November 2, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 31
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
Today we
will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Burin - Grand
Bank, St. George's - Humber, Mount Pearl North, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans,
Lake Melville and Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, with leave.
The hon.
the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
P. PIKE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The 2021
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Conference and Trade Show will take
place this week in Corner Brook from November 3 to the 6. This is the first time
the MNL membership has gathered in person since 2019. Three hundred in-person
participants will attend the event with 32 councils accessing the event
virtually. Over 100 municipalities in total are represented.
The
theme of the conference this year is: It starts with us. This theme certainly
reflects the importance of municipalities in our province. This level of
government is closest to the people they represent in our communities.
The
conference agenda is full of exciting sessions and keynotes. Conference
discussion will feature topics on climate change, municipal event management and
a new provincial program, as Municipalities will launch its core municipal
training program with the College of the North Atlantic.
I would
like to join all Members in this House to congratulate our municipal leaders and
to wish them well at conference 2021.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's - Humber.
S. REID:
Thank you, Speaker.
Today I
would like to highlight the efforts of people to establish the My Dear Minnie
Museum in the Codroy Valley. Minnie White, the province's first lady of the
accordion, was born in St. Alban's, but moved to the Codroy Valley where she met
and married Richard White. They lived and raised their family in Tompkins. After
her family was raised, she returned to playing music and received many awards
before passing away in 2001.
After
much consideration, the family decided to turn her home into a museum on their
own. The museum is not just about Minnie White, but also reflects the heritage
and culture of the Codroy Valley and life in rural areas of the province.
The
museum opened in July of this year for the summer months and by appointment in
the off-season. Speaker, the museum is located one kilometre off the Trans
Canada Highway on Route 407, approximately 25 kilometres east of Port aux
Basques.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing the efforts of the White family and
celebrating the life of Minnie White, our first lady of the accordion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
L. STOYLES:
Thank you, Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to recognize two wonderful volunteers in my district:
Con and Sandra Milmore, who have gone above and beyond to help in our community.
They are everywhere, serving food to the homeless and collecting food and
donations for the needy.
They
both volunteer with groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul food bank
at St. Peter's Parish and Mary Queen of the Wold Parish. They are both members
of the Knights of Columbus and Ladies Auxiliary. Con and Sandra give of their
time and talents freely to the community so that people in need will have a
better quality of life.
Con and
Sandra have both received numerous awards and acknowledgements for their
volunteerism but, true to the volunteer spirit, recognition is not why they do
what they do. They do it because they like helping people.
I ask
all Members to join me in offering congratulations to Con and Sandra Milmore for
their community involvement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Ed Fewer
of Grand Falls-Windsor has been a legion member for 22 years, the president for
the last five years and a constant member of executive.
Ed
attended the Royal Canadian Legion's youth Pilgrimage of Remembrance to
Beaumont-Hamel. It had such a profound impact on him that he kept going back to
try and understand the enormity of the loss of life. It's been a personal
pilgrimage every year since that time for Ed.
Mr.
Fewer travels to France and Belgium each year to visit the First World War
battlefields and the Second World War battlefields. He places a Newfoundland and
Labrador flag on all the Newfoundland and Labrador Regiment graves and Canadian
flags for the Canadian fallen each and every year.
Mr.
Fewer's great-uncle, Lawrence Joseph Fewer, was killed on July 1, 1916. He died
on the battlefield of Beaumont-Hamel. Mr. Fewer just returned once again from
France and will be travelling back to France this week to observe Remembrance
ceremonies overseas.
Please
join me as we thank Ed Fewer for his dedication to our fallen loved ones, in
addition to all those who have served and serve today.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
House of Assembly provides an opportunity to recognize excellence in sports,
whether at a community, provincial or even national level. Today, I'm honoured
to introduce you to an athlete of international calibre from the District of
Lake Melville: Mr. T. J. Gear.
T. J. is
from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where he and his wife, Maria, own and operate
Gear's Gains, a professional fitness centre that has attracted great attention.
T. J. uses his own knowledge of training and fitness to create a following that
competes in various local and regional powerlifting competitions. Collectively,
hundreds of local residents are attaining their own fitness and training goals.
Last weekend, a team of eight members of Gear's Gains travelled to the Eastern
Canadian regionals in Cape Breton where each medalled and two set provincial
records.
T. J.
leads by example. In August, he placed second at the Pan-American Powerlifting
Championships in Florida. After this impressive performance, he was invited to
be part of Canada's national team. I am pleased to advise that T. J. recently
placed sixth at the classic world powerlifting championships in Sweden.
I would
like all Members of this Legislature to congratulate T. J. Gear for his
community leadership and accomplishments on the international stage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, with leave.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
SPEAKER:
Leave is granted.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to wish a happy 100th birthday to Mr.
John Pinhorn.
Mr.
Pinhorn was born in 1921 and is the youngest of seven children. He is one of the
only few surviving veterans of World War II. Mr. Pinhorn served with the 166
Royal Artillery Regiment in Britain, North Africa and Italy, and fought in the
Battle of Monte Cassino.
After
the War, Mr. Pinhorn returned home to Winterton, Newfoundland, where he married
his wife, Elizabeth Downey. They had two sons, Alex and Donald. Mr. Pinhorn made
his living largely as a fisherman, but was also a skilled carpenter who built
many homes in the area and contributed his skills to the construction of the
local school more than four decades ago. Mr. Pinhorn currently resides in the
Private Josiah Squibb Memorial Pavilion in Carbonear.
As we
approach Remembrance Day, it is important to honour those who served and
continue to serve, like Mr. Pinhorn, and thank them for their service.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in wishing Mr. John Pinhorn a very happy 100th
birthday.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, and Labrador Affairs.
L. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I would
like to tell you about a visual artist whose work is delivering a powerful
message.
Bronson
Jacque is Inuit and a proud son of Labrador who hails from Postville on the
North Coast. He has been giving expression through his art for more than 10
years, but his most recent creation may just be his most powerful.
The
Nunatsiavut artist was commissioned by the Aboriginal Women's Association of
Prince Edward Island to paint a commemorative group portrait. The mural depicts
10 family members and friends of missing and murdered Indigenous women and
girls. Each subject in the portrait is holding an object that connects them to a
missing loved one.
The
mural is more than artwork. It tells a human story that reminds us that family
members who have suffered personal loss never truly escape the mourning. Before
taking paintbrush in hand, Bronson studied photos of the women he was painting
and he listened to their heartfelt stories over a period, Speaker, of several
months. He calls it the most important project he has worked on to date.
Speaker,
the mural has had a profound effect on many people who have admired the
painting. Those who have viewed the portrait have reflected on the love, the
fight for justice, the culture and the strength. Each of the lives lost had
value and meaning. We must resolve ourselves to make this cause for change.
Please
join me in congratulating Bronson Jacque of Postville for helping us increase
our understanding of the resilience of Indigenous women and the power of
healing.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
Speaker,
I join with the minister in congratulating visual artist, Bronson Jacque, of
Labrador, a local artist delivering powerful works of art.
Bronson's latest commission is particularly impactful: A commemorative portrait
depicting family members and friends of missing and murdered Indigenous women
and girls. Each portrait subject has an object that represents a missing loved
one to emphasize they are not just statistics; they are mothers, daughters,
aunts, cousins, friends and family.
Bronson's exhibition is scheduled to be featured at the Confederation Centre of
Arts in PEI until the new year. I encourage everyone that has the opportunity to
see this heartfelt work and to remember the missing and murdered Indigenous
women and girls that it is meant to commemorate.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I would
like to congratulate Bronson on the achievement and to thank him for helping
share the story of those women and their families. Hearing stories from the
Indigenous communities about their culture and their struggle is key towards the
path of reconciliation.
We can
do better as a province to address the bias towards colonialism in our society.
Just outside this Chamber hangs a mural filled with colonialist symbols; outside
this building we proudly display a statute of Corte-Real, a propagandist gift
from Europe.
We must
challenge our colonial mindset and the ideas where we can. Art is one of the
most powerful ways we can do that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
cyberattack affecting the health care system of the province is deeply
concerning to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador. The health care workers of
our province are under enormous stress, and we in the Official Opposition wish
to thank them for their efforts to help keep health care moving.
I ask
the government: Have you asked the prime minister or other federal counterparts
for assistance for our health care system, given the enormous impact this is
having on this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker, for the
question. I thank the Member opposite.
We've
assembled the required expertise in operational, technical communications as
needed. As the Minister of Health and Community Services said yesterday, we've
also alerted the authorities in this matter, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say we certainly have great empathy and understand the pressure that this is
putting on families, on patients and on the health care system. We certainly
appreciate, as I said yesterday, the hard work of not only the Department of
Health, but the regional health authorities.
I will
say our main objective right now is to restore services. That's what we're
working toward. We will get through this, Speaker, but it is certainly taxing on
everyone involved.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, cancer treatments
have ground to a halt as a result of the cyberattack. Non-emergency appointments
have been cancelled in the thousands. We sympathize with the health care workers
who now have to operate a paper-based system.
Can the
government give any assurances regarding when non-emergency procedures and
appointments will resume in our health care system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
it is important to recognize the difficulties it's generated for patients and
families, and also to thank the staff for their perseverance once again under
yet another stressor.
Each
clinic appointment will be scrutinized by the care provider who requests it or
who has it, and will be prioritized in terms of when they are contacted. If you
have an appointment, you will be contacted about getting that rescheduled.
For the
non-urgent and the elective or planned appointments, those will likely take a
lower priority than those that are urgent because it will be done on clinical
need. For those people whose condition changes, I would refer them back to their
primary care provider for reassessment, Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
As we
saw with COVID, even urgent interventions are being pushed down the road. People
need to know that they can still access health care immediately to deal with
those urgent situations.
This
situation has been known since Saturday, four days ago. The people of the
province need to know when non-emergency care will resume in our province. The
minister referenced some health authorities being less affected than others at
this moment.
I ask
the government: Is there any capacity to send patients from one health authority
to another in order to maintain some level of service?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
The
provincial nature of some of our programs means that they are significantly
impacted. We have certainly worked very hard to try and identify those
individuals and, as I've said, to focus on contacting those who require urgent
treatment.
Emergency departments are open, emergency health care is available and
ambulances can be called if needed. We are working hard to mitigate the effects
of this failure, working towards remediation and rebuilding.
It would
be premature at the moment for me to give a timeline, as that would be purely
speculative. But we are discussing this on a regular basis with our managed
service provider in the Centre for Health Information, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
people of this province need to know that everything is being done to ensure
that this is a minimal interruption. As we know now, it's becoming another part
of the crisis we face in health care.
Experts
from around the country have given their analysis of the situation. One who
spoke on CBC last evening stated: If the primary records and backup records are
both compromised in this attack, it would be the worst-case scenario.
I ask
the government: Do you agree? Is this the worst-case scenario our health care
system is facing?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
As soon
as we became aware of this possible attack, we engaged the appropriate
authorities. We have brought in significant outside expertise. There is an
investigation ongoing. In terms of that, I think because of that it would be
inappropriate for me to comment further.
We are,
however, working, literally, round the clock to remediate the problems of access
to health care. If you are acutely unwell emergency care, ambulance services and
primary care are available. Everything we can do to minimize delays and advance
treatment, we are currently doing.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
hearing, all Members of this side of the House, of the hundreds of individuals
who have gone to emergency and, unfortunately, the overburden on the staff there
has gotten to a point where people walk out with serious injuries because it's
not capable of being able to handle the situation at this point. We need better
interventions.
The RCMP
have launched an investigation into the cyberattack yesterday. The minister
could not confirm whether a cyberattack had taken place.
I ask
the minister: Can you confirm today the nature of the attack that we are dealing
with and is it a ransomware attack?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I will
say again that we have assembled all the expertise that we require during this
unfortunate situation, all the security experts, all the operational, technical
and communications, as I've indicated. Our main objective here is to really
ensure that we restore services as quickly as possible.
I can
appreciate how difficult this is for patients. I can appreciate how difficult it
is on our health care system, but our primary goal right now is working to
restore services. All the expertise that is required has been assembled and
we're working through this situation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
Can the
Minister of Finance confirm whether a ransom has been demanded of government in
this situation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much.
As I
said and I'll repeat myself, we have assembled all the expertise that is
required from an operational, from a technical, from a communications
perspective. We are working through this issue.
Again, I
will say that the primary goal here is to restore services as quickly as
possible and that's what we're focused on. We understand the impact on our
health care system, we understand the impact on patients, Speaker, and we are
primarily focused on doing just that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
people of this province need and want to know exactly what's happening. Why
we're hiding behind not sharing information makes no sense here. Everybody wants
to know what's happening and be part of the solution here. We need to be open
and transparent with the people of this province. People are fearful and we want
to diminish that fear by telling people exactly what's happening out here so
they can get back to having access to health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Will the government declare a
provincial state of emergency?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I will
say again that we have assembled the expertise that we require. We have
assembled the teams of people that need to assist during this particular
situation on the operational side of things and on the technical side of things.
We've alerted the authorities. Now our focus is really to restore services.
So I'll
say to the Member opposite yet again, please ensure that when we're talking
about this situation that our focus is on the patients, is on restoring service,
is on making sure that we are focused on the right things, at the right moment
and we listen to our expertise.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
couldn't agree more with the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board. That's why we're saying a state of emergency would ensure that all of us
in this House focus, and all of our energies are focused, on getting our health
care system back up and running for the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL:
Speaker, during the COVID-19
outbreak in February, the Premier took to the airwaves for daily updates and
repeatedly stated the people of the province need to know there is a Premier
here to work in crisis. Today, cancer care has been stopped in its tracks;
diagnostic work for chronic illnesses has slowed to a standstill. The health
care system in Newfoundland and Labrador is ground to a halt.
I ask
the Premier: Will you cut your conference short and come back to deal with the
crisis we have in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you very much, Speaker,
and I thank the Member opposite for the question.
The
Premier has been fully engaged, fully informed. He has a very strong and
competent team here in St. John's. He is engaged in this very issue, as are the
experts that are required to assist us to move through this particular challenge
that we're having.
Speaker,
I'll say it again. We're all focused on ensuring that we restore services as
quickly as possible. I think you've heard, operationally, from the Minister of
Health and Community Services, and that's what we're doing.
We have
faced these type of situations most recently with Snowmageddon and with COVID-19
and the health care authorities are working through the problems.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, we spoke with members of the public who were turned away at the
cancer care clinic here in St. John's. We know because of a return to a
paper-based system things are moving slowly. We know that; we realize that. But
cancer does not wait.
I ask
the minister: What is being done to ensure a continuity of treatment and
diagnostic work for those in need?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
very important question for those people who are trying to navigate their cancer
journey.
From our
point of view, each appointment that has been deferred will be examined by the
relevant clinician and a decision made as to how urgently to bring these folks
back once our system starts to commence more normal operations.
Because
of the challenge of our systems being so integrated with electronic
communication and prescribing through a provincial program based out of Eastern
Health, we are working with the health authorities to find ways round those
communication blocks.
If you
have an appointment, you will be contacted about a different time and date to
attend.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Family
doctors and primary care providers are one of the keys to a functioning health
care system. Right now, the Medical Association estimates that close to 100,000
people are without a family physician. Oftentimes, the family physician is the
point of contact for a patient accessing the health care system.
I ask
the minister: How will people without a family doctor or primary care provider
be contacted through this situation to ensure they don't fall through the
cracks?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
If they
have an appointment, there will be a contact point available to staff at the
facility. Private offices are not affected by this directly. This is an issue
relating to regional health authority infrastructure and IT serviced and
provided by Bell among others and the Centre for Health Information.
From our
point of view, we are aware of the challenges of patients without primary care
providers and that's why a couple of weeks ago we announced, as an
interim-bridging measure, a package of about $30 million to improve the
situation in the short- and medium-term. We are in discussions with the NLMA on
primary care and recruitment, Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
We've
already heard today in a couple of responses how they understand the impact on
staff and they recognize the contribution of staff.
In a CBC
story last week, the president of the Nurses' Union said the Janeway emergency
room is in a dire situation with staff being forced to work 24-hour shifts,
mandated overtime and 36, 16-hour shifts since August. To quote the president of
the Nurses' Union: “When our members are tired, when they're mentally exhausted,
that equates to risks for patients and risks for our members.”
Now, the
fallout from this cyberattack has fallen on their laps. I ask the minister: What
are you going to do to help our overworked nurses through this crisis?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Again,
another equally important question. The staff of our regional health authorities
and nurses and others have stepped up and continue to persevere through what is
a unique-in-our-experience situation.
In terms
of our relationship with the Registered Nurses' Union, they are cordial and
effective, and we have multiple channels with Ms. Coffey and her team, working
on things such as workplace burnout, in terms of working on scheduling and these
kinds of things. Obviously, these will be a little difficult to continue with
under our current situation, but the channels are open and the doors are open,
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Speaker, there's a human toll
to this crisis on top of everything else. Paper is being physically run around
hospitals. Data entry means more delays for patients, which in turn adds stress
and anxiety to our health care workers.
I ask
the minister: What supports are being offered to our health care workers dealing
with increased stress and anxiety now and in the aftermath of this situation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
Indeed,
I think it would be fair to say that with the efficiencies, automation and
digitization of the health care system that we've seen over my lifetime and the
last 20 years, we've really been pushed back about 30 or 40 years with this
incident.
In terms
of support for emotional and physiological well-being of staff, we actually have
a very robust system through Employee and Family Assistance through the regional
health authorities, we have DoorWays for those people who feel they need more
and we also have a very good suite of online apps that will help with things
like mindfulness, relaxation and stress reduction, Speaker.
Again,
happy to talk to the RNU to see if there are any other areas they would like us
to explore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, yesterday I asked
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL if any external security
audits have been conducted for government and IT infrastructure since she became
minister; however, an answer was not provided to this very important question.
