November 19, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 20
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
In the
Speaker's gallery today I would like to welcome former Member of the House of
Assembly, Ms. Gerry Rogers, joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In the public galleries I
welcome members of the Daly Family Collective: Louise Moyes, Diana Daly, Kay
Haynes and Maria Haynes. They're visiting today for a Member's statement as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, St. John's
Centre, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, Placentia West - Bellevue and Torngat
Mountains.
The hon.
Member for Windsor Lake.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize John McGrath, who has a long history of volunteerism with
multiple sports and other organizations within our province, but in particular,
soccer. It's my pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations on his recent
selection as one of Newfoundland and Labrador 2019 Seniors of Distinction.
The
Seniors of Distinction Awards program is an opportunity to officially recognize
and celebrate the contributions, achievements and diversity of Newfoundland and
Labrador's older adults.
John's
long-term commitment to sport was demonstrated in his roles as president of both
soccer and Sport Newfoundland and Labrador in the province. His efforts were
instrumental in bringing World Cup soccer to our shores, along with the FIFA U18
World Championship.
John was
an advocate to increase opportunities for women in sport and that impact is
evident today. He developed a reputation as an honest, dedicated and
hard-working individual, both in his working life as a lawyer and his numerous
volunteer roles.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating John McGrath on
receiving the 2019 Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors of Distinction Award.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Gerry Rogers, former MHA for St. John's Centre. Gerry best
exemplifies the words of Irish poet John O'Donohue's
“For A Leader” which says: “May you act not from arrogance but
out of service.”
Gerry
was hard-working, dedicated and creative, which was evident in her ability to
bring diverse groups together in town hall mash-ups to encourage dialogue and
seek solutions.
In the
House of Assembly, Gerry was able to work collaboratively and find consensus on
issues important to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; consider the unanimous
support for Gerry's 2015 private Member's motion to form an All-Party Committee
on Mental Health.
A former
constituency assistant said that Gerry cared for all of us, no matter how busy
she was. In some cases, that meant visiting constituents living in deplorable
and unsafe conditions, or finding money to buy a chair, reading socks, hats,
food or chocolate for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Even when Gerry
was receiving treatment for her own cancer, she was known to bring lunch to the
doctors treating her.
I saw
first-hand the positive impact Gerry had and how much she is respected and loved
by the constituents of St. John's
Centre. I'm proud to call her a mentor and a friend.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Daly
Family Collective – Diana Daly, Louise Moyes and Anne Troake – have worked
together in different capacities for many years. The collective was formed
officially in 2015 and have used their multidisciplinary approach to create a
project that is uplifting and inspiring folks across Newfoundland and Labrador
as well as the world.
Their
2016 production, If A Place Could Be Made,
highlights the lives and lessons of Kitty and Daniel Daly of Riverhead, St.
Mary's. The couple had 12 children, six of whom were very tall and six of whom
had skeletal dysplasia – today known as persons of short stature.
This
project has been described as a story about family, strong personalities, great
faith, inclusion, expansion and making the best out of what we have been given.
If A Place Could Be Made
has been performed across the province, the country and has an ongoing school
tour – spreading its message of inclusion to the students of our province – with
an upcoming maritime tour in the works.
I would
like to ask hon. Members to join me in celebrating the Daly Family Collective
and all the artists, groups and collaborators that brought to life the stories
of Kitty, Daniel and their family.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I
stand before this great hon. House to speak of a very distinctive lady in my
district, Mrs. Annie Brennan of the Town of Marystown.
On
October 1, I had the honour to be with Mrs. Brennan when she was presented with
her Seniors of Distinction Award. Mrs. Brennan has been recognized for her
decades of volunteer contributions, achievements and diversity work in Marystown
and the surrounding area. She has been involved with the Marystown Family Aid
Committee, Canadian Cancer Society and the Catholic Women's League.
Mr.
Speaker, at the age of 89, Mrs. Brennan still spends her time volunteering with
Mercy Associates, a group that assists the Sisters of Mercy in their work.
Mrs.
Brennan is an inspiration to us all. She has previously been recognized for her
volunteer work with the Marystown Lion's Club, being named Citizen of the Year
and has also received citations from the Red Cross and the Canadian Cancer
Society.
I ask
that my fellow colleagues join me in congratulating Mrs. Annie Brennan for her
commitment to her community and to say thank you for everything that you do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
I rise today to congratulate
the Nain Huskies male and female high school volleyball teams. It was the Nain
Huskies that came out on top at the 3A/4A tournament in Sheshatshiu this
weekend. This tournament brought the best of the high schools from the regions
of Lab West, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Sheshatshiu and Northern Labrador.
In order
to compete in the tournament, both the Nain teams had to win the volleyball
regionals at the North Coast sports meet, competing against all teams
representing the six Northern Labrador communities of Nain, Natuashish,
Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet.
I was so
proud not only at the Nain Huskies winning dual gold and now being able to
advance to the provincials, but I was also very proud how the North Coast
communities rallied behind them and cheered them on through social media. Nain
Huskies, you make us proud.
Please
join me in congratulating the Nain Huskies male and female volleyball teams on
their golden success and wish them well in their future competitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to inform this hon. House that we have launched our
Adult Protection Act engagement process and to encourage residents
to provide input on this important legislation. This process is part of the
five-year statutory review of our province's adult protection legislation and it
is the first review since the act was proclaimed on June 30, 2014.
The
purpose of the Adult Protection Act,
Mr. Speaker, is to protect adults who are at risk of abuse and neglect and who
do not understand or appreciate that risk.
The
engagement process, which was developed in consultation with our Public
Engagement and Planning Division and the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for
Health Information, includes in-person dialogue sessions and meetings. These
sessions are providing targeted key stakeholders, such as managers and
front-line staff of the regional health authorities and the police, with an
opportunity to share their input and perspectives on the act.
Mr.
Speaker, it is critical that we also hear from the general public. They can
visit us at www.engagenl.ca to complete a feedback form on the legislation by
December 18, 2019. People can also call toll-free, 1-888-494-2266. Further,
staff of Children, Seniors and Social Development are available to anyone who
might be interested in meeting to provide input.
Mr.
