
important, or has aided the abuse, misuse or diversion of the drugs, then the
information must be disclosed. He or she may disclose information to the
appropriate regulatory authority about the non-compliance or potential abuse,
misuse of a monitored drug.
I think that's a little bit stronger because we don't
want to see a circumstance where the minister or anyone acting on behalf of the
minister will have access to personal records, personal health records, beyond
what is beneficial and beyond what is important.
Mr. Speaker, under section 10(8), the act currently
says: “Where there is a conflict between this section and the
Personal Health Information Act or the
Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, 2015, this section applies.” So sections 1 to 7 in paragraph 10
which talks about everything from “a law enforcement authority may disclose
information relating to the administration and enforcement of this Act to the
minister.” So law enforcement now by law can share this information.
“Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that
an individual is abusing or misusing monitored drugs, he or she may disclose
information to a prescriber or dispenser.” All of these about collection and
disclosure of information, it says where there is a conflict with current
legislation this section is the paramount consideration. Mr. Speaker, that gives
it very important powers.
Mr. Speaker, the section goes on to 11 and 12; 11 talks
about an inspector. Now, this is an important one because it says: “The minister
may appoint a custodian or an employee of a custodian” – a custodian could be
Newfoundland and Labrador health information services – “under the
Personal Health Information Act to act
as an inspector for the purpose of this Act and the regulations.” The minister
can appoint inspectors as well, an inspector under the act. “A person shall not
knowingly make a false or misleading statement, either orally or in writing, to
an inspector while he or she is exercising powers or carrying out duties or
functions under this Act or the regulations.”
When we get to section 12 where it says: “An inspector
may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the administration or
enforcement of this Act or the regulations, inspect or examine the premises,
processes, books and records of a person that the inspector may consider
relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with this Act or the
regulations, and the inspector may, without a warrant, (a) enter any premises
(i) which is a place of practice of a prescriber or a dispenser, (ii) where any
property, books or records are or may be kept, or (iii) where anything is done
or is suspected by the inspector of being done in connection with a requirement
of this Act or the regulations; (b) make copies, extracts, photographs or videos
the inspector considers necessary; (c) require the owner, operator or person in
charge of a premises to give the inspector all reasonable assistance, including
the production of books and records as requested by the inspector, and to answer
all questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the
regulations and, for that purpose, require the owner, operator or person in
charge to attend at the premises with the inspector; and (d) require the owner,
operator or person in charge to make available the means to generate and
manipulate books and records that are in machine readable or electronic form and
any other means ….”
Mr. Speaker, it is very broad-ranging authority under
this section being given to the minister, very broad authority to an inspector
to inspect.
The next section after this under section 12, which is
section 13: “An inspector shall prepare a report which sets out the findings and
results of the inspections.” So an inspector does an inspection. “The minister
may share the findings and results of an inspection ….” What that means when I
read that, there's a little piece here I think that's left out of it, but I
think I can fill in the blanks. When it says: “An inspector shall prepare a
report which sets out the findings and results of the inspection, ” it doesn't
say what the inspector will actually do with that report, but in the very next
part of it: “The minister may share the findings and results of the inspection
with (a) regulatory authorities; (b) law enforcement authorities; (c) the
prescriber whose premises were the subject of the inspection; (d) the dispenser
whose premises were the subject of the inspection; and (e) other persons
prescribed in the regulations.”
So it's obvious that an inspector who carries out an
inspection of a doctor's office or a pharmacy and compiles a report, that report
is reported back to the minister because it's the minister who may share the
findings of the results of the inspection. We essentially have an inspector who
can be appointed by the minister and an inspector who can walk into a doctor's
office and want to review files, records, books and so on, and then report those
findings back to the minister.
When I read that, Mr. Speaker, I have to say the hair
on the back of neck kind of stood up because – and again, it's not about the
minister or government currently. It's not about them. My comments are not
personal to the current government, or any minister in the current government or
the current Minister of Health. But my thoughts were, well, this could really
lead to a problem at some point in time because we have a bill where the
minister can essentially add any drug to the list of drugs being monitored, and
then can send an inspector in to review the records of any person who is being
prescribed those drugs.
I'm sure we'll have a discussion about it as the debate
goes on. I look forward to having that opportunity to speak to minister about
that. But one section that's problematic here under 12(1) where it says: “An
inspector may, at all reasonable times, for a purpose related to the
administration or enforcement ….” That's problematic for me. If the bill was to
say an inspector may, at reasonable times, where the inspector believes on
reasonable grounds – and they've already used the requirement of reasonable
grounds. Reasonable grounds have been defined by courts and there have been lots
of cases over the years to talk about what reasonable grounds are. I think I
talked about this when I was up talking about the SIRT bill last week.
Reasonable grounds had been tested, and circumstances where someone had
reasonable grounds, and the high courts, the Supreme Court of Canada, have said,
well, what are reasonable grounds?
Reasonable grounds are more than just mere suspicion.
They have to be set on a base of facts, and I'm strongly paraphrasing now, Mr.
Speaker, because I haven't read the most recent rulings, but my recollection and
understanding of reasonable grounds is more than just suspicion, more than I
suspect there might be something going on there. Reasonable grounds would be
much stronger than that.
The current legislation does not require reasonable
grounds, but if it was to add at reasonable times where the inspector believes
on reasonable grounds that a person is in contravention of the act, not just
administration or enforcement but contravention of the act or the regulations.
And where information requested under section 12 has not been provided, then
they can inspect and examine.
So what we're saying here is, instead of giving an
inspector what could almost appear to be in certain circumstances carte blanche
in many ways, to say: Well, look, if you want information, you ask for it. So if
somebody is being prescribed a particular drug that is being monitored and you
want to have a look at those records, well, you could pick up the phone and call
the doctor and call the pharmacy and say: I'm reviewing this drug, I want to see
all your patient records for that drug or I want to see certain patients.
Maybe you go to the pharmacy first and ask: Who have
you prescribed this particular drug to? Because when a doctor sits in their
office, and according to what I read here in this act, when a doctor is going to
write a script for a drug, it doesn't have to be an opioid, it's whatever drug
the minister decides to add to the list of monitored drugs. So if a doctor
writes a script, there are a number of things the doctor is required to do. She
or he must look at the electronic health record.
We know when the health record is reviewed of the
patient, there's a fingerprint left there that it's been reviewed. So the
minister could easily look at that. Here's a patient, did the doctor review the
health record? That's easy to find out. A prescription pad is required to have
certain information, but the prescription is then taken by the patient to the
pharmacy and once it's filled, the prescription is actually stored by the
pharmacy.
I'm not sure what else the minister wants authority of
to inspect at the doctor's office, because that's what required under the act.
So maybe the minister can shed some light on that for us as we get through
Committee.
What else could there be that the doctor didn't do? If
he looked at the electronic health record, there's a fingerprint that can be
remotely looked it; regulatory authorities can look at that remotely. If there's
a prescription filled, it's gone to the pharmacy. So I'm wondering what else the
minister has envisioned the inspector could go to the doctor's office for. What
else is it he may look for?
What we're suggesting is maybe there's a different way
of doing that. Just saying that “at all reasonable times, for a purpose related
to the administration or enforcement of this Act … inspect or examine the
premises, processes, books and” so on can take place. I'm suggesting that to me
seems very broad and can be tightened up to include reasonable grounds. Then the
minister, during Committee, we can have a discussion likely on what else could
they potentially be looking for or what is it there to examine?
As the minister has pointed out, this is not about
policing. It's about improving the proper use and delivery of drugs. Proper use
by prescribers, proper process by dispensers and proper use by patients is the
comments I heard him focus on. Again, I'm not trying to put words in his mouth.
I'm certainly not intending to do that, but that was my understanding from what
I read and what I've heard. Maybe the minister, if I'm gone wrong on that he can
correct it.
Under section 13 it says: “An inspector shall prepare a
report which sets out the findings and results of the inspection.” I just said
that. Also, it says: “The minister may share the findings and results of an
inspection with (a) regulatory authorities;” and lists some others there as
well. It lays out a list of them.