Instead the minister highlighted a recent Member's statement about cybersecurity
month.
I ask
the minister: When was the external audit conducted?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of the security of the core government IT, we have a range of providers and
tactics that we put in place to make sure that our systems and the data of the
people of the province is as secure as it can be. Cybersecurity is an ongoing
threat; everyone must remain diligent.
At the
moment, in terms of the issue with Bell, NLCHI and the provincial government
systems, there's nothing out of the ordinary for us to report.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Again, the question was: When was the last external audit conducted?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of the government IT and our cybersecurity, we have a range tools and providers
in place to help protect our systems and the data of the people of the province,
which we take very seriously. There is a range of things that we're doing; it's
an ongoing effort. Everyone needs to remain vigilant, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Again, I ask the minister:
When was the audit conducted?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of the core government IT's cybersecurity, we have a robust program in place. We
have vendors; we have tools. It's a constantly changing landscape, Mr. Speaker,
and our teams try our best to keep up. Cybersecurity is an ongoing threat; we
get thousands of intrusion attempts a month that are automated intrusion
attempts and cybersecurity is everyone's responsibility, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
I guess from the response there hasn't been one done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, in June 2020, a
warning was sent to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security regarding increased
risk of data breaches and attacks by hackers against health care systems across
the country.
I ask
the minister: What has your department done to increase security as a result of
this warning?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So we
have a range of tools and providers in place to help ensure our systems are
secure against cybersecurity attacks. It would be irresponsible of me, Mr.
Speaker, to divulge certain things to this House and to the general public in
terms of our cybersecurity efforts.
We are
protecting the data and systems of the people of the province and we have a
range of tools in place to do that. We take that responsibility very seriously,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Well, I guess the answer to
the first one was, is it yes or no or was it done, and we didn't get an answer.
And we didn't get an answer on this one. So I don't know when we're going to get
answers and the people of the province need to know when this is going to be
done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Speaker, a disturbing detail in this cyberattack is the breach of the backup
data for the health care system. The backup data should be stored separately,
totally disconnected from the primary database.
I ask
the minister: Is the primary and backup health care data stored separately in
this province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
In
addition to our robust cybersecurity plans, we also have extensive backup
programs for all of our systems. They're different, obviously, for cloud systems
versus on-prem systems. We have backup teams and specialists.
Again,
in terms of the cybersecurity and the risk to our backups and our core systems,
we have a range of providers and systems in place to help us mitigate those
risks that are very real, Mr. Speaker. We get thousands of intrusion attempts a
month and we are doing our best to protect the systems and data of the people of
the province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
In 2015, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador published an independent
security report review relating to two incidents that occurred in previous
years. The report outlined recommendations to the government in NL based on
these incidents.
I ask
the minister: Were these recommendations implemented?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of our cybersecurity and our backups and everything to do with our IT systems,
in particular cybersecurity, given the most recent threat, we take that
responsibility very seriously. We have a range of vendors and programs in place
to help us manage that.
Everyone
has to be vigilant, Mr. Speaker. I recommend everyone not click on links or open
attachments from outside sources. Double-check that the sender of an email is
the one that you think it is. I would ask also, Mr. Speaker, not to put your
password in websites that are not your main government IT websites and to be
extra vigilant in your day-to-day activities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL:
Thanks, Speaker.
During
COVID, we led the country in everything that we done. Why can't we lead the
country in cyberattacks? Why can't we protect our province from that? Why can't
we lead it?
Speaker,
our own Verafin is an international leader in cybersecurity, specializing in
protecting banks from these kinds of attacks.
I ask
the minister: Has the government reached out to Verafin for their expertise in
this situation?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has indicated, we have
engaged all of the appropriate national experts to help us with this current
issue, in terms of NLCHI and the Bell situation. In terms of our cybersecurity,
we have a robust suite of products and services and staff on hand to protect the
information and systems of the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Finance said “we've invested a ton of money, Mr. Speaker, in
cybersecurity and we're going to continue to do so.”
Can the
minister provide details of how much has been spent for cybersecurity in the
past five years?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So in
terms of our cybersecurity investment, there is a range of things that we invest
in. Every program and service that we deliver, we have to look at from a
cybersecurity lens. It is not just one thing, we have many things and everything
is a cybersecurity measure. Everything from awareness and education, training of
our public service employees but also, yes, specific targeted cybersecurity
systems.
I'm not
comfortable giving additional information at this time, Mr. Speaker, but
cybersecurity of the data and systems of the people of the province is extremely
important to this government.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Speaker, I asked how much
money has been spent in the last five years and if you could provide details on
how the money was spent. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Speaker,
how much has been spent on protecting the IT infrastructure from cybersecurity
threats in the health system?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of core government's cybersecurity spending, everything, every system, every
initiative that we do, in terms of resident facing and internally facing, in
terms of our IT landscape, Mr. Speaker, we look at from a cybersecurity lens. We
do privacy assessments, and all that includes a cybersecurity lens, which is
extremely important.
All of
our systems are potentially vulnerable. We have to be vigilant in all areas, in
all aspects. These intrusion attempts are very sophisticated. We get thousands a
month. Everyone has to be diligent at all levels of government.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the answers
given by the minister to the last seven or eight questions does not provide any
confidence to anyone in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that she has
control of what's going on right now in our province and that is scary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM:
I ask the minister: Are there
any concerns over the payroll of health care workers arising from the
cyberattack?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, I think the question
was quite offensive to the minister in that she has provided the information to
the Members opposite. I think everyone can appreciate that we have to be careful
in what is being said because we are in a situation where we have engaged
expertise in the operational, technical, the communications area around this
particular challenge that we're now having.
We're
very focused, as I've said, –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) paycheque?
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
I beg your pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER:
It's a yes-or-no answer.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
S. COADY:
Do you want me to answer the
question is the question? I'm answering what they've asked.
We are
focused on this side of the House on restoring services, not on politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
some residents of Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Some
residents of Labrador have been turned away and sent back to Labrador due to the
cyberattack on our health information system.
I ask
the minister: Will he lift the penalties on MTAP for multiple submissions in one
year for these Labradorians that must rebook?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm
aware that Eastern Health, in particular, have looked at those people who have
travelled from Labrador for tests, and also, actually, from Saint-Pierre et
Miquelon, with whom we have a health care relationship, and made arrangements to
accommodate them wherever possible.
Certainly, those people who could not be accommodated because the tests could
not go ahead safely, if there are concerns about their expenses, given the
unique nature of this situation, I would be happy to look at that from a
sympathetic point of view.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
This
holdup of our health care system, on top of other factors that are ongoing in
our health care system, I ask the minister: Will he call upon other provinces to
help fulfill our impending health care backlog?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
issue of backlogs and delays I think is as yet unquantified. We don't have a
clear timeline for the rebuild and restoration of services. That is likely,
quite frankly, to be phased in and it would not surprise the experts if there
were still some difficulties with that process.
Once the
magnitude of the situation can be assessed in a realistic way, it will be up to
the regional health authorities to come forward with some recommendations as to
how we can help them help those people who were delayed, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
Will the
minister ask our neighbour Quebec if he can divert Labradorians of urgent and
semi-urgent situations to Quebec like we have done in the past?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I am
open to any practical suggestion. The issue of those operational things I would
leave well and truly to the regional health authorities because they have that
expertise, that experience, and I would be happy to discuss any recommendations
that they might bring forward.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
Last
week, I tabled a private Member's resolution calling on government to develop a
transition plan to complete our active offshore oil fields and reach a climate
crisis agreement with Ottawa that would recognize the value for society to leave
other commercially viable prospects such as the Bay du Nord field undeveloped as
the world moves away moves from hydrocarbons.
I'm
asking whether government will take a serious look at this option and direction.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly happy to answer this question, which I do think is timely given what's
going on in the world and given where our Premier is right now and all the
leaders of the world debating climate change and the transition that's going on
in the energy sector.
What I
can say is while we look at, very seriously, the reduction of emissions, I do
think it is responsible that we look at the resource that we have, that is
still, indeed, in effect that we've been continually working on the lowering of
emissions as it relates to our oil and gas sector.
I'll
point out that it was just a couple of years ago in this House that there was a
unanimous vote on getting to net zero in this province by 2050. We continue to
take actions to get us there, including using our oil and gas, but, at this
time, we continue to work with them for all the production and for the value
that they are bringing to this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
I, for one, am very pleased
to see that the Premier is with other leaders around the world tackling the
climate crisis at COP26. With the average temperature projected to rise six
degrees in just 29 years in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and 7.3 degrees in Nain where
it will become warmer than here in St. John's, for example, will our province
sign on to the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance being proposed by Denmark in Scotland?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
come back to the declaration that the prime minister made yesterday, which I
would point out where there were three, I guess, prongs to it: One being
supporting the global phase out of coal; number two, helping to develop the
country's transition to clean fuel alternatives; and, thirdly, to reduce
pollution in the oil and gas sector.
Certainly, I've had a conversation with my federal counterpart yesterday prior
to his departure to Scotland. So we will continue to work on lowering emissions
in this province and lowering emissions in the sector. I would point out that
all the operators themselves are starting to take net-zero transition plans
themselves. I think we can have a transition that makes the best of our oil
resources as we have it and also looks at the fact that we have renewables that
will be coming on stream and helping our neighbours in this country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Time for a quick question; no
preamble.
P. TRIMPER:
Very quick:
Does this government agree that the climate crisis is the single greatest
threat for future generations in our province?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
it's hard for me to speak on behalf of the Premier and speak on behalf of
government. But what I would say is that when I read all the evidence and see
everything that's going on, it's hard to discount the fact that climate change
may be the greatest existential crisis we have faced in some time.
One stat
I read this morning from a gentleman who's called the living Darwin is that when
you see we've had more animals becoming extinct than there have been in the last
10-million years, it's hard to ignore that kind of talk. So I would say that,
yes, we take this extremely seriously.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Speaker, pursuant to section
26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration
Act, I am tabling one order-in-council relating to a funding pre-commitment
for fiscal years '22-'23 and '23-'24.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I will move the following, that notwithstanding Standing
Order 9, that this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3,
2021, but shall continue to sit to conduct business of government and if it does
not adjourn earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
T. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
answer to a question raised by the Member for Conception Bay South yesterday, I
have some additional information. There was one unregulated family child care
home in CBS where there was an investigation that took place on October 6, 2021.
They had a large number of children, over and above what they should have had in
the operation, and they were directed to reduce it to four, as they were
unregulated, in order to continue to operate without being regulated under
legislation.
Follow-up was completed with all parents who had children registered with the
provider and we are confident that the provider has reduced the number to four
children. Speaker, we are not shutting down unregulated child care services but
when the department is made aware that an unregulated child care service
provider is operating with too many children, staff of the department
investigate.
If too
many children are confirmed to be registered with the service, the provider has
two options: either reduce the number of children or proceed to becoming
regulated via the family child care agency or through the regional office. Staff
continue to monitor the home for a period of time to ensure that the numbers
have been reduced.
Mr.
Speaker, our legislation is clear and we must maintain our legal
responsibilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
WHEREAS
there are many hopeful mothers and couples in this province dealing with
infertility issues and require medical assistance to conceive; and
WHEREAS
the cost associated with out-of-province fertility treatments, specifically in
vitro fertilization, is extremely cost prohibitive; and
WHEREAS
there are doctors in the province trained in in vitro fertilization and have the
desire to set up an in vitro fertilization clinic in the province; and
WHEREAS
the province is dealing with an aging population and serious population growth
challenges;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a fertility clinic within the province
providing full fertility services, including in vitro fertilization, for hopeful
mothers and families and, in the interim, provide financial assistance to access
out-of-province fertility treatment and services.
Speaker,
we presented this petition on numerous occasions. I'll just take a different
route this way in explaining it. This is an extremely time-sensitive issue for
many young women and couples in the province. As I said, doctors in this
province have submitted a proposal in 2018 to establish an IVF clinic in the
province – 2018.
The
Premier committed to establishing IVF services in the province nine months ago,
but has not reached out to these doctors. The Minister Responsible for Women and
Gender Equality has committed to a review, but has not reached out to these
doctors. The Minister of Health and Community Services three months ago promised
a travel package within weeks, but we're still waiting. This is from a minister
who – by his own words – underpromises.
This is
a critical need for our population, for the young women and families who want to
start a family and stay in this province. We don't need any more commitments, we
need action and we need it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Women and Gender Equality for a response.
P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Speaker.
Again,
we've heard about this issue now of course for the last two weeks in the House
of Assembly, and the information remains the same. However, I will say though,
Speaker, that I'm certainly not going to play politics with this issue. It is a
very sensitive issue for women, for couples and for families who are looking to
start and expand families.
The hon.
Member referenced the doctors. I have received correspondence to my department,
and I have indeed been in touch with a third party, actually, the Provincial
Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I have full intention to meet with
anyone who wants to call the department. I can say the same perhaps for my
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services.
The last
update that the Office of Women and Gender Equality received from the Department
of Health and Community Services is that currently there is a program being
developed. The details are being confirmed to help get funding into the hands of
the recipients who are eligible to get this treatment. The Member is right that
the Premier has committed to a review of these services. We will certainly do
everything within our reality, our fiscal framework, to help people who
certainly want to start and expand their families.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker,
the residents of the Exploits District have a great concern from the result of
the 24-hour emergency service cut to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in
Botwood. All residents feels that the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service does not
adequately and efficiently address the emergency requirements of the district
affecting both patients and residents to receive adequate care when needed.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to restore the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr.
Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre immediately.
Speaker,
this is still an ongoing issue in the district. Again, it was promised in 2019;
still no opening of the 24-hour emergency service, as promised by the Premier in
2019. The minister has said he would look at it after the opening of the
long-term care unit. That's been done.
Mr.
Speaker, they keep making promises. Even in the 2021 election, again it was
announced that the 24-hour emergency service would open. They want their
promises. They want what was told to them. Not service by needs, they need the
24-hour emergency service.
So if
the minister had no intentions of opening the 24-hour emergency service, why did
he make those promises? Why were the election ploys and promises being made? If
it was just to win seats in the Exploits District, why do you play with peoples
lives this way? We want the 24-hour emergency service restored in Botwood.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
present a petition again today on the opening of the Service NL building in
Corner Brook – Motor Registration.
These
four people that signed this are from Meadows. They travel probably about 40
minutes to get there. They find it very difficult to drive there and stand up
and hopefully that someone may cancel so that they can get in. There are a
number of petitions that I have presented from the people of Humber - Bay of
Islands, Corner Brook, Massey Drive area to have this service open.
We still
have not gotten any logical reasons why they closed the offices across the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We've seen people out in the rain –
seniors out in the rain, wind, lining up just hoping to get in. I had one person
who had to start arranging their doctor's appointments around Wednesday morning
to try to get their driver's licence and get a picture – just to get a picture.
If they never got it, they had to go do another test; 81 years old and had to go
get another test.
I will
keep presenting the petitions as long as the people of Humber - Bay of Islands,
Corner Brook, Massey Drive area continue to sign them. Again, we're supposed to
provide services to the people and not cause the stress and strain of wondering
if they can get their licence, if they can get their picture.
I asked
the minister on several occasions to explain logical reasons why they're being
closed. We always hear many concerns from the government that we have to change
things because of COVID and the answer you get from the minister is that it
worked well during COVID so we'll keep it going. It didn't work well during
COVID, a lot of people were stressed out and it is still not working well.
As we
see, it is not just now in Corner Brook. I know the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands presented petitions; he is getting a lot of calls. I know out in
Harbour Grace where people are lined up in the rain. If we call that service,
Speaker, I think we all got to look at ourselves in the mirror. If we're putting
seniors out in the rain in Harbour Grace and think that's suitable? I think we
have to start looking at ourselves and I think the government has to look at
themselves and say what are we doing with Service NL's Motor Registration?
I urge
the government again today to reconsider that decision. Let's put it back so we
can all applaud the government, put back services and stop putting people
through the stress and strain if they're going to get their driver's licence, if
they're going to get their picture taken in time so they can drive their
vehicles.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
I take this opportunity, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to move the adjournment
of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance,
that being a current information technology disruption in our health care system
and the effect it's having on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Before we adjourn, we'll give
an opportunity for quick comments.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you, Speaker.
I
appreciate the Member opposite bringing forward this concern, but I will say to
the Speaker that I think this has happened in other jurisdictions. This is not
an unusual circumstance in the country or around the world that we have engaged
the correct expertise, as I indicated in the House of Assembly, operationally,
security experts, technological experts, communications experts. We are working
on ameliorating and restoring the services that we have.
Speaker,
we've alerted the authorities. This is certainly nothing political. I think it
is around the whole issue of getting ourselves back, making sure that we have
the services and restoring the services and moving forward.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I want
to comment briefly on this and just to reiterate what was said several times
during Question Period this afternoon, is that the RCMP has been contacted and
engaged in relation to the IT –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
J. HOGAN:
As I was saying, the RCMP has
been contacted by the Department of Health and Community Services in relation to
the IT systems outages that is affecting a number of health services in this
province.
We all
recognize on this side of the House the concerns and frustrations that members
of the public dealing with the health care system are feeling right now and we
do understand how important the health care system is to everyone in this
province.
But I do
want to stress that the RCMP has initiated a criminal investigation and they are
drawing upon specialized units within the RCMP that has expertise that none of
the Members in this House have in relation to cyberthreats.
We can't
provide any further information and we will not provide any further information
in relation to an ongoing RCMP investigation. That is very important to stress
in this House here today.
We also
do not want to create an unnecessary panic in this House. That is not what
leaders do. The Minister for Digital Government and Service NL answered multiple
questions today that were put forward to her and the purpose of this emergency
debate, in my opinion, will be to direct more questions towards a ministerial
department. That is now what emergency debates are for. That's not the purpose
of an emergency debate.