Speaker, the Adult Protection Act
engagement process will gather valuable information and perspectives and raise
public awareness about adult protection and the legal obligation we all have to
report suspected adult abuse and neglect. I encourage all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians to contribute to this process.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I'm glad
to see the provincial government is taking additional steps to protect adults
who are at risk of abuse and neglect and do not fully understand these risks.
Since the act was proclaimed in 2014, there have been 1,500 reports and less
than 150 requiring further investigation, as supports were put in place to
assist those individuals. It would be interesting to see a summary of the
reports put in place. Have they been effective?
Minister, 75 per cent of the reports are from seniors, and it is critically
important seniors and family members provide their comments at www.engagenl.ca.
We trust each and every report is given immediate priority. In addition, I
encourage each and every resident of our province to report adult abuse and
neglect.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I applaud the minister for
inviting a public consultation on the
Adult Protection Act, but remind the minister that this act protects some of
the most vulnerable people in our society. I'm sure she knows that.
Many
will not be comfortable or familiar with modern technology and/or may not be
willing to come forward on their own. I ask the minister to ensure that her
department makes every effort to reach out in various ways to those who are most
at risk.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate Heritage NL as the first ever recipient
of the Jeonju International Award for the promotion of intangible cultural
heritage.
Selected
out of 48 applicants from 36 different countries, Heritage NL was awarded
$10,000 for its role in safeguarding practices of intangible cultural heritage
in the global community. The award was presented by the City of Jeonju in the
Republic of Korea.
The
mission of Heritage NL's intangible cultural heritage program is to safeguard
and sustain the cultural heritage of Newfoundland and Labrador for present and
future generations. This is achieved through initiatives that celebrate, record
and promote our living heritage, and help to build bridges between diverse
cultural groups within and outside the province.
Mr.
Speaker, Heritage NL accomplishes this with the support of the provincial
government. The recent release of the Cultural Action Plan acknowledges the
importance of preserving both tangible and intangible heritage in the province,
and demonstrates government's commitment to supporting those opportunities.
We are
fortunate that Newfoundland and Labrador has an abundance of traditions, wisdom
and skills – just some of what is known as intangible cultural heritage – and
now has an award to celebrate it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for an advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating
Heritage NL on being named the first ever recipient of the Jeonju International
Award.
Mr.
Speaker, it is truly a remarkable achievement as Heritage NL was nominated
alongside 47 other organizations from all over the world. This award exemplifies
the diligent work undertaken by Heritage NL to celebrate, safeguard, promote and
enhance the culture of this great province. It also recognizes Heritage NL's
training programs, community-based workshops and the many festivals that the
organization supports.
There is
no doubt that all of our communities have been enriched by the work of Heritage
NL. Mr. Speaker, this is an accomplishment we can all be proud of.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join all hon.
Members in congratulating the leadership and staff of Heritage NL for this
international recognition. I thank Heritage NL for the good work they do
breathing new life into our intangible culture and heritage and finding creative
ways to honour our cultural traditions across this great province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition Leader.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister please provide an update on how much public money has now been invested
or spent on the Bay du Nord project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you that there's been no money spent on the Bay du Nord project, except for
internal resources on moving the project forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We understand that the next
step to sanctioning Bay du Nord will happen this week, and proponents will issue
the next round of procurement for the FPSO.
How much
of this round does the minister expect will be awarded to Newfoundland and
Labrador business and workers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
indeed positive news that Equinor seems to be moving towards sanction. Of
course, we're not there at sanction at this point in time. I can inform the
people of the province that we are still working with Equinor to move that
project along. It has not been sanctioned at this point in time; however, it is
positive news they're signalling to the community that they are moving forward.
As has
been indicated last year, Mr. Speaker, we do have an agreement with Equinor on
what they are proposed to do in the province, what they're required to do in the
province. That will provide a tremendous amount of opportunity for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for work in the province, as well as for growth
of the industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, we're gratified
to hear about tremendous opportunities in the province, but the facts appear to
be that this project will only see 4,600 metric tons of fabrication completed in
the province with at least 90 per cent of the fabrication benefiting workers
elsewhere.
Why did
the minister's government trade away employment for workers in the province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
incredibly important – incredibly important – that I correct the record from the
Member opposite. I can say this project cost will be an estimated almost $11
billion with the majority of that being spent in the province. I can say that at
the very, very minimum about 5,000 metric tons of fabrication will take place in
the province.
There is
some 1.1 million person-hours that will be used on subsea engineering, there
will be a minimum $75 million in research and development and education and
training and $14 billion in gross domestic product for this province – a
tremendous value to this province. Mr. Speaker, it is our first deep-water
project.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance indicated that the fiscal update will be coming in the next few weeks.
Will the
minister confirm that the fiscal update will be provided before the House
adjourns in December? Will it include details on the $617 million in expenditure
reductions planned for the next three years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
fiscal update is in process. I know that the officials in the Department of
Finance, Mr. Speaker, are working diligently to have a fiscal update ready.
I have
indicated that it will be prior to the end of this calendar year. We are working
diligently to have it as quickly as possible. It is certainly my hope that it
will be prior to the conclusion of the House the first week of December.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, without any
details provided, if applied evenly across government $617 million equates to
cuts of $294 million to health, $81 million to education, $60 million to
post-secondary institutions, $21 million to income support and $30 million to
municipalities. Is this contained in your fiscal plan? Is this the reason why
you will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic
that in Question Period almost every day we get requests to spend more money; in
petitions every day we get requests to spend more money. We're asked by Members
of the Conservative Opposition to spend more money almost on a daily basis; at
the same time, they're demanding that we make cuts.
Mr.
Speaker, really I'd call it the two-story Tory.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I remind the
minister that the $617 million is his number, not mine. It was in his budget.
The
minister in comments to the media – unprompted, by the way – said: “I won't risk
getting back to surplus if it means closing hospitals where people need them ….”
I ask
the minister: Did his original plan include hospital closures? Is this the
reason why you will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm almost
gobsmacked by the question. I mean, the Leader of the Conservative Opposition
said health is a good place to start. I know why he picked the Finance critic he
did, Mr. Speaker, because we had received a number of recommendations by that
gentleman when he was in charge of Labrador-Grenfell Health, including closing
hospitals.