Mr. Speaker, any findings and results provided by the
inspector to the minister or any other authority or person pursuant to this act
shall be non-nominal. That's a recommendation from the Medical Association as
well and of course the idea that we're talking about here is ensuring that is to
be non-nominal and tighten it up and make sure that we protect it.
Under section 14: “The minister may, in accordance with
the regulations, establish one or more committees to provide advice and
recommendations on matters relating to the administration and enforcement of
this Act that are referred to them by the minister.” Again, if this was a little
bit different and instead of saying “may” could have said “shall” because the
minister shall – in some provinces there is a committee that has oversight, and
this could have said: the minister shall establish one or more committees to
help execute the monitoring program. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't say that.
Also, under (2): “The minister shall, by regulation,
prescribe the terms of reference for the committees, the composition of the
committees and the duties of the committees.” Under (3), “Notwithstanding
subsection (2)” – the one I just read – “there shall be at least one prescriber
and one dispenser on each committee.”
Under section 14(1): “The minister may, in accordance
with the regulations, establish one or more committees to provide advice and
recommendations on matters relating to the administration and enforcement of
this Act that are referred to them by the minister.”
Mr. Speaker, in this section, whether or not any such
matters are referred to them by the minister, what we're talking about here is
they may reference matters relating to the administration of the act, but can
they do what's not referred to them by the minister? Can they do not only just
what's referred to them by the minister, but can they also review other aspects
if they so see fit to do so? Instead of just having it referred to them by the
minister, then it's related to administration and enforcement of the act.
Under 14(2): “The minister shall, by regulation,
prescribe the terms of reference for the committees …” and we're going to have a
little bit of a discussion about that, but there are some discussions within the
associations about composition of the committee. We'd like to have some
discussion about that in Committee.
It currently says at least one – excuse me, Mr.
Speaker. It currently says, “The minister shall, by regulation, prescribe the
terms of reference for the committees, the composition of the committees and the
duties of the committees.” Under subsection (3) it says, “Notwithstanding
subsection (2), there shall be at least one prescriber and one dispenser on each
committee.” I think we can broaden that. Instead of just having one physician,
one prescriber and one dispenser, I think there's an opportunity to grow on that
and maybe to have two prescribers and two dispensers on the committee, instead
of just one.
So, Mr. Speaker, flip over to section 21. Under section
21, which refers to “Lieutenant-Governor in Council regulations” making
authority – and I talked about this a little bit earlier. Under 21(g), it lists
– under the LGIC may make regulations, Cabinet may make regulations, prescribing
of drugs, classes of drugs and so on, excluding the monitoring of certain drugs
within a class of drugs and so on. It talks about prescribing of duties – I'm
skipping over some of them – and then “generally, to give effect to the purpose
of this Act.”
What's been requested here is about public consultation
before making any regulations. I referred earlier in my comments about concerns
raised about public consultation or the lack of public consultation. There was,
and I give credit to the minister, there was a consultation process, but the
actual wording and the specifics of the bill were not known.
My understanding is there is at least one regulator who
asked to have input before it came to the House and wasn't given that
opportunity. I stand to be corrected on that. I'd have to check my notes, but my
understanding is there is one who asked can we raise some issues here with you
and that opportunity was brought to the House. So that opportunity really never
presented itself, but we do know that when we get to Committee, we can make
suggestions for amendments, government can make amendments as well as the
Opposition, and I fully expect on this particular bill there will be some of
that.
Immediately after (g), which talks about: “generally,
to give effect to the purpose of this Act.” We could add about public
consultation before making regulations and that Cabinet shall not make any
regulations unless the minister has published a notice to the proposed
regulation on the website of the ministry and any other format that the minister
considers advisable and notice complies with requirements of this section.
As well, that the time periods specified in the notice,
during the time which members may publicly exercise their right to prescribe and
so on. What we're going to ask for in Committee here is that if you're making
changes to regulations that at least there be some consultation. Making changes
to the act or regulations, before you do that, then let's give stakeholder
groups and professional bodies, associations, oversight bodies and so on time to
have a look at it.
That's essentially what we're going to talk about in
more detail in Committee. Make sure there's notice and then allow for
consultation. Mr. Speaker, that's in the Ontario act. What we intend to propose
would require a process of consultation on certain parts of those regulations
and using language that is under section 17 in the Ontario act, if the minister
wants to have a look at it. It's very similar to what Ontario has. It basically
says the minister and government, before they do this, they're going to consult.
They're going to consult with professional groups and bodies who could be
prescribers or dispensers. That's essentially what that's about, Mr. Speaker.
Under clause 22, which I referred to earlier, is the
authority given to the minister to make regulations. Similarly, under clause 22,
we're going to propose to the government that they consider some changes about
public consultation before the minister enacts changes that he's permitted to do
so under clause 22.
Then under 22(d), “… respecting the additional
requirements that are required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a
dispenser may dispense a monitored drug ....” What it says, so it's clear: The
minister may make regulations respecting the additional requirements that are
required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a dispenser may dispense
a monitored drug.
Similar to the other ones, Mr. Speaker, again this is
about public consultation before making those regulations, having discussion
with stakeholder groups and a public consultation to ensure that if they're
done, there's not going to be a significant, negative impact or effect to those,
and that it meets the goals and objectives of what the bill should lay out.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to a number of doctors since the
bill became public last week. Some of these doctors who are fee-for-service are
saying: I just got another layer of requirements that I have to do before I
prescribe drugs that are being monitored. They have to know what drugs are being
monitored. There are certain steps they'll have to take under the act to make
sure they're doing their job correctly and, of course, that means, in
likelihood, they're going to see fewer patients.
So there was some response that I heard from doctors on
that, but I also understand the importance of monitoring those drugs that are
being problems for our society today. This bill is very broad on what drugs may
be monitored.
Ontario, while it's called the
Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act, in the legislation there is a
similar allotment for the minister in Ontario to monitor essentially any drug;
however, the act itself refers to narcotics. The intent of the act by the title
of it refers to narcotics and Newfoundland and Labrador hasn't done that.
When the minister closes, maybe he can talk a little
bit about why he's not limited the number of drugs that could be monitored under
the act. Why is it so broad so that virtually any drug at all could be
monitored? I'm sure there are drugs that you can't think of a scenario or
circumstance that may require monitoring, and while it's not only the opioids
and narcotics that people become reliant upon and find it a difficult drug to
give up and change sometimes because people become dependent and reliant on
drugs, but there are lots of drugs that I can't think of why such a drug should
be included in this act or this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I've spent almost an hour now talking
about some of the questions that we're going to raise in Committee. I did so
intentionally today so that the minister, while he's listening very carefully
over there – and I appreciate him paying such careful attention and listening
over there. As I've said, I've looked over a number of times and he's over
making his notes on it. So I look forward to his responses on these, either at
the end of second reading or we'll get into it more so in Committee anyway.
I thank you for giving me the time this afternoon.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
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 Bill 25, the
Prescription Monitoring Act. This is a
very critical, very crucial bill. The minister, when he presented the bill, I
took copious amounts of notes because I know of his commitment to this issue and
his expertise in this issue.
He has stated his plan is to have this bill proclaimed
by January 1. If we look at the date that we have today, November 20, that gives
us on the calendar six weeks; but, in fact, we may spend the rest of the week
debating this bill. Perhaps we'll finish Committee by the end of this week, I'm
not sure, so then that gives him five weeks. Then in between there is Christmas
and New Years and, with that, it takes away at least a week, possibly two weeks.
So really, in effect, there are not that many weeks
before the proclamation of this bill and I want to state and to stress, Mr.
Speaker, that I understand the urgency of this bill. I'm pleased that this bill
has been introduced to the House, but I do have some concerns. I'm also aware
that one of the target prescription drugs that will be dealt with, one of the
first ones in this bill, in this act, will be opioids. We all know, without
doubt, that we are in an opioid crisis.