There
are also multiple privacy issues that are raised with regard to people's health
records that I don't want to, nor do any Members on this side of the House want
to address in this House here this afternoon in emergency debate.
Again,
the issues have been brought forward to the RCMP. I would suggest that the House
let the experts in this situation, criminal investigations and international
cyberthreats, deal with that because they are the experts. They are ongoing
investigations that I don't want to as Attorney General and Minister of Justice
and Public Safety want to debate here in public on the House of Assembly floor.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It seems
the debate has started. According to what I was told, we would present the
motion, you would advise me whether it's in order or not, then we would start a
debate. It seems like debate started a bit early.
I think
in fairness to the general public, whoever is watching this House, there is
something that needs to be clear. What the Minister of Justice just stated that
time was totally false for what we want. Not false in – he's bang on, on his
issue. That's not our issue. Our issue – and comments and chuckles across the
way do not help that people are in emergency rooms over in the Health Science
Centre waiting for 24 hours and their life on edge not knowing what to do. I
don't appreciate this being humorous because it's not.
We may
not be experts in the law enforcement but we're experts in dealing with people
and that's why we're elected. That's what we're here for. That's why we're in
this House, to represent the people who elected us.
They are
concerned about the health care and that's what we want this debate about. It's
about what's happening in our health systems, Mr. Speaker, the plan, how we deal
with this serious crisis. Nothing to do with the police investigation. Don't
muddy the waters. That's not what this is about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
B. PETTEN:
This is an emergency debate
to get to the issue about how we deal with the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador that are in the emergency rooms worried and contacting us on a daily
basis. That's what we're here to debate, not the RCMP investigation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I think
if you reflect on the remarks of the Member opposite, the Member for CBS, what
he just finished in his concluding remarks. He said these are things on a daily
basis and we understand that there are issues around health care. He did say in
his remarks, Hansard will reflect, Mr.
Speaker, that these are issues of a daily basis. We agree that these are issues
of a daily basis.
I can
commit to the Members opposite that after we move through the present security
risk, the security situation we are in, this government, this side of the House
is more than open to a debate on The Way
Forward on health care.
We're
having that debate, Mr. Speaker, when you think about it. This has been
recognized through the health forum, through Dr. Parfrey and Sister Davis.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to reflect on the closing remarks of the Member for
CBS when he says this is on a daily basis.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
This House does stand
adjourned until we have an opportunity to review the adjournment for the urgent
matter.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
Before I
make my ruling, I would recognize that the Member for Conception Bay South has
provided me with a copy of the motion as per Standing Order 36, which I will
provide to the Clerk to be tabled.
In this
matter, I will be guided by a ruling by Speaker Hodder in the House on April 22,
2004, wherein he based his analysis on the urgency of debate by Members of the
House, rather than the urgency of the matter. This is confirmed in various
parliamentary texts, including
Parliamentary practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, page 86, where
it says: Urgency has consistently been interpreted as urgency of debate, not
urgency of the subject matter.
While I
recognize that this is an ongoing issue which is affecting many people in our
province, Members have other parliamentary opportunities to ask questions of
government regarding this matter. The matter of urgency of debate in this House
today, which would supersede all House proceedings, has not been established;
therefore, it's my ruling that this matter do not proceed under Standing Order
36.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Deputy Government House Leader that under Standing Order 11(1) this House not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 2, 2021.
SPEAKER:
It is the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 36.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader that Bill 36 An Act Respecting
The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the Bill 36, An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The
Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General
And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province.” (Bill 36)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's
important that the Auditor General's office in this province have the means and
tools necessary to carry out the important work on behalf of the people of the
province. I am pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to and propose
Bill 36, the amendments to the Auditor
General Act, 2021.
With the
exception of some minor amendments, Speaker, the
Auditor General Act has not been updated since 1991. Thirty years
have passed and changes are needed to modernize the legislation and ensure that
the Auditor General has the necessary access to information to enable oversight,
accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing.
The bill
drafted aims to strengthen the Office of the Auditor General as it continues to
conduct performance audits, provide independent oversight and ensure the public
dollars and other resources are being used in the most effective way possible.
Speaker,
the proposed bill will modernize the act, align the province's legislation with
other jurisdictions in Canada, increase access to information and enhance the
scope of the Auditor General. These changes are being put forward after
considerable conversations and meetings with the Office of the Auditor General
who was supportive of the legislation being introduced here in for second
reading.
Currently the Auditor General is responsible for audits, financial statements
and accounts of the province and has the authority to make any examinations that
are necessary to complete that work.
In
practise, he or she also conducts performance audits which go beyond the scope
of financial affairs. Performance audits review the wider issues of an
organization or program and whether it's achieving the objective goals and
economic efficiency. They are sometimes often referred to as value-for-money
audits because they can advise whether there is value received for the money
that's being spent. Language in the act is updated to reflect this practice.
Speaker,
the Auditor General can also undertake a special assignment request by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts
Committee. This can be a matter related to financial affairs, to public property
or to a person or organization who has received financial aid.
This
power remains in the new act. Notably, the Auditor General will also now be able
to audit, as necessary, persons and organizations that have received government
funding. The ability to audit persons including corporations and organizations
in receipt of government funding will be on a go-forward basis from the
commencement of this section of this legislation. This will not apply
retroactively.
I must
note that the intention of these changes is not to single out individuals in
receipt of funding. It applies to funding that is material, meaning an amount
that would matter to the public.
Speaker,
the scope of the Auditor General will also be expanded by making it the auditor
of all Crown corporations and agencies. Essentially, the Auditor General will
have a right of first refusal to audit Crown agencies and corporations.
The
current practice sees certain Crown agencies and Crown corporations contract
agents to conduct audits on their behalf. With this proposed legislation, the
Auditor General will be able to audit by default and will be the body
responsible for contracting external auditors to conduct audits on their behalf.
Delayed
commencement is included in the draft bill to ensure the Office of the Auditor
General and government have sufficient time to review resources and implement
the changes needed.
Speaker,
any time we can enhance transparency and accountability to the public, we should
do so. In a recent report from the C. D. Howe Institute on financial
transparency in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador received a C plus, placing us
in the middle of the pack. But, Mr. Speaker, we want to be leaders. To that end,
access to information is enhanced in the new proposed act. The Auditor General
will be able to access Cabinet records when it's necessary as a part of an
audit.
Information regarding financial decisions of Cabinet and Cabinet records
including explanations, analysis, policy options related to public expenditures
can be exempted. This will exclude the deliberations of Cabinet, which is an
important provision to ensure that ministers can continue to have frank and open
debates on important matters before Cabinet.
Speaker,
the proposed amendments in the Auditor
General Act, 2021 also has some teeth when it comes to offences that have
been included and defined under the act. The penalty for obstructing is up to
$1,000 or up to three months in prison.
Finally,
Speaker, there are a number of general updates also being proposed. This
includes noting that the deputy Auditor General would be a position now in
legislation, clarifying that audit working papers are not subject to ATIPPA, and
that the Auditor General cannot serve in a public office for one year
post-position.
Speaker,
I close by referencing the Memorial
University Act, as I know Members opposite have been calling for the Auditor
General to have greater access and insight into Memorial University and its
operations. The Auditor General can currently, as per the
Memorial University Act, audit the
Board of Regents of the university. This is not changing, but as the proposed
Auditor General Act, 2021 applies to
all departments, Crown agencies and Crown-controlled corporations, the Auditor
General will be responsible now for appointing an agent to act on behalf of the
Auditor General.
In the
same way the Auditor General has the authority to conduct performance audits,
section 38(1) of the Memorial University
Act is repealed so that the Auditor General can determine if significant
investments are being managed with due regard to the economy, efficiency and
effectiveness. It is a measure of accountability that is needed for a sustained
investment.
Speaker,
as I mentioned earlier, this legislation was drafted with the input of the
current and previous Auditor Generals. We are supportive of the work of the
office and I believe this legislation gives them the tools required to ensure
public funds are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible.
I look
forward to the debate this afternoon from my hon. colleagues to the changes in
the Auditor General Act, 2021.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
We, too,
will be supportive of Bill 36, the Auditor
General Act, 2021. I think it's something that's definitely needed.
The
minister alluded to the C. D. Howe report which was called
Good, Bad and Incomplete: Grading the Fiscal Transparency of Canada's
Senior Governments, 2021. As the minister identified, Newfoundland and
Labrador was given a C-plus grade.
Officials have indicated that when they were identifying some of the legislative
changes, which needed to occur for some time, I think this report was actually
their precipitance to finalizing the legislative change and actually bringing
them into the House.
Again,
the Auditor General Act in itself, I
don't think has undergoing any significant updating since probably 1991. It's
long overdue. These amendments, these changes in the legislation will modernize
the AG legislation so that it will be in line, as the minister said, with the
practices of other jurisdictions and certainly increase the transparency and
accountability of public funds and public spending.
In going
through each of the explanatory notes and looking at what the will bill do, they
amend the definition of audits so that it's not limited to financial audits. I
mean, the Auditor General does currently perform performance audits even though
the existing legislation is not clear on whether or not they have the authority
to do so. Obviously, this bill and the new act will now provide explicit clarity
and authority to the Auditor General to perform those performance audits.
Something that all of us in this House would agree with.
Section
18 of the bill actually gives a definition of a performance audit and it notes
that it goes deeper than financial controls. It's looking at internal systems
and controls; compliance with policy, legislation or appropriations; performance
monitoring and reporting; and the governance, economy, efficiency and
effectiveness of any activity, program, process or function. Something that was
needed for a long time in the accountability for public spending. Again,
something that we totally agree with.
The
Auditor General Act says it confirms
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's authority to appoint a deputy Auditor
General. Again, current legislation doesn't specify the position or the role of
the deputy Auditor General. This proposed legislation includes section 11, which
notes there will be a deputy Auditor General that will be appointed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Auditor General.
It talks
about it confirms the Auditor General's authority to conduct an audit of the
performance of a department, an agency of the Crown and a Crown-controlled
corporation. Clearly, that is something that everyone in this House has been
asking for and talking about for a while now.
The
minister alluded to the university, but it will change, this legislation – the
Auditor General will become the auditor of record for all government
departments, agencies, boards and commissions. The AG will have the
decision-making power to determine whether they want to carry out the audit
themselves or if they will contract it out, as the minister said, to another
auditor. It leaves that decision in the hands of the Auditor General. So,
clearly, they will be the ones to decide on whether or not to use an outside
agency or not.
Having
the Auditor General review all of the ABCs means that the Auditor General can
now follow the money from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly to
the ABCs. Again, something that all of us in this House would certainly agree
with.
We've
also talked about the performance audits that I just mentioned and the other
ones.
The
private corporations and not-for-profits receiving Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador funding: The Auditor General will now have the ability to audit any
public money which has been given to a private business, charities, community
groups, et cetera, to ensure that the public funds has been spent in accordance
with the intentions for which the money was given.
Again,
as the minister alluded to, a very key piece of this: The Auditor General will
be given access, and greater access, to government records, including Cabinet
records. That is something, again, I think that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador would want to see to ensure that we have full openness and
accountability and a process entitled.
Again,
the minister alluded to the enforcements and the penalties. Speaker, as I said,
we are in favour of this and look forward to it passing. I'll have more to say
when we get to questions.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I do
applaud government on doing what they said they would do, especially when it
comes to the Auditor General because, as we know, when we ask questions – and
there's an hon. colleague behind me I'm sure who is itching to speak about this
as well – we have to make sure that accountability and what we do is transparent
as much as possible, especially when it comes to public funds and the public
purse.
We hear
it all the time, we can go back to Nalcor, we can go back to dozens of different
entities and stuff over time that people asked; they wanted these audits done,
they wanted stuff looked at. Now that we have actually even added performance in
there, as well, it gives at least a sense that, you know, we can keep track of
what we do for the public, how we do it and make sure that the public is getting
what they pay for. That's the most important thing, is that they get the
services and stuff that they paid for.
We have
our challenges and stuff like that, but we also have to make sure that we can
look into it; the Auditor General has the ability to look into it and that the
accountability is there when it comes to this.
I
applaud government there, especially on this. I know we talked about the C. D.
Howe ratings and that we were a C plus in there, but when you do a
jurisdictional scan, we're now going to fall in line with all the A-plus
provinces. This is where we should be going. This is where we should be heading.
We also
need to remember that we have to keep going back and checking to make sure that
we do give the Auditor General the resources and the ability to keep track of
everything that's going on within the government when it comes to the public
purse, but also when it comes to delivery of services. And to make sure that we
are giving the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador the best possible services,
spending the money on the best possible ways, that they can rely and trust that
they are getting what they've paid for and there are no two ways about it.
With
that, I do say we do support this bill. We do support the work of the Auditor
General going forward, especially with her new expanded role.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
certainly a very welcomed piece of legislation that we're debating on the floor
of the House of Assembly today, from my perspective.
I just
want to first of all acknowledge the government in bringing this forward. As
I've said in this House many times, when government does something that I think
is a good thing, I'm the first to acknowledge and congratulate them for doing
so. I think we've had some good legislation thus far as it relates to the code
of conduct for municipalities, as an example, as well as the
Disabilities Act, another great piece of legislation. I think the
all-terrain vehicles legislation that was recently passed with a few minor
tweaks that the minister is going to look at – a couple she's already made and a
couple of others she's going to look at – it's all good stuff.
I think
it's important that we have these debates. Sometimes we're going to agree and
sometimes we're going to disagree on certain things, like the
Lotteries Act, for example, that I
still have grave concerns about. I'll get to that when we get to third reading.
But as it relates to this piece of legislation, I think it's good for the
province.
Now,
some of the things here – it talks about strengthening the Office of the Auditor
General, it talks about agencies, boards and commissions and so on. So we're not
confused, the Auditor General already had the ability to go into agencies,
boards and commissions. It's making the Auditor General the auditor by default,
if you will. That all ABCs have to go to for financial audits, which right now
some of them don't have to and now they will. That's for the financial piece.
The
biggest issue, for me at least, is not just the financial audit – because any
auditor can come in and do a financial audit – it's really the performance
audits, the value-for-money, adherence to government policy, adherence to checks
and balances and so on. That's really where the true value comes to having an
Auditor General going in and looking at these matters. At least for me, that's
where it's at. Unfortunately, over the years we haven't necessarily – the
Auditor General's office has done great work in a number of areas, but of course
it comes down to having the appropriate resources in place at the Auditor
General's office to do that work.
I don't
know if I'd call it a concern, but one of the points I would make with all of
this is that if we are going to be enhancing the role of the Auditor General, if
we are going to be widening the scope to some degree – I know we are widening
the scope in terms of Memorial University. It's my understanding that as it
currently sits, without the passing of this legislation the Auditor General can
approach Memorial University, I believe, and it's up to MUN whether or not they
want to let the Auditor General in.
If the
Auditor General is let in to MUN, for example, the Auditor General can say,
well, I want to look at A, B and C. MUN has the ability at the moment to say,
well, you can look at A and B, but we don't want you to look at C. The Auditor
General has no right to demand to look at C, so to speak.
That's a
big problem when you look at the money that's been pumped into Memorial
University over the years, taxpayers' money. Albeit, it's a first-class
institution – not knocking that, not knocking any of those things – but it is
operating with total autonomy. There have been issues at Memorial University,
there has been questionable spending practices brought to light in just recent
weeks at Memorial.
You look
at the infrastructure deficit that they have at Memorial and you have to ask the
question was the appropriate funding going into maintenance and so on? Was there
money spent in certain areas where it was perhaps needed to be directed in other
areas? I'm not saying that things weren't done properly or above board, but the
point is that from the public's point of view there's no true public scrutiny at
Memorial University. This will allow that to happen and that is something I will
definitely support 1,000 per cent, Speaker.
Again,
the more responsibility that we give the Auditor General, the Auditor General's
office – and if we believe in the concept of the Auditor General's work, of this
idea of constantly reviewing programs and policies and ensuring that they're
meeting their goals, to ensure that they're being administered the way they're
supposed to administer, to ensure that we're getting the best value for money
spent in all agencies, boards and commissions. If we really believe that to be
true – and I'm sure we all do – then I think equally we have to recognize that
if we're going to be adding to the load given to the Auditor General, then there
has to be appropriate resources provided to that office to do that particular
work.
If not,
all we're going to do is we're going to say that agencies, boards, commissions
and departments, which may receive an audit from the AG's office once every – I
don't know – 20 years, we might have to wait for 40 years by the time they get
around to it, because there'll be so much to do with the same amount of
resources. This only works and has the desired effect, to my mind at least –
maybe I'm missing something. That's quite possible. But it only works if the
AG's office has the appropriate resources to do the work that needs to be done.
I'll
just point to an example of that, Speaker. I'm not going to read it all word for
word here but on August 18, 2016, I wrote then Auditor General, Terry Paddon,
and I asked for a review of Nalcor – August 2016. I won't read the whole letter
but I did suggest some items that needed to be looked into: A review of Nalcor's
board and management structure; benefits, remunerations, bonuses expenses of
board members, executive and management employees; a review of the actions taken
by the former board of directors and CEO following the Liberty report and, in
particular, justification as to why bonuses were paid in Nalcor following
DarkNL.
I asked
them to look at Nalcor's procurement policy and the application of same; a
review of all contracts which have been let as it relates to the Muskrat Falls
Project; review of conflict of interest allegations that were made by the former
chair of the board of directors of Nalcor before they all resigned en masse;
verification that no conflicts have existed by any individuals while serving on
the board, either the individual who was accused of being in a conflict at the
time or others who may be in a conflict of interest; and of course I said any
other matters that you, as the Auditor General, feel necessary to restore the
people's faith in the operations of Nalcor.