He
suggested closing hospitals in Labrador, reducing the hours for clinics and
charging additional money for medical transportation for people on the North
Coast of Labrador, and he's asking us if our plan included closing hospitals. If
it did, Mr. Speaker, we would have taken his recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I need not
remind the minister opposite that as a former minister of Health, he knows full
well the process when it comes budgetary decisions around the Department of
Health and how the process works. To say that the health authority has, somehow
or other, power over everything is completely false.
Mr.
Speaker, we know the details exist because it was confirmed in an access to
information request, but only Cabinet knows the details. Recently, the English
School District announced a review of schools across the province, including in
my district.
I ask
the minister: Does his plan include school closures? Is this the reason why he
will not release it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, it is Cabinet
and Treasury Board that make the final decisions. As the individual who is
responsible for Labrador-Grenfell Health, nobody can dispute the fact that it
was the recommendations from that individual to close services in Sheshatshiu,
or to close hospitals in Labrador, or to charge 225 per cent more for medical
transportation to the people on the North Coast of Labrador. Those were the
recommendations that came forward from that individual.
We can
talk more details on those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the
Conservative Opposition believes that health care is a good place to start. I
said quite clearly I'm not prepared to close a hospital in order to return to
surplus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Trades
NL issued a media release noting that they would suspend demonstrations and
begin negotiations between Trades NL and DF Barnes.
I ask
the minister: What is the duration of the current contract which Nalcor has with
DF Barnes?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are
pleased to see that there was a lease between Nalcor oil company and DF Barnes
for another rig, for some maintenance work on that rig, Mr. Speaker. That
contract expires the end of April 2020.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of how many person-hours of employment will
be created by this contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
First of all, Mr. Speaker,
allow me to just say for the record, they are all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and they are all unionized. So allow me to just make sure that
Members in this hon. House understand that.
At
current, I understand there are about 20 people employed under this contract
going to, I think, 40 people. It depends on what the requirements are under this
maintenance agreement. I tell you one thing that is very, very important: Work
is being done here in this province by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians instead
of this rig going elsewhere internationally.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest to the minister that this is not enough. Bull Arm has
sat idle for far too long. The recent protests are protests about a lack of jobs
for people in our province. Our people want to go back to work.
I ask
the minister: What is the plan for Bull Arm once the Transocean Barents leaves?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unlike
the former administration that left Bull Arm idle for a dozen years, we've been
working very diligently to find a full-time tenant and a full-time leaser for
the site. We have put out on expression of interest and moved on to a request
for proposals, Mr. Speaker. We are down to negotiations with two companies for a
long-term lease arrangement for the site of Bull Arm.
We're
very much working hard to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are employed
and growing our oil and gas industry.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
I remind the minister that
the site sat idle from 1997 to 2003.
Despite
the need for jobs, in part by the government's inaction to award the Bull Arm
long-term RFP – this RFP was released over two years ago. We all know it was
narrowed down to two proponents.
I ask
the minister: When will there be a long-term tenant put in place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
meantime, we've developed Advance
2030. That is really, really growing our oil and gas industry here, which will
be exactly what the people of this province will enjoy when we have more
discoveries offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
We've
been discussing with these two proponents their possibilities for growth and
development of the Bull Arm site, Mr. Speaker. We're continuing in that. You've
heard, earlier, questions about Equinor and the development of the Bay du Nord.
That's another exciting project.
Offshore
today, Mr. Speaker, for the first time since the early 1990s, ExxonMobil is
doing discovery work. They're drilling. Let's hope for a discovery so that we
can all enjoy the benefits of the opportunity we have in our oil and gas
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, economies are
run by people working, not by royalties, and if we have to wait until 2030,
there won't be anyone left here to work.
I ask
the minister: Why she has allowed Bull Arm to sit idle for over two years when
there were companies interested in putting residents to work out there?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
I find it unbelievable, Mr.
Speaker, that that Member opposite would not be, along with all other
stakeholders in this province, excited about the opportunities that are under
Advance 2030. I cannot believe that he is not supporting
Advance 2030. I simply am astounded by
that.
I can
tell the Member opposite – and I've had multiple conversations with him about
the growth and potential of Bull Arm – sorry, I'm getting some feedback here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I will say this:
Growth and development of our offshore is predicated on the growth and
development under Advance 2030. We're
doing everything on this side of the House to ensure exploration happens,
discovery takes place and growth and development occurs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After
months of controversy and protest, the minister's department has finally agreed
to a formal review of the delivery of education to children who have a hearing
disability.
Why has
it taken public outcry and a human rights complaint to get action on this very
significant issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the Member for the question.
Mr.
Speaker, deaf and hard of hearing is absolutely a priority for our department.
I've had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak with some parents in the
department with regard to issues that they've had, and a survey is under way to
determine how we can better deliver our services.
Mr.
Speaker, we had the opportunity, we put a steering committee in place. People
who are associated with the steering committee include the Canadian Hard of
Hearing Association; APSEA, which is the Atlantic Provinces Special Education
Authority; we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf, and it
will include parents as well. We are well under way to getting this problem
solved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, this review
steering committee – again, only announced after months of public protest and
demonstrations – will not include any parent participation. Parents are
children's strongest advocates, and I'm glad the minister has spoken with those
parents.
Why
exclude these strong voices from this steering committee, those advocates who
best know the children?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
This is the first
conversation I've had with this particular Member, Mr. Speaker, with regard to
excluding parents. We said that we would initiate the process and we would
include parent participation, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody
is excluding parents here. We've set up a steering committee and we are very
serious about providing good supports for the deaf and hard-of-hearing people of
this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has
allowed APSEA, the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, a role in the
review despite the fact that they serve no Newfoundland and Labrador students
with hearing impairments.
Would
the minister see the increased probability of getting it right with parents and
maybe even senior hearing impaired students directly involved in the steering
committee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Again, Mr. Speaker, we've put
this steering committee in place, and it is a priority for us to get this
straight. I will take the Member's suggestion under advisement, but, again, Mr.
Speaker, we have people from my department, people from the district, people
from APSEA, people from Canadian Hard of Hearing Association and people from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf.
We will
get this right, Mr. Speaker. It is a priority for the department and we will
make sure that parents are included.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, from October
2018 to October 2019, I have been told by Central Health that 7,833 people have
used the emergency department at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in
Botwood. This is between the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. because it was closed by
the Liberal government in 2016 for the remainder of the day.