As part of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions, as we travelled the province, we all heard stories in different
communities about how opioid drugs and the problems that come along with opioid
drugs are affecting our communities. Probably most of us in this House have had
family members, friends or acquaintances who had family members who've been
affected by opioid addictions.
As the minister so clearly stated, this is not a
criminal issue that we are dealing with. This, in fact, is a health issue; it's
a social issue. And he stressed a number of times this was about education, not
so much about criminal activity. But we do have a huge problem that impacts our
communities because of the misuse of opioids.
I believe that it's safe to say that the majority of
the crime that we see – and I've spoken with a number of people within the
justice system and within all of our incarceration systems – that the majority
of people who end up incarcerated are because of drug addiction issues. So it is
a serious problem and I understand and I get the urgency, and why the minister
will want to get this proclaimed as soon as he possibly can.
When this bill was brought to the House, the Opposition
parties were given a briefing, and I would like to thank the officials who gave
us a very thorough briefing. We were given a briefing, called to a briefing less
than an hour before the briefing was happening. Then, less than 24 hours after
that briefing, this bill was presented by the minister in the House for debate –
less than 24 hours. I'm concerned about the haste of that.
Now, if we had legislative committees where we would
review bills before them coming to the House, that wouldn't be as big a problem,
but we do not. What we have then is, again, a piece of legislation that is ever
so urgent, that is responding to a crisis. I believe many people in the medical
profession, in the justice profession, in the helping professions, in mental
health would use those words. We are in a crisis around the issue of drug
addictions particularly that have begun from opioids. So we all have to bring
whatever resources we have to the table to deal with this.
Once we did get the legislation, I contacted the Office
of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I also contacted the Newfoundland
and Labrador Medical Association who really had some concerns.
Now, when I asked questions about that in the House,
the minister said that I hadn't been listening to him. I can guarantee you, Mr.
Speaker, I have notes. I have pages and pages of notes that I took on the
minister's presentation, and I was happy to do that. I believe the minister's
presentation in many ways was very thorough and very – again, he has a great
commitment to this area. He talks about harm reduction. He talks about people
who have difficulty with addictions. He speaks about it with respect as well. So
I would like to acknowledge that.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,
that office was consulted because by law they must be consulted. However, true
consultation is not just about hearing somebody say something and then not
getting back to them about this is what we have done with what you recommended;
this is what we have not done; this is what we heard you said; this is how we're
going to implement it, or this is how we're not going to implement it. So there
wasn't a full circle and a completion in that consultation process.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commission
did, in fact, feel they were not adequately consulted. There was no reporting
back, and they still had concerns. They saw the bill again, the same time we
did, less than 24 hours before debate started in the House. I would say, Mr.
Speaker, there are some issues that have to be addressed with the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Now, I also contacted the office of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Medical Association, because this is affecting prescribers who are
predominantly medical doctors in our province. This is a piece of very, very
detailed legislation that will affect the practice of doctors. So I contacted
them and they had the same problem. They actually issued a press release saying
our concern is that the Medical Association was given less than 24 hours to
review the draft legislation before the act was released. They felt that the
House of Assembly can still improve the legislation by making amendments and we
encourage them to do so and I also encourage them.
It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe
their interest is the same interest that the Minister of Health had; yet, they
had to publicly issue a news release to say they felt that they were not
adequately consulted. Again, there wasn't that complete circle of consultation
where that was closed. So it's really unfortunate; it's really unfortunate of
the haste of this because it's such important, really important legislation.
Again, because it affects issues of privacy, about who
has jurisdiction over what, it affects patients as well, and this is an issue
where people die. It's not an issue about whether somebody is taking too much
aspirin. This is an issue where people actually died; it's a life and death
issue. Again, I appreciate the haste that we have to come up with solutions. We
have to come up with direct actions. We have to come up with legislation that
addresses this issue.
It's a matter of life and death for people that we love
and care for – for our young people, for our injured workers, for our seniors.
There's no one who is not affected by this opioid crisis. So I would like to
bring to the mind of every person in this House, we cannot proceed with undue
haste, without clearly knowing what we're doing, without clearly knowing what
the ramifications of this legislation are.
We've heard clearly, in an unfortunate way, from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association who has some concerns. I'm
assuming the minister, since their press release, has been in touch with them to
start that on-going dialogue and consultation about how the issues that they
have addressed can be addressed in this legislation. I hope that has been done.
The same thing with the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner; the Commissioner also released a press release because
they are not being heard. Even though the minister has said they were consulted,
they have not been heard. Again, we are talking about life and death issues, and
the minister knows that.
We have had, let me see – we have had how many? I have
the stats here, of how many deaths we had due to drug addictions where people
may have been using fentanyl, knowingly or unknowingly. It's not unusual for
people who've had an opioid addiction, who no longer get prescriptions from
their doctor, to then look for that drug on the streets. Because they are sick,
not because they are immoral, not because they have no willpower, because they
are addicted to a drug that has been irresponsibly put in the hands of the
marketplace, irresponsibly put in the hands of doctors, some unknowingly,
because the drug companies knew exactly what they were doing.
There are a number of legal cases right now in the
United States against some of these big pharma companies because of their
irresponsible introduction into the marketplace, into the health care system of
opioids. For instance, the State of Ohio leads the nation in overdose deaths in
the US. Opioid abuse is rampant in Ohio where paramedics are increasingly
spending time responding to overdoses and where coroner's offices are running
out of room to store bodies. What's happening all across the states is there are
a number of state legislatures, a number of municipalities who are taking these
drug companies to court because of their irresponsible introduction into the
marketplace of the opioids, knowing the highly addictive nature of them.
What is the fallout? What is some of the fallout as
well for our patients? I think this legislation has some benefits, some clear
benefits, particularly when it's used in conjunction with the Choosing Wisely
program, that the province is making it even stronger and educating our health
care providers and our patients, people, about choosing wisely. So there will be
some benefits, absolutely, but again we have to be cautious. We have to heed the
expertise that is saying to us you're not hearing us; you have to listen.
I spoke with Dr. Bruce Hollett. Dr. Bruce Hollett is
probably one of the foremost addictions specialists here in the province. I
asked him was he consulted on this piece of legislation. He said, no, he wasn't.
I said: Dr. Hollett, can I say that publicly? He said: Absolutely you can.
Now, some of the concerns that he has is that, really,
what is the focus of this legislation? Is it for monitoring on patients or is it
monitoring on physicians? If it's physicians, then it has to be regimental and
it has to be implemental in its introduction. He said: There are a number of
physicians who don't even have the equipment and the processes within their
offices to be able to follow this legislation. Again, the minister is saying
that he wants to proclaim it by January 1. That's really fast. If all the ducks
were lined up in a row and if all of these concerns were addressed, then, hey,
let's go for it, let's get this proclaimed.
Dr. Hollett has some other issues that he is very
concerned about. He said: In some ways it will feel like, to patients, Big
Brother is watching. Now, we do need oversight. We absolutely do need oversight.
Sometimes oversight is because of a few, perhaps, prescribers or dispensers or
patients who are abusing the system, but we have to be very careful that we
protect privacy rights, that we protect authority rights, that we protect the
rights of all players. That's why we have to really listen to them.
He is concerned and I also spoke with SWAP, which is
the Safe Works committee that helps with the swapping and the safe-needle
exchange. Oftentimes, people who become addicted to opioids do not do it
willingly. Nobody sets out to have an addiction, but it happens.
I've had a number of people who have called my office
whose doctors, who have been long-time prescribers of opioids to them, have
either retired or passed away. Then, these people who have been so dependent on
opioids for years, who have become, at times, drug seeking, because you cannot
just stop taking opioids, you become drug sick. We all know that. We all know
what a devastating addiction this is.
So they can't find any other doctors who will continue
to prescribe the opioids to them. Well, some of us would say that's a good thing
because they're abusing the opioids. But again, if we look at harm reduction and
what the opioids do, then people have to be helped. If they want help to get off
the opioids, they need medical intervention; they need a number of inventions.