That was
on August 18, 2016. I followed up with another letter on September 20, 2016, to
Mr. Paddon. After a meeting that we had, he came to my office and we had a
meeting. I wrote him again following that meeting and in this particular letter
I'm asking him to add to that agenda to look at the idea of conflict of interest
and how the new CEO of Nalcor who replaced Mr. Martin, how it is that he could
be permitted to have up to 5 per cent shares in Fortis while holding the office
of CEO of Nalcor, how that could not be considered a conflict of interest.
Particularly given the fact that the former CEO, in his contract, it explicitly
said he could not have any shares but, for some reason, the new CEO could have
up to 5 per cent shares, how was that not a conflict of interest. I asked to
have that looked into.
In
November of 2016 the Auditor General came out and did a news conference over on
Pippy Place. I was there and sat at the table when he was doing it. He said he
was going to go into Nalcor. I wrote him in November confirming that and
thanking him for doing so, and I further asked him that we need to look into the
Public Procurement Act and how that
relates to Nalcor. Because apparently the
Public Procurement Act when it comes to Nalcor in terms of the day-to-day
operations, they have to follow the Public
Procurement Act but when it came to Muskrat Falls or any project that
they're undertaking, they can just throw the Public Tender Act out the window
and award contracts and so on to whoever they feel like without following the
Public Tender Act and with all the information shielded by the
Energy Corporation Act so they hide
everything they're doing. So I contacted him about that.
I have
another one here on March 3, 2017, where I wrote Mr. Paddon again. This
particular letter related to the allegations that were made which later became
subject of the Muskrat Fall inquiry. Issues about cost estimates being lowballed
and risk reports being hidden and so on. I explained the urgency that he needs
to look at that as well.
That's
in March 2017, so it started in August 18, 2016 and now we're into 2017. Of
course, Mr. Paddon moved on and then we had a new Auditor General, Ms. Mullaley.
I met with her, went over all the letters, the same thing again with her: Oh,
yes we're working on it. We're going to go in blah blah blah. Then –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I've
been very lenient on relevance. So just try and stick to the bill.
P. LANE:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
P. LANE:
The point I'm trying to make,
to be relevant here, Mr. Speaker, is that it comes down to we can change this
legislation, which is a good thing – and I am not knocking the legislation. I'm
not knocking this government; I'm supporting them. I absolutely am. But the
point I'm making is from 2016 I started. I've gone through 3½ Auditors General
because we had an interim Auditor General before the new one – I forget the
lady. She was the assistant Auditor General. She replaced Ms. Mullaley until Ms.
Hanrahan came into place; I can't think of her name. She was sort of like an
interim.
So three
regulars and an interim. I've had conversations, meetings, letters, whatever
with all of them. Here we are it is 2021, soon going to be 2022 and we still
haven't seen the report – still haven't seen the report. So from 2016 to 2022 is
six years later – six years later.
My point
is that if we're going to enhance the function of the Auditor General's office,
which I 100 per cent support, then we need to make sure the resources are there
so that we can get to these very pressing matters. I can say to you, certainly
during that time period and leading up to the LeBlanc inquiry and everything
else, that was probably a big thing on the radar of a lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians – still is, what's going on at Nalcor.
Now, I
will acknowledge the minister of energy or whatever it's called – he knows what
I mean. He's come in and brought in some changes to look at the salaries and all
that kind of bonuses, and I commend him for that. We have seen the oil and gas
moved out. Nalcor will be going under some sort of a transition, whatever it's
going to look like.
I'm not
saying that they're not listening and not making some changes – and that's a
good thing, too. I will support every change they make, if they make sense, in
that regard. But I'm using this as a prime example of where it's fine on paper
to make changes but if the resources are not in place so that those things are
going to work effectively, then the changes on paper are not worth the paper
they're written on. That's my only point.
That's
not suggesting that the government is not going to resource the office and make
sure it's done. I'm not even suggesting that, so I don't want it to be taken as
a negative because it's really not. I'm just making the point that we got to
make sure that we do that.
So,
overall, as long as the office has the resources, making these changes is a good
thing. Like I said, MUN, that's a good one. I think, as I raised yesterday with
the Minister of Education, when we look at the Francophone school district and
some of the allegations that were made there, perhaps that's somewhere where the
AG needs to have a look. I'm sure there are lots of places where the AG could
have a look underneath the hood. We've seen issues raised in many departments
and so on.
The big
one for me, really, is – well certainly Nalcor – but agencies, boards and
commissions in particular having more of a presence of the Auditor General
involved in those operations, I think, are critical. Because they've really been
sort of doing what they want for years and years and years with little scrutiny,
to my mind.
That's
why I also support that the government did talk about this in the budget and I
hope that this is actually going to happen. They said it will, and I have every
confidence it will, that we're going to have more access to the ABCs through the
budget process or maybe a separate process so that elected Members of this House
of Assembly can start holding those agencies, boards and commissions to account.
Because for far too long – far too long – a lot of these entities have operated
with total autonomy.
That
doesn't mean the people on the boards are bad people or they're doing things
wrong; I'm not saying that at all. But the bottom line is they weren't elected
by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The 40 people in this House of
Assembly, we were. We were the ones who were put in place to make sure that the
government is functioning the way it should and to make sure that their tax
dollars are being spent the way they're supposed to be spent. That's our
responsibility that we were duly elected to make sure happens.
So
between these changes to the Auditor
General Act and, hopefully, the changes that I will be supporting government
on 100 per cent when it comes to us, as legislators, having more access to the
books of what's going on in the ABCs and so on, I think these are all positive
steps forward, particularly when you look at the financial situation that we're
in in this province.
I think
I read a news release that government put out yesterday or the day before that
talked about the fact that even despite the good fortunes we've had of late in
terms of the rising oil prices, which have helped government coffers; not so
good for motorists, I would say, Speaker, but certainly for government coffers.
Despite that, we're still staring down the barrel of a $1.5-billion deficit
again this year. I think that's what I read. That should be concerning for us
all.
So we
have to find ways – and I'm sure Members have heard this on all sides of the
House from your constituents – before we start looking at jacking up taxes and
everything else, people are saying you have to find ways to cut expenses, to
find efficiencies and so on. That's what the people expect. People can only pay
so much in taxes. We have to find ways to be more efficient.
Utilizing the Office of the Auditor General, making sure that the Auditor
General's office is a resource so that they – he or she, whoever's doing it on
behalf of that office – can do their work, do it effectively, get as many audits
done as possible so that we can find where money is not being spent effectively
and efficiently and we can make changes, hopefully, to the better, that's what
the people want.
This is
a step in the right direction. It's a step in the right direction. So, once
again, despite the fact that sometimes Members get mad at me, on both sides of
the House, actually, from time to time, and that's fair game. Despite that, the
bottom line is I said from day one that if the government does something good,
I'll be the first one to acknowledge it and if there are things that I don't
agree with or I think need to be taken a different direction, I'll make sure I'm
heard on that too; no one will shut me down in either case.
But in
this particular case, once again, that's at least four or five pieces of great
legislation in the last couple of weeks that I can think of – this is one of
them. It's good and I acknowledge it.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
B. PETTEN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I marvel
sometimes at the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, he can speak for a few
minutes and he can put 20 minutes together, sometimes longer. I don't know. He
seems to make sense; he makes sense to himself.
I looked
at the clock and we were at about five minutes left and I said: B'y, he's after
carrying on without getting called out for relevance. Shortly after you called
him. I respect where he's come from. He's been here a long time and I know the
AG issue has always been a very important one with Nalcor and he has indeed
spoken many times about it. I give credit where credit is due.
Speaker,
this bill, Bill 36, I don't think it's a contentious bill. Obviously, it's not.
I think we're all kind of saying we're agreeing, but that doesn't preclude us
from having some commentary and some viewpoints on this legislation.
We see
the AG – and it's a broad term sometimes. It's almost like – I wouldn't like to
use the word – it's not a tool. It's a very important office, but it's what we
all feel is the foundation of what we all do. I served on Public Accounts for
several years and the AG is a very – Public Accounts is a very powerful
Committee, obviously, but the AG, who obviously is a part of that Committee and
reports directly to that Committee, you don't realize the emphasis and
importance that this office has on the overall spending of public money.
I've
seen that first-hand. We keep saying sometimes, and you'll hear the public say
they're calling for the AG to come in. Long before I came to this Legislature,
when I read on the news or I watched the House of Assembly or whatever, there
was a letter written to the AG to come in and investigate something. That was
really, really serious.
I know
we're in the middle of this now and you're in your bubble, we're in here, but
when I was on the outside that was a very serious matter when you called the AG
in to investigate something. It just shows the level of respect the general
public and, I guess, we all should have for that office. I mean, it's about the
office and its powers.
Now,
we're giving it new powers and I think that's wonderful to be able to expand. I
know I've called and we've called, as a caucus, our party as the Opposition, has
called the AG to go in and look at the books at MUN. I think more and more each
day that becomes more and more evident. I think I've been on record; I would
like to see it done sooner than later to be honest with you. If this was part of
redoing the MUN Act, getting the AG in there, I think I would rather do it
months ago, but it's never too late. We're moving in that direction and I'm
hopeful this session will see the MUN Act come up for debate.
But I
think it's very important to never lose sight of the importance of the AG's
office and what that office actually means. It's not about the individuals. It's
the Office of the AG. It's always been very powerful. I think it's needed.
We look
at performance audits, you know, you're going through the bill, the ABCs, but
there was a time when every time you looked at the AG, it was about dollars and
cents. But when you get a better understanding, really, of what audits really
need to be about, sometimes it don't include dollars and cents. It all tracks
back to dollars and cents, everything we do in life, but it's the operations.
You're getting into the departments: Are the processes followed right?
We just
recently, with the ferry contracts, with Public Accounts – actually, I sat on
the Public Accounts Committee when we asked for the AG to look at those, how the
process worked.
At the
end of the day, people were caught up in the cost of the ferries, but we asked
the question to go in – because there were all kinds of questions being bandied
about, about how the contracts were done and how these were – procurement,
really.
The AG
went in and did a deep dive into the process. Obviously, there was a dollar
figure attached to the public purse, but the processes, you know, how tendering
was done, how staff operated, how inspections were done. It gets down to the
really bare bones.
An
Auditor General's work sometimes is not always sat in an office; it's not always
sat in an office in front of a computer with a cellphone and the phone in a
boardroom. Sometimes it's boots on the ground. You have to go out and see, meet
with people. It's quite different. It's not a regular accounting job. It's much
more involved. I've got an accounting background but it's not an auditing
background. It's two different things.
Sometimes you lose sight of really what's involved. Sometimes it's not that
glamorous, but it's such a fundamental function of our institutions and without
it – I mean, it is the foundation we're built on.
When
you're elected to the House of Assembly you become very acquainted with the
Green report. But how that report was derived, and I'm sure most Members in the
House recall – most weren't here, I think a couple might have been here. I know
one was definitely here, two probably were here, but most weren't. It was based
on the AG actually being able to come in and review the operations of the day,
of the House of Assembly. They were never allowed to come in before.
A prime
example of giving them that ability, giving them power to come in and do so,
because a lot of our legislation, a lot of departments throughout government –
the AG can ask to go in anywhere but some have the right – as MUN does right now
– to say yea or nay.
That's a
flaw in our legislation, obviously, and the powers and that's going to change,
obviously, after all of this is done and the MUN Act is reviewed.
The AG
came in and it shook the foundation of the House of Assembly. It shook the
foundation of our Legislature, which is a very powerful thing. I remember very
well and it was all as a result of transparency. It was let's open the books and
let's get in and see.
So the
work they did, it wasn't a good time. It wasn't a happy time for a lot of people
in this Legislature, as history will show. The end result was no one questioned
the work of the AG. It was a very painful time for a lot of people, but it was
necessary.
The same
thing applies anytime the AG goes in anywhere. You don't know, you're opening
the books and opening the doors. If everything is done above board and you're
following the rules, you have nothing to worry about. Ninety – I suppose I can't
per cent it but I would say, the vast majority, that's the case, or it's
innocent mistakes or things we could do better. I think that is somewhat where
you get into some kind of performance audits. As governments, we could always be
better. As individuals, you can always be better but, as governments, we can
always be better.
I liken
it to sometimes you sit back and have honest moments of reflection and you look
back and you could have done something better or you could have done something
different. No doubt a lot of ministers in government, when they're sitting in
their offices, they think about that. I remember, pre-2015, I spent a lot of
time around ministers and it was nice to know they always reflected. You rehash
things and you sit back and say maybe that wasn't the right decision. Maybe this
was done wrong. But you do it for the right reasons.
All an
AG will do, if an AG happened to come in – they do performance audits on
departments just as a regular yearly business type thing. It is part of their
existence. Coming back and telling you what could be done better – it is not a
witch hunt, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. What could be done better and
what could be improved upon, that's a very valuable function, too.
The AG
has investigative authorities and abilities and whatever; they can go in –
that's what it seems like, but it is not a witch hunt. Once again, it is a very
important function. I do know a lot of people out there probably look at it that
way. The word comes down the AG is coming in to look at something.
I think,
for the most part, that if you're doing things in the right manner, which most
are, it is a matter of let's see what we can do better. So when you see a review
of Public Accounts or they will go back a few years after the report and do a
follow-up on how many recommendations were implemented, that is very powerful,
too. We come into the House of Assembly and a lot of times we ask those
questions about was this implemented or that implemented or what have you. But
it is given more credence; it is about the powers of the AG and what the AG has
the ability to do.
That
brings all governments into account. We live in that world within the core
government. So to increase powers and abilities for the AG to come in and do
this in ABCs, it's like the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said – and I
agree; it is a really good thing. When we get into some of the – the deputy AG,
there was clarity given to that. I mean, some of this stuff is pretty routine.
But I think that it's very important for us to look at what, I suppose,
processes in government – I guess we shouldn't be waiting for the AG to come in
and oversee and tell us what we done wrong. I think we all should be striving to
do better.
My
commentary when I started saying we can all do better and government departments
can do better and make us more functional – I know that's an ideal world, but
maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for all through government – I mean, we're
spending public money. It's the public purse. That's no light matter. As I said,
my time on Public Accounts, when you sit on Public Accounts – we'll go in and
have public hearings with different entities within government and the AG
partakes in that and advises you and whatnot but, at the end of the day, again,
you're sitting with Public Account members who have a very important role to do;
you're analyzing the public money, the public purse. There's no slight matter.
So when
go back to MUN, for instance, a lot of money has been spent. I'm not going down
that road for the sake of relevance but there's a lot of money been spent a MUN
that I think anyone in this House and most people in this province want to step
back and say hang on, have a deeper thought into this spending. Is this needed?
Is this necessary? You hear it all. Why are you doing this if you're doing that?
Why are you doing this if you're not doing that? Now we're going to get that.
We're going to get that right throughout.
Again, I
commend government for bringing it forward. I think that the AG's office needed
this. I look forward to, I guess – when I say look forward, but hopefully the AG
gets in and if things are not up to scratch, bring them up to scratch and keep
departments and agencies performing because at the end of the day it is public
money and it's a very important matter.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's an
honour to speak again in the House of Assembly and to speak on this piece of
legislation, Bill 36, the Auditor General
Act, 2021. There are a number of things that I'd like to point out, Speaker,
on this important legislation but, first of all, I think it's important that we
look at the role of the Office of the Auditor General in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I think that's important, just by way of background, to emphasize the
important role that the Office of the Auditor General has in our government.
It is an
independent, legislative auditor of government, its departments, all agencies of
the Crown and Memorial University of Newfoundland. I think that's important to
understand the relevance of the Auditor General and the important functions that
it plays within our government.
The
Auditor General Act, which is the
subject of this legislation, implicit in that act is the requirement for the
Auditor General to provide the House of Assembly with important, timely,
relevant information that is necessary to, in essence, enhance the public sector
accountability and performance.
So I
think when I look at this legislation, Speaker, it seems to me that the main
purpose of it, if we were to generalize, is about transparency. For that reason,
I feel that this is something I think is warranted, this legislation is
warranted and I am certainly in agreement with it in its overall intent.
One of
the things that I've noted is that the C. D. Howe Institute – and it's been
mentioned – released a report back in September of this year. It looked at the
transparency piece, the fiscal transparency of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. In that report, it's important to note that we didn't receive a very
good grade.
That, I
think, is important to note because it certainly acknowledges that there was
time for change, that legislative changes were necessary with respect to this
act. When we look at the C. D. Howe, for example, we know that is a reputable
organization; it's a non-profit organization which focuses on research. When
they completed this report, it obviously showed that it was time for us to look
at this legislation and the gaps that were there.
We also
know that the Auditor General Act has
not been modified or hasn't really undergone any significant changes for many
years. It's quite out of date when we look at 1991, as I understand the last
significant changes that took place. That clearly does show that there was time
for us to look at this legislation.
It's not
only about the piece of transparency; it's about modernization. We need to
understand that when we have modernization of legislation and then we have, as
well, transparency, we're going to have accountability; we're going to have
increased accountability. With respect to the Auditor General's role and the
Office of the Auditor General, who is responsible for public funds and public
spending, this is very important to take place: more transparency, more
accountability.
When I
look at this legislation I do see as well that there's an attempt to ensure that
there are housekeeping measures that are put in place. That's always good,
because we see that the current legislation that's in place, the language was in
need of modernization. We know that language is very important when we're
speaking of legislation and that we have to improve language. That it's more
precise, that it's clear and in plain language and in plain English.
I think
the current legislation, for example, used phrases like “immediately” when
referencing timelines in which the AG must provide reports and so forth to the
House of Assembly. Well, immediately is somewhat vague. I think the new
legislation will now use the phrase “at the earliest opportunity,” just to
provide clarity to the language.