Will the
minister take heed of those numbers and reinstate the 24-hour emergency room
service at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in Botwood as promised in this
year's election?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
The
volume of patients going through the Hugh Twomey centre was the reason for the
initial change in the operating hours of that emergency room.
Subsequent data through Central Health suggests that, currently, the numbers
that would attend that centre between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. would be of
the order of maybe two a week.
We did
say that when the staffing changes at Hugh Twomey come about, as a result of our
significant expansion of the protective care unit there, we would revisit those
numbers to see what the art of the possible was around 24-hour services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, Central Health also said that an additional 4,620 people from the
Exploits District used the Central Newfoundland health centre during the same
period last year. That's a total of 12,453 people in the Exploits District
requiring emergency service.
Will the
minister commit to reinstate the 24-hour emergency service at the Dr. Hugh
Twomey Health Care Centre and alleviate the added stress off the Central
Newfoundland health care centre?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much again for
the question, Mr. Speaker.
The Hugh
Twomey centre in Botwood is 20 minutes from Central Newfoundland Regional Health
Centre. A lot of people will combine their clinic visit, their emergency room
visit with other duties or with other tasks, such as shopping at the local hub
in Grand Falls-Windsor.
As
again, we will look at the figures on an ongoing basis and, when the staffing
changes at the Hugh Twomey centre, we can revisit the issue. If the demand is
there, we will certainly look at it sympathetically, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
The Seniors' Advocate report
released in September paints a grim picture of the issues facing seniors in our
province: homelessness, poverty and a basic access to health care are among the
many systematic issues identified by the advocate.
Mr.
Speaker, given the sad cases outlined of seniors who cannot afford dentures to
eat, eyeglasses to see with and hearing aids to communicate with, will the
minister commit to working towards providing dental, vision and hearing care for
seniors?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
We have
an Adult Dental Program which is consistent with at least half of the other
provinces in the country. We have just taken over, within the Department of
Health, the vision program which was formerly housed with Advanced Education,
Skills and Labour. We would look to seeing significant opportunities for
improving access for seniors.
We have
made seniors care a priority with our Home First initiative. Our aim is to keep
seniors safe and well-supported in their own homes. This is in line with the
recommendations of the Seniors' Advocate, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to
work to improve that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Mr. Speaker, at the
Newfoundland and Labrador 50+ Federation annual general meeting in September
resolutions were passed specifically calling on government to provide coverage
for dental, vision and hearing aids for seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, why is the minister continuing to ignore the Seniors' Advocate and the
50+ Federation on these important matters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
I would suggest that I may
have answered that question the first go around. It's ironic that the questions
come from the team opposite who thought the Seniors' Advocate position was, in
actual fact, a luxury.
We have
worked diligently with the Seniors' Advocate, we have worked with the 50-plus
clubs. We have a reboot and reassessment of the hearing aid program in process
as well – not just for seniors, but it will have benefits for them, too. We have
a dental program which is compatible and comparable with 50 per cent of Canadian
jurisdictions, and we have just taken over responsibility for vision care, too.
Things
are moving in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. Always keen to make things
better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Mr. Speaker, another issue
identified by both the Seniors' Advocate and the 50+ Federation is the failure
of government to cover the cost of driver's licence medicals for drivers over
the age of 75.
Mr.
Speaker, this is yet another example of government nickelling and diming seniors
in this province.
Why
won't the minister stand up for seniors and eliminate this unnecessary fee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to hear the Member mention the role of the Seniors' Advocate because we
were really pleased as a province, Mr. Speaker, to establish that office – only
the third of its kind in the country.
We're
also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have been able to put in a number of measures
around this province to support seniors. We have the Seniors' Benefit that's
reaching 47,000 seniors in this province. We have the Low Income Supplement
that's reaching 155,000 seniors in this province.
Even
when things were very difficult fiscally in this province, this government saw
fit, since Budget 2016, to put $123
million in place to support seniors; $286 million, the most ever in our history,
in poverty reduction initiatives.
We know,
Mr. Speaker, there's more to be done, and we will continue to work with seniors
to make life better for them here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, this past
spring, this government, in part with their federal counterparts, burdened the
people of this province with an additional tax called the carbon tax
I ask
the minister: How much of this tax has been collected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
funny, Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition also wanted us to take the federal
government to court, as some of their other Conservative friends across the
country did. We saw where that got the other provinces.
Our
province, Mr. Speaker, and the plan that we put in place, our
Made-in-Newfoundland and Labrador plan, has been recognized by other provinces
as more lucrative, better for the people of our province than the plans they've
achieved for their provinces.
What
we've done in this province, Mr. Speaker, is protect people. We've protected
industry. We've protected jobs in this province with the Made-in-Newfoundland
and Labrador plan. Mr. Speaker, the plan that we put in place has cost very
little for the people of this province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, 'tis the season for budget preparation. The Premier has often spoke of
the need for collaboration in this minority government.
I ask
the Premier: How does he intend to incorporate the important ideas and issues of
the Third Party, Official Opposition and independent Members so that they can
meaningfully influence the budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I've been quite open about collaboration within this House. The Minister of
Finance and I, as well as leaders opposite, have had this discussion. We
encourage, not through just public consultations, but put together what you
would consider to be meaningful things to consider in this year's budget.
We've
seen our seven-year forecast that we put in place, but I would encourage those
that actually participate – encourage you to participate but, number one, come
with the ideas but make sure they are costed and you would see the impact on the
suggestions that would keep this province in a fiscal, sustainable seven-year
project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, given the antics
in the House last week, I ask the Premier: Is it common practice for his
ministers to secretly record stakeholder meetings?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
earlier, publicly, that at the beginning of the meeting – there was a
stakeholder meeting of 16 people. There were technical questions asked about
angling. I indicated to all at the meeting that there would be a note taker and
the meeting would be recorded. That was made public, and there was no
contradiction of that at any point in time given by anyone who attended the
meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Section
9 of the Labour Standards Act allows
employers to pay overtime at 1.5 times the minimum wage, even if the employee
earns more than minimum wage.
I ask
the minister responsible: Will he commit to a review of the
Labour Standards Act to remove this and other archaic and unfair
provisions?
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the Member opposite for his question.