So I have people in my district who have called me
saying they can't find a doctor anywhere to prescribe the opioids or to help
them get off their opioids. One of the concerns that Dr. Hollett has also
expressed and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association is a concern
that opioids handled well, monitored well, supervised well, can help with
intense pain and can be a good drug, but they're very delicate.
They're concerned that patients, in fact, who may need
opioids for a short period of time that doctors will decide I'm having nothing
to do with opioids; I'm not going to prescribe any at all. As a matter of fact,
there are new doctors in my district who have said that. They said: No, I'm not
taking anybody on. I'm not taking on any new patients who are using opioids and
I will not be prescribing any opioids or narcotics.
I understand that, but where does that leave the
patient who is living with a severe opioid addiction? We have to find the
solutions to that and we also have to find solutions to better pain management.
There were some really good pilot projects in pain management in the province
that were delivered through Eastern Heath. The funding for those programs were
cut over the years and there are other ways of dealing with pain management.
Mr. Speaker, we have to have all of that in place. We
have to have that in place; we cannot put people in danger. The danger that we
may see is that if people cannot get the prescriptions that they need, because
they are dealing with an addiction to opioids, if the safe prescription of
opioids dries up, then people will go to the streets. Again, because they are
drug sick. They will go to the streets and they will be in danger of dirty
drugs, of synthetic drugs, of drugs that are laced with fentanyl, of using
anything to alleviate the pain that comes with withdrawal from addiction.
We all know that; the minister knows that. So it is my
hope, Mr. Speaker, that in fact what the minister will do – because I believe
that his intentions are right. I believe that we need this legislation as
quickly as possible, but I believe it has to be done right.
I suspect he's going to speak to some of the points
that I raised. I am hoping that he is re-engaged with the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner and with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association. I'm hoping that he will engage with Dr. Bruce Hollett. I am
hoping that he will engage with SWAP because these are the people who are on the
front lines, who are on the ground working with people who have become addicted
to opioids and who have even moved on to other drugs. It is absolutely essential
that this happens.
It is my hope that he will continue to work in a
professional and a responsible manner with all of these folks to help make this
act, this legislation, the best that it possibly can. In the meantime, I would
hope that he would withdraw this, do the work that has to be done and then
introduce any amendments so that we have the best
Prescription Monitoring Act and legislation in the whole country.
I believe that we can do it. I believe there is
expertise that is willing to come to the table once again to do whatever needs
to be done to ensure that, in fact, this legislation is the best in the country,
in the best interests of our prescribers, our dispensers and our patients. It
can be done.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
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 just wanted to get up for a couple of minutes and
speak on this bill because this is the type of bill I feel in this House is
something that's brought forward that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
looking for it. It's a bill that's brought forward – as the Member for St.
John's Centre just said that time, it's a bill that we need to do right. It's a
bill that needs to be done in a way that we can protect society.
With opioid abuse and use in our society today, it
strikes everybody. It strikes all kinds of homes. You don't need to be down and
out. You don't need to be a drug user on the streets. Addiction can happen to
anybody. That's what I want to talk a little bit about today.
I know the minister mentioned in his speech about the
16 deaths that have happened in the last year in this province alone. That's 16
families that this has affected and maybe through proper legislation and proper
monitoring, those deaths don't need to happen.
I had a friend recently who had an unfortunate death. I
just want to say, times have changed so much since I grew up and still growing
up probably every day, I'm still growing up – but times have changed when it
comes to drug abuse and drug use in the country, in the world and everything
else.
I had a friend of mine who had a son who – fentanyl, a
drug that I've only heard tell of a very short while ago. I saw it on the news a
scattered night and stuff like that. This young man, I think he went to a party,
whatever happened, but he died because of it. That's scary when you think about
it. A young man, he was in Alberta at the time. His family was home getting the
regular phone calls: how are you doing? Everything was great, everything was
good. Then all of a sudden they get a phone call, here is a drug that no one
hardly heard tell of before, it's after killing their son.
The same time with the opioids; the 16 you mentioned
earlier, those families, and I think about it. I can tell you of a personal
thing myself. A friend of mine had the same type of thing when it came to
OxyContin. He had a very good job. He worked three weeks on, three weeks off, a
real good job. He came to me one day and he wanted lend of $100. I kind of
couldn't believe it. I saw him and he was after losing a lot of weight. He was a
guy who was as big as I am, 150 pounds. Anyway, he was a big guy. He lost a lot
of weight. I didn't know what the idea was of why he lost the weight and
everything else, but this was one of the side effects he had through OxyContin.
Anyway, the biggest thing he was looking for, and he
said to me: Kevin, I need help; I definitely do need help. He was fortunate
enough that his family got him the help. He went and got the treatment and today
he's retired. He and his wife are doing very well. They're living together, they
have a great family. They have a couple of grandchildren on the go. I speak to
him on a regular basis, but he's doing okay.
The thing I wanted to say to the minister was that he
was the fortunate one who got help. We have too many in our society that are not
going to get help. It's important that we do this right.
Like the Member for St. John's Centre just finished,
she wants to see this done right. So do I, if that means doing whatever
consultation we got with anybody. We can hear from parents, we can hear from
abusers, we can hear from anybody in society.
My thing today, Minister, while I applaud this bill, I
think it's a great bill. I think that anytime we can save one life we should be
working together here in the House of Assembly. It's that important and I
believe that, but I believe we have to do it right.
I looked at the Medical Association. I read their
reports also. I think their main thing is to make sure that we do the proper
education and we do consult with everyone in society. No matter who it is, make
sure that we do this right.
Also, there's another little part of the bill – and I
have to say my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, did a fantastic job of
going through every part of this bill. His part that he was trying to – I think,
is going to be bringing in some amendments, hopefully, to the personal
information that's going to be given out through what we do with this bill.
Sometimes our personal information is important. I
don't think it's important enough to save a life or whatever, so I want it done
right. I hope that personal information is kept so that it's only necessary if
it gets out there and that's a part of this bill that I look forward to.
I look forward to when we get in debate, but I just
wanted to get up and say that I understand why this bill is coming in. I support
anything that we can do to save not only lives, to save families. That's what we
should be here doing.
So we should do it right. We should consult with
whoever is out there that needs to be consulted with. We all should just make
sure we're doing the proper thing when it comes to privacy, like the Privacy
Commissioner brought in.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to get the opportunity to speak to Bill 25. My
colleague for St. John's Centre did an excellent job in raising concerns. I'd
like to highlight some of the concerns that were raised by my colleague and by
others here in the House.
There's absolutely no doubt that we need legislation.
There's absolutely no doubt that we have to monitor opioids. It's interesting
that the legislation, the bill is actually called the
Prescription Monitoring Act and we find out as we read through that,
in actual fact, while it initially is dealing with opioids, it does lead to the
possibility of other medications being put into the regulatory list over time
without discussion here in the House.
We'll get to discuss this bill for the first time, but
there are a number of things in it that will allow decisions to be made down the
road within regulations that we won't get to discuss here in the House. I think
we need to do that. We need to have discussions around that point, and I'll be
speaking to that a little bit later.
Initially, I want to speak to the fact that it is a
very serious bill. The issue is a very, very serious issue. I know the minister
has said publicly that he looks forward to further debate and work on the bill
in Committee, that when we get to Committee he is open to changes.
I'm saying to the minister, because that statement is
out there publicly, I hope he means that, because I think there are definite
changes that absolutely need to be made. They've been pointed out, some by my
colleague from St. John's Centre and some by other Members of the Official
Opposition. It would really disturb me to think we are going to have this bill
go through without any changes. Not because I'm an expert in this issue, not
because I have the answers, but because people out there who are the experts do
have questions and answers. They've been referred to, but I want to refer a bit
more specifically to them.
If the minister is not going to pay attention to what
has been said by the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and if he's
not going to pay attention to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and if
he's not going to pay attention to the medical people out there who are experts
themselves in the actual delivery of opioids, then who is he going to listen to?