Of
course, when we see housekeeping measures like that come into play, I'm sure
that we'll all agree that that's a good improvement in any legislation.
One of
the things that I notice with this legislation, Speaker, is the expansion of the
scope of the Auditor General with respect to the powers and the authority. There
are a couple of sections within the proposed legislation that we need to really
look at and make sure. Because, of course, when we expand powers, we also have
to be very mindful of the implications of that enhancing of powers to a body
within government.
So
currently the agencies, boards and commissions, they're able to appoint their
own auditor under the current legislation. But this is going to change and the
Auditor General will now become the auditor of records for all government
departments, agencies, boards and commissions.
When we
see this new change is it a good thing? Is this a worthwhile change? Well, I
would suggest that it probably in all likelihood is. The reason is because it
will provide – in my estimation – more oversight. It's an oversight measure that
will be more comprehensive and will give the Auditor General the ability to
ensure that there are no gaps or cracks.
For
example, having the Auditor General review agencies, boards and commissions
means now that the Auditor General can follow the money from the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to the agencies, boards and commissions. That I would
suggest is a good thing. It's a follow-through, it's a way to ensure that
there's a comprehensive oversight from one process to another. I would suggest
that expansion of powers is, in my view, not a bad thing.
When we
look at another feature of this legislation, Speaker, with respect to expanding
powers, private corporations and not-for-profits who are receiving government
funding. What's going to happen with this now is that the Auditor General will
now have the ability to audit any public money, which has been given to private
businesses, charities, community groups, et cetera, to ensure that the public
funds have been spent in accordance with the intentions.
I would
submit that's a pretty wide-sweeping power that will be granted to the Auditor
General. Yes, I would think that that's important for transparency, but I do
wonder about that and I think that's something we need to look at, expanding
these powers. I would ask: Do other provinces have this legislative authority?
Is there consistency? Is there precedent for this across the country?
I also
worry a little bit about that when we have non-profits who receive government
funding; we know that many non-profits are very small agencies and organizations
who may not have the capacity and have that ability to do sophisticated
accounting. How is that going to impact your small non-profits who play such an
important role in our communities? We certainly don't want to be hindering them.
I wonder what will be in place to provide that kind of support for our
non-profits in our society.
Those
are some of the issues that I thought were important. We need to be mindful of
the expansion of powers and that we have proper oversight to ensure that there's
not going to be any kind of excessive use of powers. I mean, we need to make
sure that there is also a watchdog involved there as well.
But I'm
all for transparency. I think that's so important in our government offices and
bodies, so as to ensure accountability because they go hand in hand. If we don't
have transparency, we're not going to have accountability and that's certainly a
problem for us.
As
legislators, I would think that this is an important piece of legislation, but
we do have to be mindful of some of the concerns that exist with expanding
powers. I would think that this is a welcome piece of legislation that I would
be in favour of.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Always
glad to have an opportunity to speak to a bill in this House.
When I
look at this bill, I think about something that the Member from CBS said. He
spoke about how we can do better and be better. The reality of it is that's what
the audit process is all about, no matter where you work in life or what you do.
If you're in the industry and you're working on aircraft or marine vessels or if
it's financial, the whole situation with an audit is it's to evaluate how you
got to the point you are, either from a financial or a performance standpoint.
So this
bill is really good timing, obviously. I mean, even today in the House we had a
conversation about external audits. Although we didn't get an answer, perhaps if
there were audits done we wouldn't be where we are today.
When I
think about the powers of the Auditor General and their ability to have a look
through government's business, it's really good to see that they're able now to
expand into the ABCs and have more jurisdiction. The reality of it is, is that
we need to be held accountable, I guess, and the Auditor General, when she does
her audits, she looks at everything with a microscope. That microscope not only
assures the public that we're doing what we're supposed to do but it enables us
to do a better job as legislators and our ability to perform. While we all think
we're making the right decisions, it's very educational for us to understand
where we made mistakes in the past so we don't recreate those same mistakes.
The fact
that this piece of legislation hasn't done any significant updating since 1991
speaks volumes also, I mean, it's 30 years later so it's time for this to
happen.
The
Auditor General's office, right now, is obviously very busy. When they begin an
audit, we know that the process sometimes takes years. So one major thing about
this bill that concerns me is whether or not they will have the resources, as
the Member from Mount Pearl - Southlands said, to expand what they do, whether
that's hiring an external agency or doing stuff in-house. I believe that it will
take significant resources and money in order for them to expand their
capability in a timely fashion where it serves us as legislators in a way that
this bill is designed to do that.
You look
no further than auditing of the ABCs, plus their regular role and any special
assignment task that they have to do. An Auditor General really has to make a
decision between which audits they do when they look at this. Perhaps there
needs to be some consideration as to the resources and their funding when we do
this.
If you
look at their past history and the audits they did, I think that the act could
go further and give them broader stroke and broader ability to make sure that
previous recommendations have been implemented. I'm not sure that they've always
gotten the level of support that they require with regard to recommendations and
recommendations not being implemented.
When
they go back and they do an audit of the recommendations as suggested, they
don't always get a clear answer. They get partial answers. We've started to do
the recommendations; we've started to initiate. Or some departments, it's
finalized, but if it's a broad stroke recommendation across several departments,
some departments implement in full and others don't implement at all. So it
really puts them in a tough situation with regard to not only their
recommendations, but how do they push through with them.
The
appointment of the deputy Auditor General obviously is a welcome thing, and I
would hope that it gives the AG more authority or more ability and a larger
comfort area for her task at hand – or his, whoever it may be at the time.
When we
talk about the Memorial University Act
– when the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands mentioned the
Memorial University Act and we
listened to how we can appoint an agent to act on behalf of the Auditor General,
that's a really big statement. Because now it allows them, if they don't have
time, to appoint someone on their behalf to work under the Auditor General in
order to do these audits.
Again,
the one thing that comes to my mind is while they have the ability to appoint,
whose budget does it come from? So does it come from Memorial University's or
any ABC, whichever ABC they're auditing? Who pays for this audit? Is it the
Auditor General's office, or is the ABC? So it's not clear in the bill, but it'd
be interesting to see how that comes out.
When you
look at audits and the purpose of an audit, like I said a few minutes ago, the
purpose of an audit is clearly so we understand all the processes. It doesn't
matter if the audit is a performance audit or a financial audit. It shows a
clear, decisive trail of how things started and how you ended up. And it gives
departments and legislators and everyone involved the ability to go back and
review the process that they were involved in and score themselves, really.
Although the AG is scoring individuals as they do these audits, it also allows
us to internalize processes that we followed to get to a point.
I guess
some departments aren't always welcome to the criticism that they receive, and
I'm certain that's the case, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a good process.
The reality is that when we look inside of our own ways of doing business we'll
always win because, like I say, we come in this House and we have discussions
and vote on things that we don't all agree on. We can't all be right all the
time. When the AG does an audit, she certainly goes through a complete process
to come to a point in time where she understands how we got there, how decisions
were made, how money was spent and whether it was prosperous or whether it was a
waste of time. So this act certainly does all of that.
Again,
I'll go back to the resources. It's okay to implement these extra powers and
authorities for the AG, but if they don't have the ability to act on them it
will create larger issues, and I think that's very, very important to
understand. We can broaden any scope of any department in all of government, but
if they don't have the ability to act on the powers we give them, they will fail
every time. I do believe that we can speed up some of these audit processes by
perhaps expanding their resources or going outside. When you add more, when
you're looking at adding ABCs and other components to this, you have to consider
the fact that a department that's already pretty overworked will probably be
much slower again.
The
amendments to change in this legislation, they're being brought in to modernize
the act and modernization of any of the acts that we do in this House is very
important. I mean, in my brief two years here, it seems like most of the
legislation that we're changing, most of that hasn't been touched in 20, 25 or
30 years. So it's very important for government to modernize. It's extremely
important, as we see. But as we modernize we also need to understand the path
that we took to get there, so it's important that we don't overlook that.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, on that note, I will say I support the changes in this act. I think
it's long overdue. I do believe that it's beneficial to not only us as
legislators, but to government as a whole. It allows the AG to have a broader
scope of service and to do things that should've been brought in a long time
ago. I believe it's important for ABCs and anywhere where government money is
involved, I believe that it's important that the ability to audit that money is
there. I also think that it's important that we broaden the ability to do
performance audits.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'll
start by saying this a wonderful step in the right direction, no doubt about it,
when it comes to accountability. The Government House Leader, just to quote him
in his initial remarks, he said: Any time we can enhance transparency and
accountability, we should do so. That was his quote, and we want to be leaders.
I don't think you'd get any argument on this side of the House. Any time we can
enhance transparency and accountability, we think we should do so. So that's the
crux of this legislation.
Who are
we accountable to? It's the public. The public are who we're accountable to.
It's their funds, it's their tax dollars and I would like to know, to the best
of anyone's knowledge, where that money's being spent, where is it going, is it
being spent well.
It
wasn't that long ago we actually voted – I think we were unanimous in the
appointment of the current Auditor General, Ms. Denise Hanrahan. Many of us know
her, know her work, and I don't think there was anyone who had anything negative
to say about her appointment.
So this
piece of legislation, it might put a bit of added workload, but it's certainly
going to be something that I'm sure she's quite capable of dealing with.
If I
walk down through the bill – and of course the definition of audit –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
(Inaudible) too loud.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you.
So we're
amending the definition of “audit.” The good thing about this is it's not
limited to financial audits only, and that's a good thing. For anyone who's been
in government or anyone who's been a minister or a deputy or worked within
government, when we're dealing with budgets, there's always pockets of funding
that's available. And those pockets of funding, some people will refer to them
as use it or lose it. So you have this funding and the way to be successful with
that funding is make sure you use it or you won't get it back; you won't have it
next year.
I mean,
there's some logic to that; but, at the end of the day, isn't that telling you
that the project or the program was successful? Yeah, you used your money, but
did it meet the needs that it was set up for?
When we
say that you can conduct the Auditor General's authority, you know, it's
confirming the Auditor General's authority to conduct an audit of the
performance – and that's a key word – the performance of a department and agency
and a Crown-controlled corporation. When you're looking at performance, you're
really looking at a test and from this point of view, the pocket of funding;
does it meet the test of public interest efficiency and affordability? We should
be looking at that.
I know
in my career in government we've done many programs and, at the end of the day,
you'll say: Well, we used this money; we funded 500 people and used up the
budget. And you'd look at that as a success. But to be able to have the Auditor
General come in and look at the true performance there, you know, you look at:
Was the money spent in accordance with the program? Was it successful in the
outcomes?
This is
something that is key here, too, in terms of accountability. Making sure that
the programs that were run were run as they were meant to be and came up with
the results that they're intended to be. Because I'll tell you, too, when you're
dealing with budgets and programming dollars, especially if they're federally
funded programming dollars, and you approach the fourth quarter of the year, the
question is: How much money do we have left and how can we get rid of it? I
mean, that's just nature because it, again, goes back to that use it or lose it
way of thinking. So at least now we can start looking at the performance around
it.
I mean,
call it what you want; it's been called program review, it's been called
organizational review and it's been called streamlining where every department
looks within their department to see if there's money that can be saved or what
was spent in a proper way, and everyone is operating in silos and you're trying
to protect your own turf. I mean, that's what happens. That's what happens when
you do a program review. Each department is trying to determine, you know, were
they on par with what they should've done and are they going to keep all their
resources?
This is
not a knock at all on public servants because, I can tell you, our public
service are very competent, hard-working individuals. But you have to be
measured in some way.
The
Auditor General, in this particular instance, being able to come in or appoint
someone to come in, with an objective view and look at it and say, yes, they're
hitting it. And it's not necessarily – because when you mention program review
or organizational review, most public servants, the alarm goes off to say: oh my
God, they're cutting. But I think you have to get past that and the fact that
we're looking at the performance. I go back to it: How can we do better in terms
of public interest? How can we do better in terms of efficiency? How can we do
better in terms of affordability?
I mean,
that's what it comes down to. It gives your public service that motivation to do
better and I would hope it would do it with all the other agencies out there,
because we just don't want to be giving money away.
There's
a reason you get money, a subsidy or a loan, there's a reason for that. Again,
there has to be some accountability there.
This
bill also confirms the Lieutenant-Governor in Council's authority to appoint a
deputy Auditor General. Smart move. The role of Auditor General comes with huge
responsibilities and the Auditor General certainly, he or she, they're held to a
level of accountability and transparency that's required. So to provide a deputy
Auditor General I think is certainly a good move in the right direction.
Then it
also says it will “enhance the auditor general's ability to access cabinet
records required to conduct an audit under this Act.” I certainly have no
problem with that. I think if we're truly concerned about transparency, openness
and accountability, then we should be held to that standard as well. There's no
issue with that. I think we need to be held to that standard as well. It's good
to see that.
I also
look at this next piece here in terms of what the bill would do. It would
“require that the auditor general be the auditor for all agencies of the Crown
and Crown-controlled corporations unless the auditor general determines it
necessary to appoint an auditor to conduct an audit.” Again, big job, many, many
ABCs out there that we need to be auditing and to be able to go and get extra
assistance there by either contracting out, I think is a necessary piece of work
that you have to do.
Again, I
spoke to this; it's another point here on: “confirm the auditor general's
authority to carry out performance audits.” I think it was already in the bill,
to an extent or in a past act, but this confirms a little bit more, gives a
little bit more detail to what's included in that. It allows the auditor to
broaden the scope of what the audit would involve. It's not just dollars and
cents. It's not saying we were given 50 grand to spend; we spent 50 grand. It's
not as simple as that.
I really
think with this bill, the enhancements to this bill, that the expanded
authorities given to the Auditor General and the deputy Auditor General
certainly gives them that range to actually – without handing it to the
departments, which is what we've done in the past – without handing it to the
departments, the Auditor General can now come in or assign someone to come in
and in an objective manner, independent manner, really look at – like every
minister gets a mandate letter, every department has a role – is that department
really performing the way it should.
I
started talking about the use it or lose it when it comes to funding; even if
there are departments that have programs and they couldn't fund people because
they didn't fit in the guidelines for that program, I would hope that the
Auditor General, in assessing that, can also say, well, maybe that program could
have been expanded.
Because
I know all of us get calls on different programs – I won't name whatever program
– and for whatever reason, that individual just doesn't fit all the boxes. It
hits every tick, tick, tick but there's one that prevents that person from
availing of the particular program.
So if
the Auditor General can come in, look at the performance, because, at the end of
the day, if that individual was given – sorry, if the people delivering the
program were given some additional flexibility or some leeway, then maybe those
individuals would get in and they would be more successful, perhaps, than the
ones who are already in there.
In terms
of looking at performance, I think the Auditor General, given that leeway to go
in there and define performance and not just look at dollars and cents and did
you spend your budget or did you not spend your budget, I think is a huge
advantage here.
The
background here on the act: As we know, just last month C. D. Howe Institute did
a survey, a report. It dealt with the fiscal transparency of the provinces.
Again, as I see this, this goes more than just fiscal. Newfoundland and Labrador
was given a C plus, so some work to be done.
I think
this is headed in the right direction but, again, we go back to some points that
have already been made in terms of this act is 30 years now without being
amended. It's time for that. The amendments and changes to the legislation being
brought in will modernize the Auditor General's legislation so that it is in
line with practices of other provinces and other jurisdictions, and to increase
transparency and accountability of public funds and public spending. I don't
think any of us can argue with that.
I know
you have to treat it like it's your own household budget. If you give $10 or $20
to your daughter or son going out the door, you want to know where it's being
spent. It's as simple as that. You go into a store; you're looking for the best
deal. You're not looking for high brand names; you're looking for the best deal.
I mean,
I would hope – and I have no thought that it wouldn't happen knowing Ms.
Hanrahan, knowing her record in government and knowing how accountable she is
and how dedicated to her job. I'm sure she would look at this with a similar
lens in saying that if this were my money, how would I want it spent? If this
were my money how would I efficiently drag that money further than it should go?
The
public out there would look at this and probably not see all the small things
within it, but I think if there's a take-away with this bill and the changes
that are happening here – again, I go back to the Government House Leader's
comments. I think it goes back to any time we can enhance transparency and
accountability we should do so. I think this bill is doing that.
I thank
you for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, if
the Government House Leader speaks now he will close debate.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it was great this afternoon to have the opportunity to debate this
important piece of legislation –
SPEAKER:
One second please.
J. DWYER:
We're not done talking about
the legislation.
SPEAKER:
Pardon?
J. DWYER:
We're not done talking to the
legislation. The reason why we didn't stand up is because I understand there was
a deal about going to supper.
SPEAKER:
I have no idea.
S. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).
SPEAKER:
No one rose.
S. CROCKER:
(Inaudible) go to supper
between 5 and 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
great to have the opportunity this afternoon to move to Committee on this bill.
It's a very important piece of legislation and I look forward to the questions
in Committee on this.
I heard
some good questions this afternoon from the Members Opposite around things like
how this is actually funded and so forth. It is important that when we come back
from the supper break, Mr. Speaker, that we will have an opportunity to answer
some of those questions.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 36 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The
Province. (Bill 36)
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
This
bill has now been read a second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The
Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
that the house recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER:
This House do recess until 6
p.m.
November 2, 2021
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. L No. 31A
The
House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are the House Leaders
ready?
Order,
please!
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
Speaker,
I call from the Order Paper, Order 17, second reading of Bill 26.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader that, An Act To Amend The Licensed
Practical Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 26, now be read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act,
2005.” (Bill 26)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
the first of the legislation that I have on this Order Paper, and it is An Act
to Amend the Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. This is a very specific,
narrow piece of amendment to an act that is 16 years old, and it is brought in
at the request of the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the governing body who set best clinical practice for LPNs.