As he
would note, earlier in this session of the House we actually opened the
Labour Standards Act to implement
measures in place to allow for a federal benefit and a compliance of maternity
leave that could be shared over 12 months and 18 months. Between our department,
we do look – with the Labour Standards Division – where there are opportunities
of which we can bring our Labour Standards
Act and where there are opportunities to improve upon the act. When we do
so, we certainly would go out and have consultations with employees and
employers and strike that balance for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
More
excavation is occurring this week on Ragged Beach, a beach which is crucial to
the East Coast Trail and to seabirds from the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve.
Will the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment tell us why, in the face of
serious environmental concerns, he is allowing further development on Ragged
Beach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the question.
I would
like to remind the Member opposite, there are two different topics that are
ongoing on Ragged Beach. One is the erosion protection, which is covered by an
environmental assessment process. The other one is some upgrades that are
covered under the Urban and Rural Planning Act.
Depending on which one the hon. Member might be talking to or talking about, I
guess it depends on the answer that I would give to this question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the
minister: Will the minister use his legislative powers to place a 12-month
moratorium on all further development of Ragged Beach?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if
I was being clear enough or not, but there are two things at play there. The
development is covered under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the municipality. The erosion of Ragged Beach is being
covered, and the reinstatement of that and the prevention for the erosion is
done under the Environmental Assessment Act. That's been released with
conditions.
So, both
are not tied together. It may be in close proximity to each other, Mr. Speaker.
They are certainly not tied-together projects. Both are separate. I would tell
the Member if he wants further clarity, drop by the office and I'll explain to
him what our role is in each different parcel of that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, time for Question
Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I move the following motion:
That the
Committees of the House of Assembly for the 49th General Assembly be
reconstituted as follows:
The
Social Services Committee: the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the Member
for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for
St. John's Centre and the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
The
Government Services Committee: the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Lake
Melville, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Lewisporte -
Twillingate, the Member for Mount Scio and the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi.
The
Resource Committee: the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Cape St.
Francis, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for Harbour Grace
- Port de Grave, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for St. John's East -
Quidi Vidi, the Member for Terra Nova.
The
Standing Orders Committee: the Member for St. John's West, the Member for
Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, the Member for St. George's - Humber, the
Member for Labrador West, the Member for Windsor Lake and the Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee: the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for Burin - Grand Bank,
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island and the Member for St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
Miscellaneous and Private Bills Committee: the Member for Lake Melville, the
Member for Conception Bay South, the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave,
the Member for Mount Scio and the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
The
Public Accounts Committee: the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, the
Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for Stephenville
- Port au Port and the Member for St. John's Centre.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that on tomorrow I move the following motion:
BE IT
RESOLVED that the House of Assembly concur in the final report of the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections on the Development of a
Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy dated April 8, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to
Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I wish to provide information to the Member for Harbour Main who,
yesterday in Question Period, asked about emergency airlift services for a man
who passed away during a hunting trip.
While
the Department of Justice and Public Safety did not hear from the family
directly, the department endeavoured to make some inquires on their behalf. I
can report to this House of Assembly that NL911 confirms they received a call
related to the incident near Facheux Bay. As per protocol, the call was
transferred to the RCMP and the Medical Communication Centre was notified.
Harbour
Breton RCMP received a call at about 11:25 on the morning of September 30
advising that a man had died two hours earlier in a remote wooded area across
Hermitage Bay. Multiple options were considered for response, with boat
transportation identified as the quickest and safest approach. The RCMP have
advised that after receiving the call, they travelled to the remote location,
arriving five hours later.
As soon
as the boat transportation was secured, two RCMP officers were on route by boat
to the scene. The boat trip took approximately three hours, with rough seas and
high winds. RCMP contacted a member of the St. Alban's fire department who was
in the area and had the necessary equipment to begin the process of moving the
deceased from a remote location with the assistance of the family and others.
In every
situation, the RCMP assesses all the circumstances, including weather conditions
and terrain, to determine the best and the safest option to respond. Typically,
government Air Services would be engaged for search and rescue only if the
situation involved a lost or injured person who required medical assistance. In
this case, the RCMP made a decision not to engage Air Services.
Mr.
Speaker, we appreciate this difficult time for the family of the deceased and we
express our sympathies.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further answers to questions
for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Humber -
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
again today on a petition for Route 450. I'll just read the petition again:
WHEREAS
the rainstorm of January 2018 caused major flooding damage to Route 450, South
Shore Highway in the Bay of Islands, and there are areas of the highway that
still have not been repaired, including pavement repairs to sections of John's
Beach, clearing of debris from gabion baskets, the tender for Cammies Brook
Bridge replacement and other necessary work throughout the region was not done,
and where the condition of the road is causing safety concerns for motorists;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the hon. House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that all urgent repair work
and other upgrades are included in the Department of Transportation and Works
tender call for the 2020 construction season, and carried out immediately in the
spring to ensure the safety and well-being of the motorists on the highway.
Mr.
Speaker, I know I spoke to the minister yesterday, and he was looking at the
John's Beach area. I know today the weather is extremely bad out in Corner
Brook, a lot of rain and sleet. It may not be done today but I'm looking forward
to having that piece of pavement repaired.
As I
said yesterday – and I don't think the minister was aware, but he's well aware
of it now – it's the same section that we drove on during the rainstorm that
we're going to get fixed. It's getting worse. It's worse, it's getting deeper,
more potholes. It's not a big section of the road but it is where the heavy
tracks actually damaged the road when they were releasing the water to go
across.
I know
the minister has instructed his staff to get it done. I also mention to the
minister that there are several potholes in the area, all in the same area,
within 100, 200 feet of each other, that's causing the people who already broke
their rims on some of them. I ask the minister, while the crew is in the area if
they can look at the four, five, six potholes that's causing a bit of damage in
the area.
I'll let
the minister know – and I haven't written him yet, and he's not aware of this –
I mentioned yesterday I'll be writing you a letter about the culvert in John's
Beach on one end where it's not released. I have the pictures; I'll send him the
pictures also.
As this
goes on, Mr. Speaker – and, again, in the following week and I'll do it again
tomorrow and Thursday – I'll highlight some other work that, since the flood,
has not been done. I know the minister said whatever you think is not done and
is an emergency, we'll try our best to get it done. Because once the snow comes
in, the tractor hooks into it and the thaw comes, this road right now, which is
a small piece, would be a danger for people coming up on the Southern Shore
Highway.