What I'm challenging is – not saying I'm an expert and
know the answers to all of this. I'm challenging that the minister is not
listening to the experts out there in the community. It's been outlined already
by others, the process that was followed – the so-called process that was
followed. While it is true that in an early stage the NLMA and the OIPC did have
meetings and raise some initial concerns, the government and the minister didn't
seem to understand that they had a responsibility to go back to those agencies
and say: Here's what we've come up with, what do you think?
Well, they may say they did that. Yes, but they did
that giving them less than 24 hours to respond. So if you're going to be talking
about consultation, we have to be talking about the duty to be accountable for
how we are listening to what people say during so-called consultation. This
seems to be a weakness with the government. In this process it definitely is a
major weakness, and that really bothers me.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and
the Information and Privacy Commissioner, they were forced to go public. Once
the bill was public, they then went public with regard to their concerns about
the bill. In the press release that was put out by the Information and Privacy
Commissioner, the Commissioner actually points out that while he, under the
ATIPPA, has to be silent on legislation that he has seen when it's in draft,
once a bill becomes public, he does have the responsibility and right to make
comments on that bill. So, as he put it in his release, the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner is exercising the jurisdiction to
communicate its concerns about the potential impacts of this bill on the privacy
of personal health information.
I think the minister has a responsibility to this House
and to the public and to these experts to explain why he is not taking seriously
the points that they have made. I find it very, very disturbing. I don't have
much hope when we come to the Committee stage that if we bring in amendments,
they are going to be paid attention to.
Now, maybe when the minister gets up to speak – because
he will close the second reading – when that happens, maybe when he gets up,
he's going to tell us that in actual fact that he's taking steps to look at
what's being said by the experts and that he is going to bring in amendments
himself.
We had that happen here earlier on in the fall when we
had the Elections Act. When we had the
Elections Act, we were quite concerned
about the fact that it came in without consultation, that we didn't have very
much time to read it. In actual fact, both us and the Official Opposition spoke
to the Minister of Justice about the concerns we had and amendments we wanted to
make, and we actually sat down and worked together and the minister himself
brought forward changes to that bill.
We actually had mutually agreed upon changes,
amendments, made to the bill. Now, I'd like to think that in the light of who is
speaking out – when we know that we're talking about the Privacy Commissioner,
when we're talking about the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, then
in light of who's speaking out the minister is going to stand here today and say
he's going to slow down this process and he's going to make amendments based on
what is being said because some of the things that are being said are extremely
important. I think all of them are extremely important.
One of the things that this bill allows for is search
powers: search powers of doctors' offices, search powers of prescribers, search
powers of dispensers. It allows for search powers, and both the Information and
Privacy Commissioner and the Medical Association –both of them – have questioned
these search powers.
The Medical Association actually points out that these
powers are greater than powers that are allowed in any of the other provinces
who have such legislations. Newfoundland and Labrador will be absolutely
excessive in comparison to other places. As the NLMA has put it, this act, Bill
25, “will have the largest collection of disclosure and inspection powers in the
country.” So my question is why – why is the government going so far when it
comes to disclosure and inspection powers?
As the NLMA points out, the bill is not a bill that is
about searching and punishing. It is said in section 1 of the bill, the object
of the bill is to seek to improve the health – oh sorry, I'm reading the wrong
one; I'm reading the Ontario one, which I will read in a minute. That the object
of our bill is “to educate, support and assist (a) individuals in the safe and
appropriate use of monitored drugs by identifying and reducing instances of
abuse and misuse of monitored drugs; and (b) prescribers and dispensers in
appropriately prescribing and dispensing monitored drugs.”
That sounds good, and that section reads very well. It
is enabling and supportive, rather than an emphasis on control and compliance.
Yet when you go into the bill, you find that it focuses substantially on the
role of an inspector and the intrusive power to enter premises for the
collection of information. There's really no clear explanation as to why the
government is going this route, why it's going down this path, why the minister
is doing that.
I would like to put on the floor the object of the
Ontario act, which I think is really something we can learn from. Why we don't
learn from other places and learn from other legislation, I don't know. The
Ontario act: “The purpose of this Act is to seek to improve the health and
safety of Ontarians by permitting the monitoring, analyzing and reporting of
information, including personal information, related to the prescribing and
dispensing of monitored drugs in order to, (a) contribute to and promote
appropriate prescribing and dispensing practices for monitored drugs in order to
support access to monitored drugs for medically appropriate treatment, including
treatment for pain and addiction; (b) identify and reduce the abuse, misuse and
diversion of monitored drugs; and (c) reduce the risk of addiction and death
resulting from the abuse or misuse of monitored drugs.”
This kind of clause explains very clearly what the act
is doing and nowhere is it talking about searching, going into premises, being
punitive. That's not what the act is about. This is act is questionable in that
regard.
Another point which disturbs me is that in sections 10
and 11 of the act we seem to be giving powers to the ministry which are over and
above other powers. I would like the minister – and if he doesn't do it when he
closes this section at second reading, I'll be asking for it when we're in
Committee. I would like to know why you have the ministry collecting, using and
storing information in accordance with the act and the regulations. We have a
body which does collect our information, which collects the records of patients,
which does the work that is outlined in section 10 and 11. I'm not saying that
under this act the ministry shouldn't have any involvement, but shouldn't it be
a connection of the two bodies together so that the health information centre
would be working with the ministry?
Now, I know there is reference to the centre having
responsibilities that will be conferred by the minister that will be recognized
by the ministry, but it seems to me that in sections 10 and 11 there should be
much more of a sense of working together. I think there are powers being given
to the minister and the ministry which are over and above what should be
required.
The NLMA, for example, even questions are there places
where the powers that are given to the ministry are powers that should be the
powers of the regulatory bodies. Under Ministerial regulations, there are 15
areas in which the minister can make regulations without reference to the
Cabinet. This is a pretty extensive regulatory power. The minister may make new
rules – and I quote from the bill – “respecting the additional requirements that
are required to be met before a prescriber may prescribe or a dispenser may
dispense a monitored drug;” and “generally, to give effect to the purpose of
this Act.”
The Ministerial regulations should be narrowly focused
such as the setting of fees, the specification of boundaries or prescribing the
time periods for the filling of documents. Instead, the list that is here,
really, absolutely is stepping into other areas. So, for example, the
requirements for prescribing in this province and other provinces would be set
by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Unlimited power in this regard should
not be within the power of the minister.
I don't know why the minister is persisting – and maybe
he's not, maybe we're going to hear that he isn't – in ignoring these concerns
that are being put out by the NLMA, being put out by the Information and Privacy
Commissioner. Why is the ministry taking on powers that seem to be not only
beyond what the act says its object is, but also beyond what we would expect of
a ministry.
Is it really about what they say the act is about, or
is it more about punishing people? It seems to have a real punitive tone to it,
even though – I wasn't in the briefing, but I'm told in the briefing we were
told that it's not meant to be punitive. I think the NLMA points out the
contradiction between what the object says and then what the bill does.
I'm not going to make any more points at this time, Mr.
Speaker. I think during the Committee stage, in particular, I'll have some
particulars that I'll want to bring forward and really directly ask the
minister: Are you going to change this? We don't have a good, clear explanation
of what really the purpose of this bill is, because it's much more than what the
object of the bill that is stated in section 1 says – it is much more than that.
What I want more than anything is for the minister to
stand here and tell us he's going to take seriously the objections of the
experts in the field. He's going to listen to them both with regard from the
medical perspective and also with regard to the privacy perspective. He is going
to pause this process while he works at making the amendments that will make it
and could make it the best possible piece of legislation in the country, as my
colleague from St. John's Centre pointed out.
It can be done. Right now it is not. Unless he believes
that giving these untold powers around search, in particular, and the punitive
nature of sections of the bill, unless be believes that makes it a better bill,
I will have to object. That will not make it a better bill.