There
are five specific asks: removing the definition of a “practical nurse” to allow
it to be managed through regulation, consistent with other such legislation;
updating the bylaw-making power; amending provisions relating to protection from
liability; adding quality assurance provisions; and adding a duty to report.
This is
to update outdated legislation and bring it into line with the licensed
practical nurses current scopes of practice and practical needs. It is a fairly
straightforward, fairly tight piece of amendment and I would be happy to take
questions on this in Committee, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to speak to this bill. I would agree with the minister in terms of this
being a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, but I've come to learn
that, many times, stuff is not straightforward.
But just
to talk to this bill – so it's an overview of the legislation. The current act,
2005, has been in force for 15 years and these amendments, as the minister
mentioned, is made at the request of the College of Licensed Practical Nurses in
Newfoundland.
The
fundamental changes here: removing the definition of LPNs, as there has been a
movement in scope and the college felt changes were appropriate. Most boards in
Canada allow for the bylaw changes enacted at the executive level versus
requiring the entire membership to vote on it, which is the current practice.
It also
speaks to establishing the quality assurance committee and allows the committee
to appoint assessors or others to assist the committee, for example peers or
external experts. Quality assurance issues can now be moved to disciplinary
proceedings, and vice versa, depending on the severity of circumstances. It also
provides the board with liability protection for decisions they make.
Changes
in Bill 26 are being accompanied by, of course, a change in Bill 27, the
Pharmacy Act, regarding dispensing of medications.
These
changes are extremely important as our province moves to enable health care
professionals to practise to the full scope of their professions to ensure
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have better access to timely, high-quality
care. This is especially true in rural areas, but also in larger centres, these
days, where access to family doctors is lacking.
Some of
these changes simply reflect the profession's desire to update the language and
procedures that determine how it regulates itself, reflecting best practices.
For example, clause 1 of the bill updates the definitions in section 2 of the
act. One of those definitions is a very lengthy definition of practical nurse.
It is very outdated.
Here is
how it currently reads: Practical nurse means a person who undertakes or
performs duties or services relating to the care of patients that is consistent
with his or her training as approved by the council, or a person acting under
the direction of a registered nurses, a qualified medical practitioner or a
member of a health care profession approved by the minister, who (i) performs
procedures or treatments prescribed or ordered by a registered nurse, medical
practitioner or member of a health care profession approved by the minister,
(ii) undertakes or assists in the care of subacutely – I assume I pronounced
right.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Is that what it is?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Sounds correct. Thank you.
Chair,
(ii) undertakes or assists in the care of subacutely ill, chronically ill,
custodial – collaboration at its finest – and convalescent patients, or (iii)
assists registered nurses in the care of acutely ill patients, but this
definition shall not be construed as being an approval of the delegation and
direction of nursing functions by a person other than a registered nurse, but
functions which may be performed by a qualified medical practitioner or a member
of a health care profession approved by the minister, other than a registered
nurse or a licensed practical nurse, may be delegated and directed by a member
of that health care profession. That's how it currently reads in the act. This
bill is looking to change that.
The
College of Licensed Practical Nurses realizes that the scope of the work that
LPNs do, and are qualified to do, has changed. The definition that I just read
out is not quite accurate. The college has pointed out that a definition is not
actually required. The profession does what it does as regulated by the college.
That is how its work is defined and refined over time.
The bill
has 13 clauses in total. Some of the changes seem to be subtle at first glance,
but they have implications that are very important to the profession and we see
their value. The changes bring the profession in line with other health care
professions and with LPN governing bodies elsewhere.
Nurses
have been practicing their profession for time immemorial; they are among the
highest respected professionals in the world. Where would we be without the
professional nurses? As medicine has advanced, the way the profession defines
itself and governs itself has also evolved, not just here but nationally and
internationally. Today, we recognize the importance of respecting those advances
by updating the legislation.
Here are
some of the other changes the bill will make, as noted by the minister: Clause 2
makes a change to section 6 of the act allowing the board rather than the entire
college to make bylaws. This is consistent with how other professions are
governed.
Clause 3
adds a new function of the college in section 8 of the act. That new function is
to administer a quality assurance program.
Clause 4
amends section 10 of the act on the functions of the registrar.
Clause 5
changes the scope of the bylaws and how they are made in section 11 of the act.
Clause 6
changes section 12 of the act regarding licensing.
Clause 7
changes certain definitions in section 13 of the act.
Many of
these changes are not huge but they are important.
Clause 8
adds a new section, section 14.1 on duty to report. Here is how that section
will read, section 14.1: A licensed practical nurse who has knowledge, from
direct observation or objective evidence, of conduct deserving of sanction of
another licensed practical nurse shall report the known facts to the registrar;
(2) A person or a corporation, partnership or association that terminates or
imposes restrictions on the employment of a licensed practical nurse based on
direct knowledge of the licensed practical nurse's conduct deserving of sanction
shall report the known facts to the registrar; (3) An action shall not be
brought against a licensed practical nurse, person, corporation, partnership or
association or its directors or officers for the sole reason that he or she or
the corporation, partnership or association complied with this section.
Speaker,
this is an important change, fully in line with the highly regarded health care
profession regulating itself responsibly.
Clause 9
amends section 17 regarding the complaints authorization committee to make
reference to the quality assurance committee mentioned earlier.
Clause
10 adds five new sections after section 29 regarding the quality assurance
committee. These changes ensure quality of work that LPNs do and refine the
process for holding that work to the spotlight to ensure accountability.
That
section reads: 29.1(1) The board shall establish a quality assurance committee
that shall have responsibility for, and shall establish and operate, a program
of quality assurance for licensed practical nurses.
Section
29.1(2): The committee may appoint the following persons to act as assessors or
to assist the committee to perform its duties and exercise its powers under this
Act. That would be: (a) a person registered as a licensed practical nurse under
this or another Act, including an Act of another province or territory of
Canada; or (b) a person licensed as a registered nurse or a nurse practitioner
under the Registered Nurses Act, 2008
or another Act, including an Act of another province or a territory of Canada.
Section
29.1(3): The committee and a person appointed under subsection (2) shall have
the powers, privileges and immunities that are conferred on a commissioner under
the Public Inquires Act, 2006.
Section
29.1(4): A person appointed under subsection (2) has the powers of the committee
under paragraphs 29.3(3)(a)(b) and (c).
Section
29.2: A licensed practical nurse shall –
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
You
should be debating the rationale for the bill rather than line by line. We'll be
doing that in the Committee stage of the bill.
P. DINN:
I can certainly go to that,
yeah.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) speaking to the
bill. It's still relevant to the bill.
SPEAKER:
Yeah, but you're going
through it clause by clause. Clause by clause is discussed in the Committee
stage. He can discuss the content of the bill and the rationale of the bill, but
not to be going clause by clause.
P. DINN:
I cannot read it into record?
SPEAKER:
Not the clause by clause.
P. DINN:
Okay.
Thank
you, Speaker. I'll go to the bill; I'll talk to it.
As I
said when I started, the minister talked about it as being a fairly
straightforward bill and, as I said, nothing's usually straightforward and
fairly.
Before
they call me on repetition, I'll move on to something else. I got, yeah, 47
minutes. I can do that.
In
dealing with this bill, we're in a tremendous health crisis in this province.
This bill is designed to address part of that, when you talk to being able to
write prescriptions and such that come in from family physicians or other
primary health care workers.
We have
in this province – in my meetings with the licensed Nurse Practitioners
Association and that – 220 nurse practitioners in this province. They brought
many, many issues forward to me. That's where this is originating from. This is
looking at how they can exercise the full scope of their education and their
professional association. You hear it from many nurse practitioners; some are
able to exercise the full scope of their practice, many are not.
So when
this allows the LPNs to – it says here: removing the definition of LPNs as there
has been movement in scope and the College felt that the changes were
appropriate. That speaks directly to what I've heard from nurse practitioners.
When you
talk about the shortage in health care here – the crisis – and we talk about the
team approach, and within a team approach you may have a doctor, you may have a
nurse, you may a licensed practical nurse or you may have a nurse practitioner.
They're all the intent, moving forward, to try and deal with this health care
crisis, to ensure that these teams operate in concert together so that they may
be able to provide the best health care to the province.
One of
the cogs in that wheel, if I may, is our nurse practitioners. Our nurse
practitioners are well trained. They can certainly add to the health care system
here. There's no doubt about it.
They
have many issues when you can talk about pay issues and the like, but they want
to be able to change the act that has been in effect since 2005 to allow them to
have a little bit more movement in the scope of practice.
So going
through this, the Explanatory Notes for this: This bill would amend – and I'm
making sure I'm not repeating myself, because I'll be called on that –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Yeah, thank you.
So it's
actually deleting the definition of practical nurse. You gave me leave earlier
and I read out the whole definition of that. So I appreciate that – let me find
my page again. The other thing that's added here is the addition of the quality
assurance provisions to enhance public protection and accountability. That is
huge.
We spoke
earlier on another bill. The Government House Leader mentioned that any time we
can enhance transparency and accountability, we should do so. And we agree. We
spoke to that when we talked about the AG bill, and we want to be leaders. I'm
sure the licensed practical nurses want to do the same.
In
health care, it's extremely, extremely important that we enhance public
protection and accountability, because we are dealing with people's health. We
are dealing with lives in many cases. If we are going to deal with a crisis that
comes around, as an example this current – well, until fully confirmed, this
current cyberattack, we'll call it, we're going to depend on our primary health
care workers to be able to operate to the full scope of what they've been
trained to do.
When you
look at this, I mean, that is basically what we're trying to do here. We're
trying to ensure that our licensed practical nurses are able to perform their
jobs to the fullness of their capabilities and in the professional and competent
way in which they have been trained.
In my
discussions with licensed practical nurses, with nurse practitioners, with
doctors, with pharmacists – of which there will be another bill coming up – with
everyone that I spoke to in health care, they all want to do the best for their
clients, their patients, the families they look after. They all want to do the
best.
They
will all tell you they have pros and cons and you have negatives and positives
that they could talk to, but in a lot of respects these groups talk to scope of
practice. They went in and did training. Some, spending years doing the
training, years of practising what they do in a controlled environment, but then
they want to get out and put that to good use for the benefit of the health and
safety of the residents of the province.
This act
gives them a little bit more of that, a little bit more leeway to be
self-governing. I can't sit down and tell you what a licensed practical nurse
should or shouldn't be doing; I'm just not qualified. I can take whatever they
tell me as gospel, and why wouldn't I? They are the experts; they are the
professionals in their role. When I see this, I can only assume that this is
being driven by the college and this will help them in terms of practising what
they've been trained to do. Again, it's a long time coming; it's 15 years.
Without
getting ahead of myself, when you're talking about the changes coming in the
Pharmacy Act – and we know, in dealing with COVID, and we know in dealing with
more virtual care, this allows licensed practical nurses to be able to avail of
their full complement of skills, even though they may not be in the physical
location of a patient. They can work with a doctor. They could receive a call to
give an injection. Doctors elsewhere, they're there and they're able to do that.
It certainly respects what they've done in terms of training.
The
other piece that I heard in talking to the health care, primary health care
providers – and I'll say this is no reflection on anyone, other than as a very
common comment that I heard when speaking with the many medical groups,
including the nurses and that. It was only to find out and get their opinions. A
lot of them spoke to respect or lack thereof. I guess part of that comes from
that legislation that's outdated.
You go
in, you take a course and you put your time in – time and money, and in a lot of
cases time away from home – and you expect to come out with a career. You expect
the curriculum that you studied, the skills that you've learned, when you
graduate, you come out and you're ready to hit the road running. Then you get
out there and there are things you want to do that you can't. Well, not that you
can't, but you may not have the opportunity to do, for various reasons.
They
talk about the respect or lack of respect because of that. That's one of the
reasons. When we're able to take what they bring forward and we're able to
actually make changes to the legislation, that's certainly a step in the right
direction. That's showing our licensed practical nurses that we do value what
you say. We do value what you can do. That's what this is about. They're trained
to help people.
I mean,
that's an amazing job to go into and train for and that you're going to come
out. Whether you're a nurse, doctor, nurse practitioner or a licensed practical
nurse, when you come out and you can actually make a huge difference in the
lives of people, that's all you want to do because that's what you trained to
do. That's what you went in to do. That's what you committed to do. But to come
out and then be limited in what you can do, that's discouraging. That's
discouraging on nurses, on licensed practical nurses.
So this
is a good bill. I understand the minister when he says it's fairly
straightforward –
B. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Yeah, it is. I thank you for
that. Let's see if I can get you right here; I got you hidden here somewhere,
the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
Thank
you for that.
D. BRAGG:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Yeah, I do appreciate the
applause from the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels. Thank you for that as
well.
This is
an important bill and, again, I'll go back to the point I was making before I
was – I won't say rudely interrupted. I appreciated that interruption because
anything positive is good. I thank you for that.
I mean,
it is fairly straightforward, but when I say nothing is fairly straightforward
it's because behind this bill there's a lot of work. There has been a lot of
work done on this. You don't just produce bills without doing your research,
without having staff work on it and without sitting down and analyzing and do a
jurisdictional scan. There's a full complement of work that goes into producing
any bill that comes to this hon. House. I thank all of them for that. I thank
them for that because this bill will make big changes. They may seem fairly
straightforward, and I understand where the minister is coming from. It is
fairly straightforward, but I think in terms of this it makes huge changes for
this group – huge changes. To be honest with you, I wouldn't expect anything to
come to this hon. House unless it was for a real good reason. I mean, you don't
just bring them forward for no good reason.
This is
a fabulous bill. I applaud it. I mean, it's certainly regarding this health care
profession when they take them and make these changes and respect what they do.
That's what a lot of them look for. That's what they're looking for: respect,
full scope of their practice to be able to come home at the end of their
workday. We know many of them are overworked, overstressed and burdened, we know
that, but if you can come home at the end of the day and say to yourself that I
was able to make a difference to the fullness of my abilities, that's a hell of
a lot better than coming home and saying I could've done more if only I was able
to, if only I was allowed to. That's really important.
I'm sure
everyone in this House when they talk to anyone in health care – and this is the
correction I get from people out there, because we do talk about the shortage of
doctors. But I get corrected by many other groups that it's a shortage of
primary health care of which this group is. It's the shortage of primary health
care. Going around door to door during the past election I'm sure everyone has
health care workers in their districts and there are past, present and, maybe,
future – I don't know – in this House that have worked in health care. It's a
real, I guess, rewarding job, but if you're working without the resources there
or without the legislation that allows you to perform to your full capacity, it
can be a pretty discouraging job.
Again,
we've all heard some of the stories through COVID. We've heard some stories
recently, of course, with this cyberattack, for lack of a better word. Health
care makes people very anxious. What may seem like something simple, like a
blood test or that, is huge for others. For us to give the authority to the
group, their own group, to regulate and oversee how they do, I mean, that's a
huge step. That's certainly a vote of confidence for them. I don't say, in any
way, that we have any kind of a lack of confidence in our health care workers. I
have full 110 per cent confidence in our health care workers and our front-line
workers, which I think everyone in this House would agree they have done an
outstanding job for us and this can only make them better. This bill can only
make them better in what they can do.
B. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
P. DINN:
Thank you, the Member for –
I'll get you again; you need to hear this – Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
Thank you so much for the support. He is a fabulous minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
P. DINN:
Speaker, it's wonderful –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
You
don't have to stop it. I mean, any time I can get some positive response from
anyone in this House is wonderful. The Members for Virginia Waters -
Pleasantville and Fogo Island - Cape Freels, any time you applaud me is
wonderful. Thank you. I'm not even talking about Evel Knievel tonight – not at
all, no.
With
that, you know, they've thrown me off, which is what I think they wanted to do,
but I could go on for another 28 minutes and 58 seconds, but I'm going to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
I'm going to finish what I'm
saying now and I do appreciate it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Speaker.
I wasn't
sure if there was anybody else that wanted to jump in but I'll certainly go.
I've had
a long history in health care and I'm very proud of it. I've seen the evolution,
I guess, or something like, and perhaps the minister and some of the other
ministers have over the years, of moving from what used to be called nursing
assistants to what we now call licensed practical nurses. Certainly their roles
and their responsibilities have changed over the years and this, of course, is
simply a part of a recognition of how far we've come to make it a much more
professional organization that it has become.
It is
interesting when I looked up the definition of “practical” it said: Of or
concerned with actual doing. That is what a licensed practical nurse does and
brings to health care every single day. Whether they're in a clinic or whether
they're in a hospital, whether they're in a long-term care facility or whether
they're providing services at home they actually are concerned with the actual
doing. To have legislation like this or a bill to improve their professional
association and to make it more professional, again, is something I think we all
support and will continue to support.
It was
interesting, I looked up the competency profile for an LPN, for a licensed
practical nurse, and it actually has 264 pages. It covers everything from the
professionalism, the nursing process, to the nursing practice, to all different
aspects of nursing from surgical care, orthopedic nursing – the whole gamut.
So,
again, these are professional people working in our health care system and a
very integral part of the health care system. As I said, you will find licensed
practical nurses in all parts of our health care system and sometimes when
people are in hospital and somebody comes to provide a service to them, they
often say we thank the nurses.
In a lot
of cases, that actual person that actually performed or helped them was a
licensed practical nurse. So even though they're called licensed practical
nurses, they are there on the front line, assisting and performing a lot of
functions that the people that rely on their services need.
You
know, we've talked a lot about our health system in the last couple of weeks,
but we've also talked and taken time to acknowledge the hard work that the
professionals in our health care system do. Everyone that works in health care
plays a part no matter what job you have.
I've
said this before and say it again, you know, we've compared our health system to
if New York City is the city that never sleeps, well the Department of Health
and the health care system is the department that never sleeps. Health care is
24-7, 365 days a year. And until you need it, sometimes you don't know how
valuable it is or how valuable that service is to you.