I just
thank the minister again for his prompt attention. Like I said to the people –
and I know there are people listening in the John's Beach area – it is a bad day
out on the West Coast. You couldn't get the work done and it wouldn't be fair
for the workers to try to repair this work today because of the weather
conditions in the area. I look forward to having this repaired.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure.
WHEREAS
many commute to Bull Arm, Long Harbour and other areas for work, as well, the
commercial and residential growth in our region has increased the volume of
traffic on this highway;
THEREFORE we petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade this
significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic
to and from the Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a significant piece of infrastructure that we certainly need to
look at. Basically, it was used many years ago when it first went there for
communities for fishing, transporting fish to and from across the Island and
places, wherever it may be. It was used fairly extensively. Now we have so many
workers that travel to Bull Arm, to Long Harbour, to Come by Chance and areas
all in between and further west to use this road, it certainly needs some
significant upgrades.
We did
have some patchwork and do appreciate that from the minister. That was certainly
put down, but if you go in and look at it, it does need a significant upgrade
for sure. Along with, I would say, the Bull Arm projects, we have a lot of
tourism in the area. You go from Bay Bulls to Witless Bay, you go to the
Ecological Reserve in Ferryland, you go to the UNESCO site in Portugal Cove
South at Mistaken Point – there are so many other people that use it.
For
tourists that are coming across the Island, instead of coming in and around to
go to St. John's, they go across that way; they go the loop or go around the
circle. We'd certainly love to see that and have some significant upgrade to
that facility.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
background to this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS
there are no current significant operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site;
and
WHEREAS
the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local
and provincial economy; and
WHEREAS
residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's
economy; and
WHEREAS
the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and
create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and
WHEREAS
the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province, and a
long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and
WHEREAS
the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of the province,
Mr. Speaker;
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication site,
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 expedite the process to get the Bull Arm
Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a
vision for a long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Furthermore, we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,
maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms,
as well as new construction of any future platforms, whether they be GBS or FPSO
in nature.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday speaking to this, one of the points that we brought up was
that we'd like to see, obviously, a more long-term tenant, which would be more
beneficial to not only the people of the province, but to the asset that we've
already sunk our money into. There's a sunken cost there that is continuously
costing the province money as long it's idling.
There
are a lot of different workovers. There are the tie-ins. There's all kinds of
different work that can be spinoffs or we can set up a fabrication site that
doesn't need the spinoffs; it's actually supplying to the offshore oil industry.
It's incumbent on us, as 40 Members of this House, to look out for those 520,000
people. I think that utilizing our resources in a positive way and not letting
these assets just sit idle is probably in the best interests of the province.
I would
love to hear a response on it, as we haven't heard much of a response on this
petition so far, if we can get an idea of who would be a longer term tenant. As
opposed having 20 to 40 people working, we'd like to see probably 400 working
out there.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources with a response.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a very important topic, very important discussion that we're having in the House
around benefits to the people of the province, around Bull Arm and around the
opportunities around Bull Arm. I'm glad to see the Member opposite finally
raising some of the issues around how do we grow our oil and gas industry and
how do we ensure more projects here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
government, Mr. Speaker, has done a tremendous amount to encourage growth and
development in the industry. This government has put out an expression of
interest and a request for proposals for new opportunities for long-term
utilization of the Bull Arm site. This government has made a real effort to
attract people to that site. This government has made sure that we have been
working with industry to attract new work.
As the
Member opposite knows, we have attracted work on rigs and really doing
maintenance on rigs, Mr. Speaker. That's new and additional work to the
province, especially around some of the work that is being done. We're hoping to
continue and grow that type of work. We are finalizing and working towards even
more work for the Bull Arm site because we need more work in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish
to rise and respond to a petition yesterday from the Member for Torngat
Mountains. Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were some questions raised here in a
petition from the Member regarding the commitment – or last loads of freight and
shipments going to the North Coast.
We're
very pleased today to see the service provider come out and guarantee that all
groceries headed north will head north on the trip, which will originate this
coming week out of Goose Bay. All remaining freight will actually be taken in
the following two trips going up north.
Mr.
Speaker, it's interesting to note that the 2017 service to the North Coast
finished on December 17 and last year, 2018 service concluded on December 14. We
are currently on schedule to have service concluded earlier this year than we
did in the previous two years.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders
of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From the
Order Paper, number 4 under Motions, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Tuesday, November 19, 2019.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:30.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, for leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, Bill 18, and I further
move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, Bill 18, and that this bill now be
read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting The
Demise Of The Crown,” carried. (Bill 18)
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Demise Of The Crown. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2,
third reading of Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, that a bill, An Act To
Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act. (Bill 10)
MR. 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 Forestry Act,” read a third time, ordered
passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3,
third reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that a bill, An Act To
Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 14, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill now be read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that this bill do pass and that its title be as on the
Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000,” read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 4,
third reading of Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 16, An Act To
Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Registered Nurses Act, 2008. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order
10, second reading of Bill 17.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 17, An Act
To Provide Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related Health Care Costs, be now read
a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 17 entitled, An Act To Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related
Health Care Costs, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of bill, An Act To Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid
Related Health Care Costs. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 17, the
Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Our government
recognizes the growing epidemic of opioid use across Canada and my hon.
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, has spoken to this
issue many times in the House.
In 2016,
the minister outlined Newfoundland and Labrador's Opioid Action Plan. Most
recently, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister advised that government has completed
all of the initiatives outlined in the plan and that we will continue to work
with our partners to address addictions.
Bill 17
will complement the work undertaken through the Opioid Action Plan and will give
us the tools to hold opioid manufacturers and wholesalers accountable for their
role in the opioid crisis. The proposed bill will help government recover the
costs of health care benefits paid by this province due to opioid-related
disease, injury or illness.
Mr.
Speaker, we take the opioid crisis very seriously. This is evident in the great
work that has been completed to date with respect to the Opioid Action Plan.
This proposed legislation will help us address the crisis. There is no question
that the opioid crisis is, in part, rooted in the over-prescription of
pharmaceutical drugs. Recent cases in the United States have demonstrated this.
Municipalities, countries and states have all brought lawsuits against opioid
manufacturers and distributors. Their claims are valued in the billions of
dollars.
In
August of this year, a judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson
intentionally downplayed the danger of opioids and ordered that the company pay
the state of Oklahoma $572 million US for the damage caused by the company. The
judge stated the defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by
increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome.