He's going to have to give us a better explanation to
help us understand. At the same time, I want to understand why he's ignoring the
experts in our community.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
If
the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he closes the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much indeed. I apologize for my slow getting up out of the seat.
It's interesting to pick up on some of the threads that
have been brought up by my colleagues opposite, but I would suggest that in
actual fact the idea of a supervised, monitored program that is well supervised
and well monitored is exactly what this is about.
The pressure for this is that within the last 10 days,
50 OxyContin tablets were retrieved by law enforcement on the Burin Peninsula.
These are not illicit drugs. These are not home-grown chemicals. These are
pharmaceutical products that must have come from a dispensary somewhere and
probably on the authority of a prescription pad from somewhere.
The reason we have a problem with prescription opioids
in this province is that the prescriptions are not always as they should be in
terms of the way they're done. We have, in Canada, simply the biggest rate of
opioid prescription of any G7 country. Unfortunately, again in this area,
Newfoundland and Labrador leads the pack. We have the highest per capita number
of opioid prescriptions in the country.
The aim of this act is to educate. To do that, you need
to have some data to demonstrate the nature and locations of variations in
practice. The vast majority of the physicians, the nurse practitioners, the
dentists and the pharmacists in this province are responsible and thoughtful
professionals out to provide the best service they can. The information we will
provide them with will enable them to make that better.
The problem comes with those individuals who, for one
reason or another, do not choose to comply with best practice. This legislation
did not just condense out of a five minute exercise on the back of an envelope
somewhere. This has been in genesis since July of 2015. To put down a piece of
legislation before this House, this bill is well thought through and has dealt
with concerns that have been brought to the table by a whole variety of people.
I think, for various reasons, that has become less than clear in the dialogue
you've heard recently.
It is surprising, quite frankly, that none of the
people opposite have mentioned any of the regulatory bodies or referenced the
consultation, the extensive consultation that we have done with the College of
Physicians and Surgeons. They have a role in the maintenance of standards and
protecting the public. The intent of this bill is not to usurp that role.
The Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland
and Labrador have a similar role in respect to nurse practitioners. The reason
the language is phrased around prescribers, for example, in reference to
opioids, there are nurse practitioners, there are dentists, there are
physicians, there are also vets, which are not covered in this and that is a
whole other issue which we can talk about on another occasion. There are
equally, well, by and large, a single group of people who dispense.
On the north coast that is not the case. That is
delegated to staff within the RHA because of simple geographical reasons. So
rather than label and risk our midwives and nurse practitioners and physicians
and maybe physician's assistants, when we ever get to that day, this wording was
chosen for a reason. These words are not random on a page. We haven't reinvented
the wheel. We are the fourth province to bring in stand-alone legislation.
We could have snuck this in the back of some other act
somewhere else, but the stated aim of this is to educate prescribers and
dispensers on monitored drugs. To address the point earlier on, why is this not
about narcotics? Well, (a) narcotics is a label that has long since fallen out
of use; (b) opioids are the lethal bit at the moment.
I wrote down on the back of a piece of paper at least
three other categories of drugs. Well, two categories and one specific drug in a
third group. They are also of concern because they are substances of misuse.
They, however, are not as immediately fatal nor in the same league of a public
health crisis as the opioids that we have. For example, barbiturates,
benzodiazepines, Ativan, valium and gabapentin pain-modifying drugs are to
mention a few drugs that, at some time, the process may look at.
I'm not going to go in the way the others have done
into the depth of each clause now because I only have 14 minutes and 13 seconds
left, and I think that, to be honest, is best done in Committee. But I think
really to highlight some of the points that seem to have been hammered today,
the Privacy Commissioner himself was talking to staff in my department less than
12 hours before he went public. Well, after he had seen the draft, both as a
confidential exercise and as a public exercise, yet he chose to announce then
concerns he had not chosen to express when he saw it in the first place as part
of in-house consultation. That is an issue he will have to deal with and the
Members opposite will have to deal with also.
The NLMA represent their doctors' interest. Quite
frankly, change is uncomfortable. The regulators spoke very clearly – very
clearly – in favour of this and wanted more, but we decided there had to be a
balance somewhere between a totally restrictive environment, which actually
impinged on professional autonomy, even though it was set by the physician
regulators and the views of the NLMA.
In terms of the nuts and bolts of the implementation, I
would be happy to discuss those. They actually are covered in the legislation;
it is comprehensive. The term “inspector” was a matter of great debate within
the staff and outside. Should we call them auditors? Well, it wasn't really
financial. Should we call them agents? Well, if you think inspector is a bad
term, just think what government agents sound like when you go out there. You
know, Austin Powers, watch out.
The whole issue of nomenclature, we went to Ontario.
Ontario calls them inspectors and, funnily enough, Ontario has given their
inspectors very similar powers. What you've got and the reason this bill seems
so skewed is essentially a significant problem with a very few individuals. To
give you an example, Ontario has had exactly this kind of mechanism in place
since 2010. They have yet to perform an inspection. That's in a province which
has one-third of all of Canada's physicians. We, by comparison, aren't even a
small community in their scale of things. This is not something that's going to
happen every five minutes.
Private information – and that's the concern of the
Privacy Commissioner, and that's his job – will remain private. There's no way
that's changing. The people who would be delegated as having inspector powers
under this will be custodians of the
Personal Health Information Act. The reason there is an issue about primacy
in one of the clauses is the third piece of the puzzle.
We've mentioned prescribers and we've mentioned
dispensers. There is an onus here specifically stated on patients. Just as there
are, if you like, rogue physicians, rogue pharmacists and rogue nurse
practitioners, there are rogue patients. Without that clear primacy of this act
over personal health information, they could be shrouded in a way that would
advantage them and disadvantage the rest of the system.
The first pharmacy connected in this province to the
Pharmacy Network was in the Carbonear area. The second one down the road was in
Bay Roberts. That day, when the second one was connected, the pharmacist in the
second pharmacy rang up and said: I've just got a patient in here and according
to this you've just given her 200 OxyContin tablets and she's in for some more.
That's what this system does.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
reason it's taken so long to get here is quite simply until the Pharmacy Network
was up and everyone was on it in July, we couldn't bring this in. We've not been
sitting on our hands waiting for this to drop out of the woodwork; this is
introduced on the first sitting week of the next sitting of this House following
the implementation of the Pharmacy Network.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HAGGIE:
We
are not sitting on our hands about the regulations, either. They will be ready
to go to Lieutenant Governor in Council in time for gazetting on the 1st of
January. The piece about the hardware is deferred. Section 7 is not proclaimed
until the 30th of June.
We have a quick and easy way to get the electronics to
physicians. The comment from the Member opposite for Topsail – Paradise about
five physicians not being connected to the Internet means that the other 1,310
are. We can get them that software, for those who don't have it, very rapidly.
All they need is a CD or a DVD or a thumb drive, a username and a password. We
know who goes on; we know what they look at. So there is no breach of privacy,
Mr. Speaker.
Physicians are responsible for being custodians of
their own care patients, but they're also bound by the same rules when it comes
to looking at somebody else's patients. They can't go rambling off into the
woods. On the other hand, if an individual comes from a different practice and
says you were kind enough to see me, my family doctor can't get to me, that
physician has access to the medication profile. It's done in a way that leaves a
fingerprint on the computer and an audit trail.
It's no different than what happens to a salaried
physician in a regional health authority who accesses information. Personal
health information that's private will stay within that circle of responsible
care. The only change is that where there are reasonable grounds for concern,
there will be ability for a custodian of PHIA, bound by that act, to go and ask
the questions that the person would not answer. This isn't we're just going to
go in because we feel there's a nice doctor's office here, going to get in out
of the rain and while we're here we'll search through your charts.
This is people who have been asked because of their
practice profile to explain a prescription for 200 five-milligram hydromorphone
tablets. Nobody in the world needs one of those, unless you're going to go down
to Glenwood station and sell it.