Now, we
find ourselves in a situation where we have shortages in our province in
different areas, in different things, including licensed practical nurses, I
would add.
We've
expanded programs for licensed practical nurses across the province and that's a
good thing. I think we need to keep expanding those services. Again, this
particular act really puts that professionalism on the licensed practical nurses
of Newfoundland and Labrador and helps the board establish that and just adds
that further enhancement that these are professional people that work in our
health system.
We can't
lose sight of that fact, that, as I said, sometimes they don't necessarily get
the credit they deserve, but it's not because – those of us that are in the
system know full well what they bring, whether it's in long-term care, whether
it's in acute care, whether it's in community, as I said. When we talk about
community centres and the new model of primary care, licensed practical nurses
will be an integral part of this.
Taking
the legislation and amending as is being done, just as I said, helps with
improving that quality piece and adds some more professionalism. I'm not going
to go through every piece or word in here, but I just want to make that point
and recognize the significant contribution that licensed practical nurses make
to the delivery of health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no
matter where they work.
On that
note, Speaker, I'll stop.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
P. TRIMPER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I won't
say too much but I did want to say some quality words for a group of people –
and as other speakers have indicated before me – that we owe a huge debt to.
So many
of the comments over the last little while have been about the professionalism,
the stamina and the compassion that this group of professional people
demonstrate. They show up to work every day and sometimes they have to work yet
another day before they even get home to their own loved ones. The dedication is
truly something to be admired, something to be respected. I think when there's
an opportunity for us as legislators to do what we can to support them we need
to do that.
I just
wanted to say I'm very proud to be sitting here today. I look forward to
watching the advance of this bill and supporting it all the way home.
Thank
you very much.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
The
essence, I guess, of this bill to me is one of confidence in the competency and
the qualifications of the health professionals who treat us, certainly since we
seem to be heading towards an approach in the system where we, not just rely on
doctors, on physicians but we also rely on other health professionals to treat
us.
Certainly, we see here the connection with the Pharmacy Act that LPNs will be able to do partial dispensing of medication. For
patients, any of us who run out of a prescription, that's going to be a
significant improvement and source of comfort.
I think
for most part in Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe elsewhere for that matter,
for the most part, we've been very reliant on the family physician, on the
doctor as the sole health authority. This is sort of a change here and an
attempt to bring this legislation into the modern era to reflect their
qualifications and their scope of practice.
I'll
speak to this: one of the things that stands out in this bill is certainly with
regard to the quality assurance program. It goes back to my idea or belief that
really what we're attempting to do is to establish or to give confidence in the
professional qualifications of this group of people.
What I
like about it, for the most part, it's a very detailed process of due diligence.
It's not just punitive but it does provide the opportunity to resolve the matter
before it goes to a quality assurance committee. It gives the licensed practical
nurse who's under question or complaint to improve, to get the help that he or
she needs, to get the counselling, the medical treatment to get the necessary –
it can be the course of studies and basically to do what he or she needs to do
to get back on his or her feet.
I can
tell you, for the most part, that inevitably with any union usually where we get
the employer always, Mr. Speaker, is on the process; due process was not
followed. Punitive actions are taken without any indication that a process was
followed and at least here in this we're seeing an attempt to – a whole section
really, a significant section that deals with the duty to report and the
procedures laid out as to how that compliant and how the issue for that LPN is
to be dealt with. Even up to the point, if the licensed practical nurse fails to
comply with the requirement, it then takes it one step further.
From my
point of view, when I look at that, I think, if anything else, as a layperson I
would assume then that getting assistance from or treatment from a LPN I would
have a very strong confidence in the professional standards of that person and
of the regulatory body around that person to make sure that I was, indeed,
getting the best possible care that that professional would give me. I think, in
many ways, if used properly that will be a significant addition to the health
care. It may not solve our problems right now, but long term it's heading in the
right direction.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm glad
to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 26. I'm actually not going to take long
this time.
Just to
say, Speaker, that on numerous occasions in this House of Assembly I think one
of the themes we've heard in the House when it comes to health – well, we've
heard some unfortunate themes lately. But that aside, when it comes to our
health care system, in general, in terms of how we enhance our health care
system, how we make it more efficient and try to deal with some of the issues
that we have in our health care, I think one common theme we've heard from
Members on all sides of the House – and government does seem to be moving in
that direction, which is good to see – and that's the whole concept of having
health care professionals at all levels and all disciplines working to their
maximum scope of practice. I think it makes all the sense in the world that we
would have that.
Obviously, as the government increases responsibility – if you will – by opening
up scopes of practice and having people work to their maximum scope of practice,
there also with that responsibility must come accountability. I think we've seen
in this House over the last couple of years, for sure, there have been a number
of disciplines and so on where we have looked at the principles which guide
those organizations representing those various medical disciplines. We've seen a
number of bills like this where we've modernized the language and recognition
around those organizations and we've, in some cases, added additional scopes,
responsibilities and also more accountability.
One of
the significant pieces in here, which I won't repeat what others have said, is
the idea of having accountability. That is very, very important. If we're going
to be adding responsibility, then we must have accountability.
It seems
like we have a reasonable process here put in place to ensure that – in this
case, we're talking about licensed practical nurses, but in the past we talked
about nurse practitioners and so on, or if we're talking about pharmacists,
whatever field we're talking about under medical professionals, to have these
legislative changes around how these health care professionals are managed from
the bodies that would have responsibility for those disciplines and having
proper procedures in place to deal with these organizations and to have more
accountability.
In a
nutshell, that's what is happening with this piece of legislation as it relates
to licensed practical nurses. As I said, we went through a similar exercise with
the nurse practitioners and so on. Of course, I will give credit once again to
the government on the midwifery, which was another initiative to try getting
more health care providers in place and people who are able to contribute and,
in many cases, at higher levels than they have traditionally in order to try to
make our system more efficient.
With
that said, Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks and just say that I feel it is a
good piece of legislation and I will be supporting it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As
always, it is a privilege to get an opportunity to speak to a bill in the House.
Bill 26 is a 15-year update to the LPN act of 2005. Again, it is a theme that we
talked about earlier: how long it takes to go over some of these acts and how
things change. The reality of health care is that health care changes pretty
quickly and scopes of practice should have been adjusted a long time ago and
perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.
What is
really good about this bill is that it is being driven by the profession, so
that speaks volumes to the bill itself and where a lot of these clauses came
from. The college certainly has spoken out about the capabilities of LPNs and I
think, as a government, and government House Members, we all understand exactly
what LPNs bring to the profession and they should be applauded for what they do
on a daily basis. They are a very key cog in the spokes of the health care wheel
for sure.
Some of
the changes that I see as being most critical is the ability to allow the
utilization for a full scope of service. Like I said earlier, when we look at
some of the situations with health care today, a big part of what's going on is
the underutilization from a scope, and we've heard the minister say that several
times. Hopefully this changes some of their ability to function in the
workplace.
Rural
Newfoundland certainly struggles with all types of health care and this act will
help LPNs work better in rural Newfoundland. That has to be a welcome change for
certain because, you know, nowhere is this crisis in our health care more
evident than it is in rural Newfoundland. We all know the tertiary centre is
here in St. John's, but the reality of it is the centre in St. John's is filled
by people in rural Newfoundland also, not just the people who live in the
greater metro area. The college realizes that the scope of work that the LPNs do
has been changing for years and the whole idea of allowing anyone in the health
care profession to do more is critical.
LPNs,
certainly in my neck of the woods, in the area I represent, are throughout the
entire district and they do great work and all throughout health care in the
district. Some of the common complaints are their rate of pay and different
things they deal with as an LPN versus some of the people they work alongside.
Hopefully, with a change in the scope of what they can do, then it will allow a
review of that also at some point. If you go to a hospital, you most likely have
seen or been in contact with an LPN before most anyone else.
So this
bill is pretty detailed; there are a lot of different changes. No changes that
are negative, in my opinion. If you look at the bill in its entirety, it, again,
only helps the LPNs perform the duty that they were hired to do. It changes the
scope of health care practices for them and it will certainly allow their
profession to progress at the rate it should have progressed probably a few
years ago.
The
biggest complaint that I would have about this legislation is that it's probably
five or 10 years too late. Since 2005 – the training that they undertake has
changed substantially. Not in the last two years or three years. It changed
substantially probably about 10 years ago. So it's a little bit too late, but I
guess it's better late than never.
At the
end of the day, I think all the LPNs and all the people who work in our health
care system deserve a debt of gratitude from all of us, certainly with what
they're going through right now and certainly with what the patients and the
people that are hoping to get in the hospitals are going through right now.
I won't
carry out this debate very much longer, but I would like to say again just a
personal thank you to everyone in the health care system. I will be supporting
this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers to
the bill if the minister speaks now, he will close debate.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Speaker.
This is
a specific piece of asks from the College of Registered Nurses. It is great to
see support on all sides of the aisle. I commend this bill to the House.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 26 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. (Bill 26)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
L. DEMPSTER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005,” read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 26)
SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
L. DEMPSTER:
Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper second reading of Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 27, An Act To Amend
The Pharmacy Act, 2012, be now read a second time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012, be read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012.” (Bill 27)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
an even tighter piece of legislation to amend the
Pharmacy Act, 2012, also in conjunction with the previous bill which
has just passed second reading.
This is
a very specific ask. It requires an amendment to the Pharmacy Act because it
removes a barrier to LPNs current scope of practice. LPNs are, within their
scope of practice, allowed to administer drugs – a wide variety of drugs, pretty
well any that are available, that don't require special or specific training.
They
are, however, not allowed because of the way the Pharmacy Act is written to
dispense it. The difference between administration and dispensing is – for those
who may not know – a practitioner hands you the drug or injects you with the
drug, and that is called administration. Dispensing is kind of like to go, where
you take the medication with you, with instruction and appropriate teaching, to
consume on your own. This would be under very limited specified circumstances,
which would be set out in regulation. Certainly, the Pharmacy Board is on board,
if you'll pardon the expression, with the restrictions that have been imposed.
It will limit it to RHA facilities and there will be, obviously because of that,
the usual practices and protocols in place for the RHA.
It will
not have a significant impact across the province, but it will certainly
continue the work of enabling practitioners, particularly LPNs, to practice to
their full scope of practice. It's very tight, very specific. The amendment is
short and I would be happy to deal with any questions in Committee.
Thank
you. I commend this bill to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I do
agree with the minister. It is a very tight bill, no doubt about it. It
certainly does, it removes a barrier to LPNs in terms of enabling them to
practice to the full capacity of their scope of practice.
This
bill makes just a single change to subsection 3(2) of the Pharmacy Act. It added
the words “or licensed practical nurses” after the words “registered nurses” in
the subsection on dispensing necessary drugs or medicines. These are the types
of changes we've been calling for to help facilitate improved access to care for
patients who cannot see a family doctor.
In many
areas – rural, but also urban – people would have an easier time accessing a
registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse than they would a family doctor.
We have been calling for the establishment of multi-disciplinary health care
clinics and changes to the fee structures so such clinics can be set up and
function properly. Such facilities different health care professionals could
practice to the full scope of their profession, giving patients optimal care,
access to the kind of care they require without compromising health care
delivery at all. In fact, health care delivery would be improved.
When we
add on the element of virtual care, which I spoke to earlier, this legislative
change is incredibly important. If a physician can prescribe via a virtual visit
and an LPN can dispense, as they are professionally qualified to do, patients
can have access to improved care, their essential medications will not be
delayed and they will not have to suffer the health consequences of delayed
care.
We hope
there will be more discussions with all health care professionals about the kind
of changes that can be made to improve people's access to care without
compromising the level of care or quality of care they receive. I know when I
spoke earlier I spoke about the many primary health care providers, from your
LPNs to your nurses to your nurse practitioners. I think we all agree in this
House that allowing them to practice to the full scope of what they're trained
to do is only going to do better for the health care of our residents.
Every
time we hear people suffering because of delayed care – that's what we're
hearing. We realize that the failure to adapt is having dire consequences on
people and that's not acceptable. This bill, which I'm happy to support, will
help alleviate some of that. It is a good start. Like everything, we have a bit
of a ways to go, but this is a positive bill and I will be supporting it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Speaker. I was
having an important meeting there.
Speaker,
Bill 27 in this case, allows for licensed practical nurses to work to their full
scope of practice. That is something that I support 1,000 per cent, so I will be
supporting the bill.
I will
say when we get to Committee I do have a couple of questions. Maybe the
minister, when he clues up debate, can answer it now or whatever. I'd just like
to have an example.
The
minister says there are limited times where this type of thing would happen,
that it would be needed. I would just like to hear an example of specifically
what kind of a situation would rarely happen that this may apply. He can answer
it now when he speaks or we can wait for Committee, but I'll be supporting it.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you, Speaker.
This act
to amend the Pharmacy Act is certainly a good act, no doubt about it; it goes
along with the nurse practitioners. That will help alleviate some of the
obstructions that they may have, removing barriers for LPNs so they can dispense
medication. This will become more important as we go on.
Doctors
prescribe the medicines now so this will help the LPNs to administer medicines
that need to be done. Like our colleagues who said that changes are made in the
system all the time, it's time that some other changes have to be made. It's
needed to be made so that we can move along with those medicines and it can be
adhered to in particular ways to alleviate the problems that can occur.
So this,
no doubt, is a good change and it's a good act. I'll certainly be supporting it
because it's something that we can all take a look at along the way. The
dispensing of the – LPNs allowed for specific shortages, so it's something that
can be done quickly. It's certainly a sweeping change across the province that
LPNs are taking over that part of it.
We've
been calling for those types of changes in the past few months and couple of
years, especially in the rural areas, because from what we've seen there are
shortages of doctors. We need extra help in those areas. LPNs will be a great
asset to those regions, especially in the rural regions. I see it every day,
people looking to see doctors just to get prescriptions to help them alleviate
some of the problems they have.
LPNs
being able to administer the medicines and drugs to those patients will
certainly be a great asset to those people at the time, because they need to get
those medicines and they need them in a timely fashion. Not being able to see a
physician, especially in the rural areas, makes it certainly a different and
harder way to receive the medicine and the treatment that they need.
This Act
to Amend the Pharmacy Act for the LPNs certainly strengthens that procedure.
Like I say, it's something that we've been calling for in the health care
clinics. The fees and structures is something that we'll have to look at, too,
such as the clinic can be set up to function properly so that the fees can be
there for the LPNs. That's a good addition as well. It's something that will
carry on and be a good aspect especially in the rural areas.
Health
delivery would improve. It would keep the patients with the drugs that they
need. This is good for the LPNs. It's a good part of the act and we certainly
agree with this one.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I agree
it's a great piece of legislation. I have many friends that are LPNs, licensed
practical nurses. If you talk to some of them about doing the course it's so –
it's a very difficult course to do. They have so much information in such a
small period of time to get through. It just goes to show the competency of our
LPNs across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are very competent.
We are in very good hands with the LPNs we have. Like I say, I have many of them
that are friends; they do a phenomenal job.
But when
it comes to dispensing drugs, it's something that I think should have been done
a long time ago. It clearly shows that they have been trained to do it. We need
to pull from and use every single resource we have in this province to help our
health care get better, much better than it is now. This is definitely one
resource that we're going to pull on. It's something that I know I support. I'm
sure that the nurses and doctors support it as well. Anything to alleviate some
of the pressures and burnout that these great individuals have at the end of the
day is fantastic.
If
that's what the bill is intended for – it seems to be that way – we need to make
sure that we utilize those resources when it comes to utilizing our LPNs. They
do a fantastic job.
You look
at if they're going to dispense the drugs on behalf of the doctors, I know that
this world is going more virtual and you have to keep up with it. It's a little
bit difficult for some folks to take, especially some older folks who are used
to the face-to-face doctor scenario, but if they see competent LPN in person
with them that can dispense their drugs to them, well that might give them a
little bit of assurance at the end of the day as well. Because LPNs are health
care professionals and that's what they're looking for at the end of the day.
The
LPNs, again, are quite competent in doing this; there are no issues. I thank all
LPNs across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the team that they
contribute to as well. I know it is a team effort between the doctors, the
nurses, the LPNs and there is more support staff on the sides as well.
Again, I
am sure that all the health care professionals within the province would agree
with this and anything to help our health care move in the right direction is a
win for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know
that I'll be supporting this bill. I think it is a great piece of legislation. I
thank the minister for taking it forward.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Speaker.
I'm just
going to have a few minutes on this and talk about some of the concerns. Of
course, I'll be supporting this bill also. It's great to take into the scope of
their practice. They're all qualified to do it and they've been asking to be
able to do it for a while.
Some of
the concerns I heard from LPNs that have contacted me out on the West Coast are
they're a bit overworked as it is. I don't know, especially in the long-term
care facilities, they're a bit overworked as it is. Now, it is going to be
something else that they can do, which I'm sure they're going to do because
they're professionals.
I just
want to bring that to the government's attention. I have been contacted by many
of the LPNs and the workload has increased, especially since COVID their
workload has gotten higher. There is a high burnout there. They were hoping that
maybe some more would be added to the system somehow that could help out.
I just
want to raise that to the minister and to the government, some of the concerns
that I have received out on the West Coast, especially with the long-term care
and especially with some of the patients and especially with some of the
siblings of the patients saying that they need some extra help and support for
the LPNs on the West Coast.
I would
be remiss if I didn't bring that to the government's attention in this
opportunity. I am very confident that they will look forward to doing their full
scope of duties and they will do it very professionally, but their workload has
increased a fair amount. I would just like for the government to look at that.
I'm sure it is not just Western Newfoundland. My colleague, the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands, said it's here also.