We are
also feeling the impact of the opioid crisis here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker. There are far too many reports from communities across this
province that demonstrated the continued and ongoing opioid crisis that is
perpetuated by opioid manufacturers and wholesalers.
This
crisis has meant that people in our province have incurred significant costs.
These costs are related to health care, including hospitalizations, emergency
department visits, specialist visits, physician time and drug costs. The
magnitude of the crisis cannot be overstated.
If
passed, Bill 17 will allow government to sue opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers for their alleged wrongdoing. It will permit the recovery of past,
present and future health care benefit costs due to an opioid-related disease,
injury or illness. It will also assist in the litigation and support
Newfoundland and Labrador's participation in a national class action lawsuit
launched by British Columbia against more than 40 opioid manufacturers,
wholesalers and others on behalf of provincial, federal and territorial
governments. This class action alleges that these opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers fail to warn doctors and the public of the dangers of opioids, and
that they marketed opioids as safer and less addictive than other medications
when, Mr. Speaker, they are not.
This
bill will also give Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to bring a direct
action against opioid manufacturers or wholesalers in a class action in the
future. This bill supports the government's actions in joining the British
Columbia class action, but also provides Newfoundland and Labrador with a strong
backdrop against which we can proceed in dealing with opioid manufacturers and
wholesalers.
British
Columbia has already enacted similar legislation. Ontario has introduced
legislation into its legislature which has undergone second reading. Alberta and
New Brunswick have publicly supported the class action. We also understand, Mr.
Speaker, Alberta has publicly stated that it is considering similar legislation.
There
may be questions about how the recent filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding
by Purdue Pharma will affect the proposed actions in litigation. The company and
its owners, the Sackler family, reached a tentative settlement with 23 US states
and more than 2,000 cities and countries that sued the company over its role in
the opioid crisis.
As is
plainly obvious, this crisis does not stop at the border, it is in Canada and it
is in this province. Any proposed agreement ought to account for and include
payment for the Canadian claims, which are presently advanced in a structure and
consolidated manner in a national class action commenced in British Columbia, of
which Newfoundland and Labrador is a part. We will continue to assert our claims
against the Purdue entities and the Sacklers to ensure that Canadian
jurisdictions are fairly and reasonably addressed in any proposed settlement
within the US.
We will
not be content to simply permit the US settlement to proceed with no appropriate
approach and consideration for Canada. Our government, Mr. Speaker, remains
steady and willing to participate in the global effort to achieve global
resolution of the claims against Purdue and the Sacklers.
If,
however, Newfoundland and Labrador is not included in this process, we are
determined to continue to pursue our claims to the fullest extent permitted by
the law on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I would
like to thank the staff of the Department of Justice and Public Safety for the
work on this matter. I understand that they gave a briefing to Members of this
House and I hope you found it informative. While there are several other aspects
of the bill that I could discuss, I will highlight that this bill is similar to
legislation enacted with respect to tobacco recovery.
We know
that tobacco legislation has twice been before the Supreme Court of Canada and
his withstood scrutiny. I also note that Bill 17 permits the recovery of health
care benefits on an aggregate basis and allows for the use of statistical
information for the purpose of establishing causation and quantifying damages.
This
will significantly aid in advancing a claim on behalf of Newfoundland and
Labrador and will help ensure appropriate recovery while considering the privacy
of individuals affected by the opioid crisis.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I will end my comments, look forward to the debate and the
progression of the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 17 does provide for the recovery of opioid damages and related
health care costs, and we do know that it's modelled on the
Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act
which was passed in 2001 and proclaimed in February of 2011.
We also
know that British Columbia has modelled legislation and passed this legislation
one year ago. British Columbia has not only brought forward its law, it's also
commenced legal proceedings. I think that's important for us to recognize that
British Columbia has taken the lead in this scenario. British Columbia has named
all provinces and territories and the federal government and agencies as members
of the class which are pursuing this action. This is a novel approach.
We also
know, Mr. Speaker, by way of background and giving history in terms of the legal
process we know that other provinces also have taken a similar approach. We know
that New Brunswick, Alberta and Ontario are also leading in this direction. For
example, New Brunswick has been exploring the possibility of launching or
participating in a lawsuit. From what I've examined, the view from New
Brunswickers is that pharmaceutical industry, they want to hold them accountable
for the health of their New Brunswickers and for the financial burden that's
been put on taxpayers for the health care cost. So we get a sense of New
Brunswick's sense or sentiment on this.
Alberta,
similarly, will be signing on to the class action lawsuit, which has been filed
by the British Columbia government. They also, for the same reasoning, want to
recoup the costs of fighting this opioid crisis from opioid manufacturers and
distributers.
As well,
Ontario, they're planning to join British Columbia's proposed lawsuit. Again,
their view, similarly, is that they want to create a series of special rules to
assist the litigation process and support their participation in a national
class action lawsuit by British Columbia.
Let's
talk a little bit about British Columbia's national class action lawsuit. It was
launched in August 2018 and it was launched against more than 40 opioid
manufacturers and wholesalers. It was launched on behalf of provincial,
territorial and federal governments.
Now,
what is the substance of the allegations in the lawsuit? In essence, the
allegations are that these opioid manufacturers and wholesalers, they failed to
warn doctors, they failed to warn the public of the dangers of opioids and they
also – it's being alleged – have marketed these drugs as potentially safer and
less addictive than other medications, when they were not. Thereby, I think the
essence of these allegations are that these opioid manufacturers and wholesalers
engaged in false and misleading marketing of opioids as well.
So,
British Columbia has not, as of yet, disclosed an expectation for damages. That
is something that really needs to be closely examined. What we know is that
British Columbia has said that the figure will emerge in the course of
proceedings, in the course litigation, in the course of lawsuits. But at this
point in time, we do not have knowledge, and perhaps we may not be able to have
knowledge because it's at its early stage, of the amount of the money estimated
to be involved. In other words, the damages that one could expect.
That's
where we're going to see economists, statisticians and others with that
expertise in such matters are going to be engaged in calculating such estimate.
The costs, also, we know will include hospitalization and treatment for those
who have used these drugs and, of course, they're going to include other costs
as well.
When we
look at the effects of the opioid crisis, we do know a few things. We know the
social impact that these drugs have had. We know about the terrible consequences
of addiction for individuals, for families and for communities. We know the
social costs are enormous. We know families are bearing these costs. The health
care system also is bearing these costs; therefore, all of us are. We're aware
of the families that are living this nightmare.