So the answer is to that individual: Explain your
prescription, justify on clinical grounds. We'll be nice and polite; we'll send
you a letter. This is for those people who say: To hell with you, it's nothing
to do with you. This is clinical autonomy.
These are the people, the rogues, who will hide behind
the patient's chart to hide their own behaviour. Fortunately, they are very few
and far between, but when they do occur, these are legends. We all know names
and one of them didn't like the fact I used his name, but the facts of the case
were this was proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. The truth is
protection.
The facts of the case are we have, still, a challenge
with prescribing way more opioids than would appear to be justified on our
population. The thrust of this is to educate people. The idea of a portal is so
that a physician or a nurse practitioner can go and look at their own
prescribing and then can compare that with another nurse practitioner in the
same community or a rural nurse practitioner or a nurse practitioner in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Where do I lie? Am I an outlier?
I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker, for the vast majority
of physicians and prescribers that information is something they want. That
information is something they're looking forward to getting.
What's happening here is that because we've had to
craft legislation to deal with the extremes of behaviours, which are fortunately
few and far between, everyone looks as though they're being tarred with the same
brush. Quite frankly, whilst I appreciate the due diligence of the Opposition
parties in bringing these items to the floor in discussion and debate, it does
serve a rather malicious purpose of mudslinging and fear mongering.
Really and honestly, at a time – I take the Member for
the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis, his comments were well intended and
he hit the nail on the head. We've had 16 deaths in this province. We've had 57
people hospitalized for opioid related admissions. There were 2,600 deaths in
Canada over the last year. BC is on target for over 1,000 already this year, and
the year is not finished.
This is part of a bigger piece. This didn't drop out of
the atmosphere spontaneously. This built on the work of two years of
consultation, which the Members opposite were involved in in the All-party
Committee on Mental Health. We heard very clearly from people with lived
experience, from experts, this was something that was needed. We can't legislate
our way out of an opioid crisis.
The Member opposite referenced Ohio. An interesting
little fact there is they don't have a harm reduction program. They have by and
large faith-based, zero tolerance, abstinence.
There's a small town there called Portsmouth, which is
the same size as Corner Brook. In 2015-16, they had 2,000 people die from
opioid-related deaths – 2,000 in a community the size of Corner Brook. We do not
need that.
This is part of the piece. It's not the whole piece of
the jigsaw, but delaying it, obfuscating the intent of it by going down into
detail and selectively quoting chunks which are framed in a bigger context with
all the caveats that the Member opposite there wanted, but to choose to read
section 22, whatever it was, when in actual fact section 4, paragraph 2 actually
sets the context.
By going to the end and picking the bits out, leaves
out the fact there's this whole framework there of the duty of the minister to
provide consultation, stakeholder input and regulatory consultation. It's a
“shall” not a “may”; yet, everyone over there forgets about it. They forget
about it because it feeds into the narrative of a knee-jerk reaction by somebody
who's not prepared, who just wants to rush something through before Christmas.
That is not – nothing could be further from it.
There has been a colossal amount of work here done.
What we've done is we've refined other jurisdictions. We've learned from their
mistakes. Nova Scotia didn't put this in, and now they want it. PEI and Ontario
did. The others buried their regulations in other acts, so nobody noticed. We've
picked this up and taken it head on.
I believe this is a good piece of legislation. I think
it will be made better over time. I would challenge anyone of those Members
opposite over any of their pieces of consultation. We have 12 groups, 24
meetings going back then less than two years. I have spoken with Dr. Hollett
about this program and got a completely different take than you guys did, and
that was in the summer. So the facts of the case are not always as presented.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this
legislation. I challenge them over there, if they can come up with something
that will make this better or perfect, that's great. But I'll tell you what,
waiting for something perfect when we've got something very good is just simply
going to put the body count up, and that will be on them, not me.
So I'm not going to take any more time. I've made my
point. Bring on the questions and let's have Committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Is the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 25 be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
This motion is carried.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Call in the Members.
Division
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr.
Andrew Parsons, Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Kirby, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Ms. Dempster, Mr.
Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Haley, Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett,
Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr.
Holloway, Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin
Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lane.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Ms.
Michael, Ms. Rogers.
Mr. Speaker, the ayes, 31, the nays, 2.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that
the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 25, the Prescription
Monitoring Act.
A bill, “Prescription Monitoring Act.” (Bill 25)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 3.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We'd like to present the following amendment:
Subclause 3(2) of the bill is deleted and the following
substituted: (2) The purpose of this act is to seek to improve the health and
safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by permitting the monitoring,
analyzing and reporting of information, including personal information, related
to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs, in order to (a) contribute
to and promote appropriate prescribing and dispensing practices for monitored
drugs in order to support access to monitored drugs for medically appropriate
treatment, including treatment for pain and addiction; (b) identify and reduce
the abuse, misuse and diversion of monitored drugs; and (c) reduce the risk of
addiction and death resulting from the abuse or misuse of monitored drugs.
Mr. Chair, we feel that this is an appropriate
amendment to the prescribed bill here, as it will then better clarify exactly
what the role is of this bill and how it can actually meet the needs. It's in
line with Ontario's Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act and a prescribed approach
to exactly what this bill is intended to do, and would cover all those
components.
So we'd like to present that as an amendment, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Committee will recess to consider the said amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Are
the House leaders ready?
Order, please!
The amendment is deemed not in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
It's beyond the scope of the original clause in Bill 25.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Shall clause 3 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 3 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 4.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We propose an amendment to clause 4. Paragraph (f) of
the bill is deleted and the following substituted:
(f) develop educational tools, information and services
regarding the appropriate prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs;
The amendment would delete and substitute paragraph
4(f) of the bill to clarify the role of the minister. It's outlined here in the
bill. It's a very explicit change, but it's more for clarification purposes of
what the role would be.
So we would like to propose that as an amendment under
clause 4.
CHAIR:
Okay. The Committee will recess to look at the clause.
Recess
CHAIR:
Are
the House Leaders ready?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
On clause 4 the amendment is considered to be in order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception
Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's an honour to be able to speak to this amendment
that has been proposed here. It doesn't take away – what we're saying here is we
support the legislation. We support the intent of it; we support the necessity
for it. What we're proposing here is framing it in certain ways and adding in
certain things that there may be a little nuance that needs to be added to
improve it. This is all about improving it.
What we're talking about here – I mean the initial
piece of legislation did outline exactly what was being proposed here when they
talk about “educate prescribers and dispensers regarding the appropriate
prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs ….” We had no problem with that.
But the discussion that we've had – and I heard the minister say it and other
Members of this House who have spoken to it – this is a bigger issue here.
It's a bigger issue about education and education tools
that are necessary and being able to guarantee, to a certain degree, that people
understand the intent of what's being done here and they have the resources to
be able to do, particularly, that part of it. It's a holistic approach to it.
It's not only the prescribers doing it and the dispensers; it's the general
public here, the bigger picture, all the stakeholders who have a role. It's all
of us here in society, particularly around when you talk about opioids and the
epidemic that's here.
What we proposed here was that this wording would make
it a little bit more explicit and would make it in a more entrenched manner that
would broaden exactly what we're trying to achieve here. It's felt here by
adding those – and, obviously, it's in order and we would hope that it would be
looked at – that this is enhancing.
A good piece of legislation – don't get me wrong, a
good piece of legislation. We've said that at the onset. When I first spoke for
an hour last week I talked about this is a good piece of legislation; it's a
necessary piece of legislation. It will go to the next step of being able to
address the particular area that we need addressed here about opioid misuse and
addictions around that particular area.
What we wanted to do was put in another mechanism,
support, enhance the legislation here to ensure that the education tools and the
information services regarding appropriate prescribing and dispensing of
monitored drugs are enhanced somewhat.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to sit on that and see if there
are any other Members here who would like to have a few words on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the sentiment behind the Member opposite's
suggestion; however, I think this is a question of where more is just more in
terms of words. It doesn't actually add or really substantively alter the intent
of the original wording. Whilst I don't wish to appear unnecessarily
argumentative, I really can't see any merit in putting it in there.