I would
just bring that and put it on the government's radar, I'm sure they're aware of
it. I can tell you that a lot of residents and a lot of siblings who were in
helping them with their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters are bringing
attention to the workload of the LPNs.
I look
forward to voting for this bill, but I also look forward to trying to help out
somehow with the overload of the nurses and the LPNs – not just LPNs, of the
nurses also in this province. I trust that will be reviewed somehow and I trust
that they would try to help with the overload.
Thank
you, Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
J. BROWN:
Thank you, Speaker.
I just
wanted to have a quick word there on this. It does coincide with the previous
one that we just did, but it's important that we continue to move to the
national standards on these kind of health care workers, that we have everybody
working at the full scope of their practice. We have the ability to move and
shift and use the resources we do have at our current disposal. We do have the
ability to utilize every aspect we have.
We need
every individual who's currently trained in this province right now in health
care. We need to have them working at their full scope of practice; having the
ability to do everything they can within the scope of their field because we
need them.
We need
the resource, we need these people and we need to be able to move and shift as
the dynamics of everything currently moves. If there's a person out there right
now, training out there right now or anything like that, even reconsidering
going back into your profession right now, because we need them. We need them to
practice and we need to be at their full scope.
I really
do support this. I hope to see more of this kind of thing as we try to get our
health care professionals practising at the level that they are trained to do.
Thank
you.
SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
bill?
Seeing
none, if the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close
the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's
great again to see support from all sides of the aisle for this relatively
straightforward but nonetheless important amendment to legislation.
In
response to the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, examples of this are
varied. I would give one, for example, in a virtual clinic setting whereby
medication may be available in the RHA facility and the specialist on the other
end of the consult might advise that this medication be taken away and taken at
a specific time.
An LPN
would be allowed to do that under these circumstances, otherwise it would entail
some workaround by involving a third party who may not actually be present, for
example. In a rural clinic, for example, in coastal Labrador, where the LPN
might be the only person on shift physically in the building, it would allow
someone to have medication to tide them overnight. Whereas, otherwise they'd
have to call in a practitioner either virtually or in real time and then the
patient or client would actually have to physically go to a pharmacy or some
other service provider, not necessarily in the community, to access a dose of
medication. That whilst the LPN could give it, they couldn't actually give it to
take away.
Those
are granular examples of how this would work in enhancing front-line care. I
think it's great to see this all-Member support, and I commend this bill to the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 27 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Pharmacy Act, 2012. (Bill 27)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act, 2012,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 27)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 36.
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 to consider Bill 36.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
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 36, An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And
The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting The Office Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The
Public Accounts Of The Province.” (Bill 36)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Chair.
Just a
few questions relating to the act. In section 5(3) it talks about the Auditor
General shall not hold a public office within one year of ceasing to be the
Auditor General.
I'm
wondering: Is that a new clause?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
It's my understanding that it
is and that reflects other public office holders, no different than a Cabinet
minister and so on.
T. WAKEHAM:
And I wondered: Does this
clause also apply to the deputy Auditor General?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I will get you that answer, Sir. It's not in the act, so I would say no but I
can confirm that for you.
T. WAKEHAM:
And the other question I –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Sorry, Chair.
The
other question I had around that: What about other Officers of the House of
Assembly? Does it apply to them?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
That's not what we're
discussing at this point in time, I guess, as they come forward – and I think
the importance, when you think about the role of the Auditor General, is all
offices need a level of independence, but I think none more importantly than
that of the Auditor General.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Again, under section 9, it talks about the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may,
on the recommendation of the commission, appoint an acting Auditor General.
I was
just wondering why the deputy Auditor General wouldn't become the acting Auditor
General.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I guess that, again, would be the role of the LGIC to make that. I think if you
look at past circumstances you'd find that, typically, that's what happens, but
that right remains with the LGIC.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Again, this time I want to go under section 12. It says: “The auditor general
shall, in the manner provided by law, appoint those auditors and other employees
that the auditor general considers necessary to enable the auditor general to
carry out the auditor general's functions under this Act.”
I guess
that comes down to what type of budget are we looking at for the Auditors
General and who will determine it because, given what this act does, the new
powers for the Auditor General, there is a potential for new employees to be
hired.
So I'm
just wondering who has the authority. It says the act gives the authority to the
Auditor General, but how does that work in terms of the whole budget process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I thank the hon. Member for
his question.
You are
correct in that the Auditor General – we are assuming they may need additional
supports and the Auditor General will be considering their work plan for the
year and what supports they will require. We will be able to, as Treasury Board
then, reach into the circumstances of other agencies, boards, commissions and
departments to pull that money.
For
example, if the Auditor General now is going to act as the auditor for, I'll
use, an agency, board or commission, a Crown corporation and, therefore, the
Crown corporation doesn't need the monies that it currently has in order to hire
an outside auditor, we'll take that money and give it the Auditor General. So
we'll be moving around pots of money in the budget process to allow them to have
the supports they need to do their work.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
That's what I would
interpret, that it has the authority to hire outside auditors, if necessary. But
I guess I was more concerned with – given that flexibility, I know they'll take
the money that Nalcor, for example, would pay to an external auditor.
But how
does that deal with the staff? Because hiring staff, if you're trying to hire
staff on a permanent basis, is it the intent to try to build our own Auditor
General's department up, or is it the case of what we're doing is allowing the
Auditor General to contract with private auditing firms to do the role and they
report directly to the Auditor General?
So I'm
just trying to understand what direction we might take that in.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
I understand in the act we've
given that flexibility and that opportunity to the Auditor General. He or she –
and currently it's a she – would be able to make that determination as to
whether or not an outside auditor is acceptable in that particular year or
circumstance, or whether or not the Auditor General themselves will be going in
to conduct that audit.
I think
there's a general recognition that we need to provide additional supports to the
Auditor General, and they're reviewing what their requirements are.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
On that note, do we know if
the Auditor General's office is fully staffed now? Are there any vacancies?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
The Management Commission
would deal with staffing issues at the Office of the Auditor General, and I
think, just recently, we made some changes in that office to realign some of the
staff in that office.
But
again, to the minister's point – and I think one of the reasons in the
proclamation and the timelines in this act is certainly we know that for the
Auditor General to take on this responsibility – because we want to make sure
that, in this case, she has the ability and the finances to move forward and do
the job whole.
Somebody
said today – it might have been the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands
mentioned – if we're going to give her all these duties, she has to have the
resources to do it or it won't create the situation we're looking for. So we
realize that she will need that.
That
actually is a question that will come before the Management Commission when we
do Estimates in the spring because obviously the Office of the Auditor General
is funded through the House of Assembly.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
Again,
that's the whole point, is to make sure they have the resources to be able to do
their job so that they're not forced into contracting out. With the budget
process starting now, obviously for next year, and the ability to look at how
much money was spent by other agencies, boards and commissions and how much can
be done internally versus externally, that's what I wanted to make sure of, that
that flexibility is being looked at and you just said it was.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Yes, that will certainly come
forward in the Estimates that are presented to the Management Commission for the
Legislature. Those Estimates are very – they're usually accepted pretty easily.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Again, just to clarify, the
understanding is that the AG will have all the necessary manpower to be able to
do what needs to get done, whether it's contracted out or direct employees of
the department.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, that is certainly the
intent of the act. Again, as a Member of the Management Commission – the
Management Commission sits here in this House – we will make sure the Auditor
General has the resources that he or she needs at the time.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under section 21(c) it says:
“a person or organization that has, after the coming into force of this section,
received government funding that the auditor general determines to be material
…” and I'm just wondering what the definition of “material” is. Have we defined
what that would be in terms of a dollar allocation or an amount?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I think that would be a
determination of the Auditor General. If he or she at the time feels that
there's something material here, because it's not only following the money it's
following processes and other things. I think, without moving into it – yeah,
I'll leave it for your next question.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Under section 22(2) it says:
Where the auditor general completes an audit in accordance with subsection (1),
the auditor general shall (a) report back to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,
the House of Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee, as applicable; and (b)
disclose to the public the subject of the audit.
I'm
asking: What's the process now? Is this meant to change the process that
currently exists?
S. CROCKER:
I'll check with the officials
on that. I don't think it is a change. I think it's still the same process, no
different than what we would have seen recently when the Auditor General
reported to the Public Accounts Committee. That's the way it found its way to
the House or to the public.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yeah, and that's, I guess,
what I wanted to try to confirm because the “disclose to the public the
subject,” the Auditor General issued a press release that she had issued a
report to the Public Accounts Committee, but she didn't issue the contents of
the report. She didn't issue the report. She stated that she had issued a
report. So I'm just trying to see how it impacts the Public Accounts Committee,
if any.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Yes, certainly, I wouldn't see any impact. There's no intent of this piece of
legislation to retract any abilities of the Committees or the people outlined
there. It's actually to add to and not to strengthen.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
So when a report is requested by the Public Accounts Committee or the House of
Assembly, the report goes back to the appropriate Committee before it is made
public and they will make it public, like it has been now.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
I will certainly get you clarification on that, but that would be –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
S. CROCKER:
Right, once it's tabled in
the House it becomes public because it is a report, the Auditor General is an
officer of this House and so in that case – I see the Clerk nodding. Maybe we
should get the Clerk – no, good. Yeah.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
Yes, under section 16 of those special reports, it goes to the Public Accounts
Committee. I just wanted to make sure that that process was not changed as a
result of this. So there's no change, basically. You're going to get back.
S. CROCKER:
(Inaudible.)
T. WAKEHAM:
Okay.
CHAIR:
The Member for Stephenville -
Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM:
All good.
CHAIR:
Okay.
The
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Chair.
I just
want to seek a little more clarification on what the Member from Stephenville -
Port au Port was raising as it relates to the – my God, here we go again; my
mind is going, b'ys. My mind is going, just like that, it was on the tip of the
tongue and it just (inaudible).
CHAIR:
I remind the Member to be
relevant to the (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
E. JOYCE:
(Inaudible.)
P. LANE:
Yes, yes. My colleague from
Humber - Bay of Islands, yes, on the issue of the resources, on having enough
resources.
Listening to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier responding and she
talked about the fact – I'm not putting words in her mouth – but my
understanding of what she said was that if the AG was going in to examine MUN or
they were going in to examine NL Hydro, whatever the case might be, and NL Hydro
would normally pay an auditor just to audit their finances and now it's going to
be the Auditor General. So they're going to pay for the audit. That's where the
resources come from. Unless I'm missing something, that is the normal year-end
financial audit piece that money would be spent on and could be spent on here.
Not that that's not important – it should be done for every corporation,
obviously – but I'm more concerned about the value for money audits, the
performance and are you following policy. That can go in a million different
directions, as we know.
Now, if
there are going to be more entities involved in this, potentially, like MUN and
so on, that's more entities. Right now under our current system and the current
resources that the Auditor General's office has, I don't know how many they do,
but they will do a finite number. They might do five, six, 10 or whatever it is
a year, but by the time you get through all the core government departments,
ABCs and everything, it could take you 10 years to get back the second time
around. Even when you go to a department you might audit two or three divisions,
but then there are another bunch of divisions that never get audited because,
again, of the resources. So now we're adding more duties to the AG's office.
Again,
tying in to what my colleague was saying, would the intention be – and I know we
have to go through the regular budgetary process – the AG is going to apply for
their budget, like everything else, department, we will approve it. But is it
the overall intent that we're going to add additional resources, additional
bodies to that office in recognition of the fact that there are going to be more
audits to be done?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you for the question.
Yeah,
absolutely that's the intent. The Estimates of the Legislature will come forward
in the budget process. The Auditor General, you know, she is out today saying
that she's supportive of this legislation, her office sees the importance of it.
She will submit her budget to the Legislature, taking into account the new roles
and responsibilities that her office has and that budget will come to the
Management Commission in the regular budget process.
CHAIR:
The Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands.
P. LANE:
Okay, so she'll come through
to the Management Commission with the request, but the point I'm trying to drive
through is that there are two ways it can be looked at. The AG can look at it
and say this is the number of staff people I have and, traditionally, we're
doing 10 audits a year – I'm just saying 10. It might be five; it might be 20. I
don't know what it is, but it's not 20 for sure. Anyway, maybe it's 10. I do 10
audits a year and, to get through everything, it's going to be X number of years
to get to everybody. If I want to increase that, that means I'm going to have to
increase the number of staff.
Now, she
could say I want additional staff so I can do more every year, or she could just
say I'm still only going to do 10 a year. It's just that it will be divided up
over more and it will take longer to get to them. Is it government's intention,
I suppose, in speaking with the Auditor General, to say we would like for you to
be able to do more audits or just maintain what you're doing now? Because that
will determine her budget ask, obviously.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
The reality is that it's not
government's role; it's the role of the Legislature because, obviously, the
Auditor General reports to the Legislature. The Auditor General will come
forward with her budget as we lead in. There's a full expectation that there
will be more resources needed.
I think,
quite frankly, the Auditor General will outsource a lot of audits. But I think
the spirit of these changes is that, to your earlier comments, it now gives the
Auditor General the ability to go into – and all ABCs now live under the same
scrutiny, as they should, as all government departments. If it's public money,
the role of the Auditor General is to have the ability to follow that money.
I think
in these changes some of the challenges were, in the past, the Auditor General
didn't have the ability to always follow the money. This now gives the Auditor
General ability to follow the money. To your point as well, not only follow the
money but follow processes and follow how things are going in any given
organization. Because, at the end of the day, it's all taxpayers' money.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I
totally agree and I guess that's my point. As a Legislature, perhaps, more so
than a government and maybe the Management Commission and so on, I just think we
need to be taking the point of view that this is an investment as opposed to an
expense. Providing the AG with more resources and encouraging more audits to be
done than are being done now, I think can find us a lot more savings, find us a
lot more inefficiencies and things that are potentially not going as they should
so that we can save the taxpayers money.
So it
depends on how you look at it. You can say add resources as an additional
expense; but if you look at it, like I say, as an investment, then you're going
to get a large return on that investment, hopefully, by having those additional
resources scrutinizing what's going on. I guess that would be my point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Absolutely. This is about
providing an oversight and it gives a level of accountability to every
governance body out there, that if you're receiving government money you will or
could be held to account by the Auditor General.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE:
Final question and it relates
to the outside contractor piece, any outside agency or entity or whatever that
is receiving government money, that the AG can now, as I understand it, actually
investigate, for lack of a better term, determine how that money was spent.
So, in
other words, I'm a private business and I receive a government grant. Then the
AG can now look into that if there was any question of if that grant was spent
appropriately or any conflicts of interest or anything like that. Is that
correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Yeah, thank you for the question.
So, yes,
if you're an ABC company and you receive a contribution from government, the
Auditor General can look at that contribution. The Auditor General wouldn't be
able to go in and look at your company. But, yes, if there's government money
involved, the Auditor General can look at how that money was appropriated.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J. DINN:
And I'll follow up on that. I just need some clarification. I may already know
the answer to this one, but it talks about agency of the Crown and government
funding public money.
I'm
asking this in relation to the Provident10 and the Teachers' Pension
Plan Corporation. So there's money that's paid to both of these as government's
ownership of the liability. I'm just curious to make sure that's still – I'm
assuming that the Auditor General doesn't have any authority over these groups
in how the money is used.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY:
Thank you for the question.
I'll
talk to officials now to make sure that is the case. That is my understanding,
though.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
J. DINN:
I guess a caution I would
have since these are independent bodies now, joint sponsorship but, to me,
there's government money going into it for those who were retired at the time. I
just want to make sure that this is not opening these independent corporations
which are jointly managed. They already have (inaudible) and balances there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
We'll certainly follow up on
that, but I wouldn't think so. That's a different organization altogether.
That's on a contribution – that's government's contribution to a pension plan in
this case.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 53
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 53
inclusive.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 53 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting The Office
Of The Auditor General And The Auditing Of The Public Accounts Of The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 36.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 36.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
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.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 36 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report that Bill 36 be carried without amendment.
When
shall the bill be received?
S. CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on
tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
third reading of Bill 6, An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of
Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection
With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical Components Of
Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader, what are you speaking to?
S. CROCKER:
Third reading.
SPEAKER:
Mover and seconder.
S. CROCKER:
Oh, yes, sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL, that – I
will not go through the long title again – Bill 6 be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The
Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus.
(Bill 6)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of The Health Of Persons
Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The Safety Of Persons In Connection With The
Operation And Use Of The Electrical And Mechanical Components Of Radiation
Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus,” read a third time, ordered passed
and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 12, An Act Respecting The
Renaming Of Red Indian Lake.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister Responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation,
that Bill 12 be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Renaming Of Red Indian Lake. (Bill 12)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Renaming Of Red Indian Lake,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 22, An Act – no, sorry,
20, sorry. My apologies, Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Third reading, you said
second.
S. CROCKER:
Third reading, sorry. My
apologies.
SPEAKER:
For all Members' clarity, it
is third reading.
S. CROCKER:
Thanks to the Member for
Terra Nova for keeping me straight.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 20 be
now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Coat Of Arms Act. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on
the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 34, An Act To Amend The
Schools Act, 1997.
Did I
say it again?
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
Let's
try it again, take two.
S. CROCKER:
I'll take two on that one,
sorry, Speaker.
Long,
long day, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education, that An Act To Amend The Schools Act,
1997, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 34)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
Order 11, third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal
Officials, Bill 37.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Speaker, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that Bill 37, An Act
Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Conduct Of Municipal Officials. (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Conduct Of Municipal Officials,” read a
third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 12, third reading of a bill, An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province, Bill 38.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that Bill
38, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Accessibility In The Province. (Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Accessibility In The Province,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Speaker.
I call
Order 13, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013, Bill
39.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you, Speaker.
I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that Bill
39, An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Adoption Act, 2013. (Bill 39)
SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that it do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, 2013,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 39)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
S. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that this
House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House does stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.