The aim of the program is very clearly stated. The
issue about developing services and tools and these kind of things would be
subsumed simply under the phrase: educate, prescribes and dispenses; and the
phrase at the end regarding the appropriate prescribing and dispensing of
monitored drugs indicates quite clearly how they should do it and about what. I
really don't see any particular merit in just wordsmithing this particular
piece.
I look forward to further commentary on other bits of
the bill.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I actually like the amendment because it is very
specific. It's not just a general statement about educating those prescribing,
those who dispense, but that you actually do need educational tools, you do need
services to make sure that that's happening. To me, it goes further, not in
intent, but further in the meaning of educating those who prescribe and those
who dispense.
For that reason, I would think the minister would like
it to go in there because it does add more meaning to his intent with a
specificity that I think would be helpful. I would like to see this amendment
and I am going to vote for it.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be supporting the amendment as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
LANE:
As
has been said, really what we're doing is we're getting a little bit more
specific, I think. To simply say we're going to educate, what does that mean
exactly? It doesn't say how we're going to educate.
You could argue that if I just sent a letter to
somebody saying here's what you have to do, then I've educated them because I
told them how the program works, what you're expected to do. There is a big
difference in that and actually developing tools and programs and so on to, I
would say, educate someone much further and to have a template in place that
regardless who was there that they could take that template to educate people
and educate prescribers and all the people involved in the system.
I think it's more specific. I understand the intent is
probably the same, but one of the issues that we have and we continue to have,
and it's not new to this administration, but a lot of the stuff and the intent
that we hear about is probably going to be covered off in the regulations. We
don't know what the regulations are, and that's part of the issue we have with
this bill and other bills. We don't know what it's going to be.
It's fine to say what the intent is, but unless it's
actually spelled out in black and white in the legislation, that's the only
guarantee that everybody has that it's going to be done a certain way. From that
perspective, I would support this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
The
amendment has been defeated.
On motion, amendment defeated.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
Sorry, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Mr. Chair, I will make an amendment.
Clause 4 of the bill is amended by adding immediately
after paragraph (f) the following: (f.1) develop a prescriber portal that
permits prescribers to compare their prescribing activity to peer groups, and
provides access to education and professional development materials or services.
Mr. Chair, what we're talking about here is just an
amendment that does the legislative obligation to develop a prescriber's portal,
that would enhance it, would have it there forever and a day to include that
that information is usable and accessible by all involved.
Mr. Chair, I want to present this as an amendment.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The Committee will recess to consider the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The amendment is said to be in order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception
Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, as we presented in our amendment, this was about
agreeing with the intent and the whole process of ensuring that information is
shared in a proper manner, and that the key players here and the key components
are well in line with being able to disseminate that information and use it for
the benefit of addressing the opioid crisis here; particularly, ensuring that
those who are complying with the intent of the regulations and the intent of
their authority organization fall in line.
It's about the whole process we talked about on the
earlier amendment, about education and disseminating of the information so it
benefits how we approach moving this forward. What it does – as my colleague for
Mount Pearl – Southlands had outlined, this is about ensuring the details are
understandable and clear for everybody included. This would be legislated and
obligated to develop a prescriber portal, a simple process. We use it in a
number of other categories, particularly in the medical field.
We're saying this should be in there because it's an
important piece of information, an important component and another one of the
ways that we can ensure those who are following the process have an ability to
share the proper information, and in some cases, no doubt, maybe identify those
who are not following the proper procedures.
So we want to present this forward. We look forward to
any further discussion and then the vote on this amendment.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The short answer, really, is that I think 4(f) covers
this, as does 4(g). The intent I would see is under regulations there would be a
whole array of tools that could be developed to deal with educating prescribers
and the general public. To put something that prescriptive in the act, which is
really far more operational than legislative, I think may actually not benefit
people.
I think with time you might find the idea of a portal
fades. There are certainly, in other jurisdictions, far different ways of doing
that. You have individualized email PDF rather than access to a central portal.
Again, I think we're getting into the weeds and things
that would be better covered by regulation. I support the intent of it, but I
really think its place is not in section 4.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to disagree with the minister here, because the
consultation we've done and the research we've done shows that all this does
here is exactly – and the minister admitted to it – it does enhance it. He
doesn't feel it's necessary, but we feel it's necessary because it legitimizes
it through legislation and puts the portal there that's usable and a benefit. It
becomes an education tool. It becomes an information tool. It becomes a
monitoring tool. That was the intent of it here.
We still see enhancing. We see nothing wrong when
taking pieces of legislation, particularly a certain clause, and adding some
enhancements to it. These enhancements are not just made up out of thin air.
These are by research and by people in the field who want this to work.
Professionals in the field who have a stake in this and a positive stake because
they want to ensure that they can address the issue here in the most appropriate
manner.
This here, the sharing of information, the
dissemination of information, the gathering of information and having it in a
central location that is a portal that can be accessible in the proper manner by
the ones that are necessarily needed to be able to move it to the next level,
which in turn comes back into advising the minister, who then can outline
exactly how they move some of the other parts of the legislation or the process
forward. It's a positive.
To me, it's reinforcement. It's another avenue that the
minister would have to ensure the legislation he's bringing forward is
successful. We, again, are asking that people would support this because it's
another part of improving a good piece of legislation and taking it to the next
level.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I do support this amendment knowing what it's like
when you have to go out into the web world and have to search for information
and become involved in going around looking for information that you may want,
tools that you may want to find, et cetera. You can spend an awful lot of time
searching for information out there on the Internet. There's absolutely no doubt
about it.
By having a prescriber portal, then you are actually
going to bring into one place, a place where those who prescribe can go and get
the information that they need. That's what the amendment says: The purpose of
the portal would, one, allow prescribers to compare their prescribing activity
to peer groups. It would also provide access to education and professional
development materials or services.
It would save an awful lot of time for people who are
very busy people in their profession, in doing the work that they do that if
they want to improve who they are, improve their work, the time that it takes to
search online for the kinds of information that's being referred to here is time
they don't have.
I think this would really be a tremendous service to
those who prescribe, to the prescribers, a tremendous service to have this kind
of portal and I don't know why the minister wouldn't see it that way.
It's more than just a tool – tremendously more than
just a tool. The portal would become a part of the system whereby they can
access the information that they would need and the education that they need to
help them develop more as the prescribers that they are.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I, too, will be supporting this amendment as well. Mr.
Chair, if this was something totally out of the blue, something totally
different or whatever, I could understand an objection, but listening to the
minister – and I listened intently to everything he had to say since the
beginning of this particular debate, not just today but when we started it, and
what's being proposed here is exactly, unless I'm missing something, what the
minister said they're planning on doing anyway. Through the Centre for Health
Information, they would have such a portal. That's what they're going to be
doing.
If they're going to be doing it anyway, all that's
being asked here again, as I understand it, is to simply say if we're going to
do it put it in the act, put it in the legislation, so then everybody knows
that's what we're going to do as opposed to simply leaving it to the regulations
and it may happen or it may not happen.
This minister may want to do it and the next minister
might not want to do it. That's the problem. That's the problem with all of
these things. That's the problem I'm hearing from the NLMA and other groups and
so on. We'll get to other clauses, but it comes down to the fact that there are
sort of things there in the act without explanation. While the minister may have
the best of intentions with it and perhaps it will be covered off in the
regulations, the fact of the matter is that these stakeholders don't know what's
going to be in the regulations. And what this minister might want to put in the
regulations may not end up in the regulations. It may be something totally
different if a new minister comes in and nobody would be any the wiser until it
happens.
So once again, all that's being asked for is something
that's already been proposed.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Given the hour of the day, I wish to rise the
Committee.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Chair, I would move that we rise the Committee and report progress.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report progress.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Green Bay, the
Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask
leave to sit again.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Committee
ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I would move, seconded by the
Member for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave, that the House do now adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30
o'clock – and happy birthday to the Member for Lewisporte – Twillingate.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.