There's
no doubt that there is much heartbreak and desperation and fear that so many are
enduring right now, at this very moment. No family or community is immune. Some
individuals, we know, Mr. Speaker, become addicted using someone else's
medications, but so many others become addicted from medications that they
themselves were prescribed. That is the crux of this bill. We see that these
individuals probably did not imagine where this would lead. Their doctors may
not have imagined where this would lead. They may have believed the medications
were safe.
This
legislation is, however, only one piece of a very big puzzle. Many more
initiatives must be taken. This must be treated as the crisis it is.
When we
look at the tobacco legislation, Mr. Speaker, we should also be mindful of the
fact that the United States was out in the forefront with respect to legal
action against tobacco companies, while Canadian provinces were late to follow
suit. As I mentioned earlier, this particular bill is modelled on the
Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
It's modelled and very similar in substance.
We do
know that the US tobacco-related lawsuits were settled, for the most part, long
ago, while Canadian lawsuits are still working their way through the courts. We
also know that the Newfoundland and Labrador position is to support the national
class action against the opioid manufacturers and wholesalers. We also know that
the position of the government is to monitor, with considerable interest, the US
litigation concerning the manufacturing, sale and distribution of opioids.
Specifically, we do know that there is, as the minister had referenced, a
tentative agreement to resolving claims against Purdue and the Sackler family
members, which is a global resolution of approximately $3 billion. We do know
from what the minister has stated that the intention, the well-intentioned
position of the Newfoundland government is to hold that agreement, that
resolution. That ought to account for and include payment for Canadian claims.
From my understanding, the Newfoundland and Labrador government will be looking
to seek some recompense from that global resolution which takes place in the
United States.
British
Columbia's lawsuit, of which Newfoundland and Labrador is a party, seeks to
recover the government health care and other direct costs incurred due to
opioid-related disease, injury or illness.
Mr.
Speaker, these points that I've made, in essence, suggest that, in principle,
the bill has substance and can be supported. However, there are some concerns
with respect to the provision, for example, with respect to opting out of the
agreement, which is one of the sections – I believe it is section 12 – which one
has to examine more carefully.
That
section of the act particularly indicates that any prior agreement that purports
to bind the Crown, that ultimately can be reneged upon or can be nullified.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
noise level in the House is a little too high. I ask Members to keep the noise
level down so we can listen to what the Member has to say.
Thank
you.
The hon.
Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
So, what
one is concerned about with respect to that is with the contract that was made,
is it now that it is inconvenient that the Newfoundland and Labrador government
entered into a bargain over health care cost recovery in the class actions on
behalf of addicted individuals? Now, the concern is that that may be opted out
or reneged on by the government. So the concern there is what message does this
particular piece, section of the legislation send? That we can dissolve prior
agreements given to others who contract with government? So we need to be
worried or concerned about that particular provision and whether that is
something that we are content with approving.
Also,
another concern that needs to be addressed when we're looking at this
legislation, I think the legislation is in place so as to present an alternative
litigation strategy so as to recover more money on behalf of the individuals
affected. But we need to be mindful of the fact that, with respect to the US
litigation involving that global resolution, that tentative agreement between
Purdue and the Sackler firms, we need to know if there's been any effort on the
part of the Purdue entities and the Sacklers to actually involve Canadian
jurisdictions in the settlement in the US. Is there a reasonable or likelihood
of us actually recovering? What specific efforts or strategies are in place by
the government to pursue our claims with respect to that global resolution
taking place in the United States?
So, Mr.
Speaker, those are some of the points I wanted to raise with respect to this
bill, and I thank you very much.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand here today also to express my support for Bill 17, An Act To
Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related Health Care Costs, Mr.
Speaker.
For
anybody who might be tuning in, this new legislation will allow Newfoundland and
Labrador to take direct action against opioid manufacturers and distributors,
based on the related health care harms that we have seen in our province.
Some of
the other speakers have talked about cost and talked about technicalities in the
act. Being a minister in a large social department, I will be looking at some of
the impacts and the effects of opioids and some of the other issues that we deal
with socially because of the widespread opioid problem that our province and our
country have been dealing with now for some time.
Mr.
Speaker, while problematic drug and alcohol use is not a new issue in
Newfoundland and Labrador, problematic uses of opioids, like fentanyl, morphine
and oxycodone have had particularly devastating impacts on many people in our
province and their families. I would say all of us here in the House today
probably know of someone, know of an individual who is struggling or know of a
family who is going through a difficult time because they have somebody who has
an addiction to opioids.
According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, between January '16 and March
'19 there were more than 12,800 opioid-related deaths in Canada, Mr. Speaker –
12,800 people. Those are individuals who would have left behind children,
parents, brothers, sisters and friends, just to put a face on this terrible
problem that we have in our province and right across the country. It really is
simply heartbreaking to think about.
In that
same time frame, if we take it down to our province right here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, we have had at least 70 opioid-related deaths in Newfoundland and
Labrador – 70 residents of our province whose lives are cut short, who didn't
get to go out and contribute to this society and this place that we love to call
home, Mr. Speaker, because of their problematic use of opioids. Each of these 70
individuals would have been someone's child, someone's sibling; they would have
been someone's co-worker and someone's friend. When we talk about 70 deaths,
each of them with their own story to tell, cut all too short because of their
relationship with opioids.
Because
of these tragic deaths, Mr. Speaker, there are many other harms in this province
related to opioid use. I think about the demands on health care. My colleague,
the Minister of Health, and I have many conversations around the social
determinants of health, around the strain, the pressure and the stress on our
health care system.
We all
know family members who are waiting for health care needs of some type in this
province. Then we bring in the drug problem, we bring in the opioid problem and
it really exacerbates an already strained system. The demands on health care
include increased crime and increased pressure on social services. Mr. Speaker,
we see the impacts in the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development. This is an issue that is of particular concern to me, given my
department's mandate to protect children.
In fact,
through the new provincial Children, Youth
and Families Act – which, Mr. Speaker, was proclaimed just the 28th of June
of this year – our specific purpose is to promote the safety and well-being of
children and youth who are in need of protective intervention by offering
services that are designed to maintain support and preserve the family unit.
There's a whole big focus on preserving the family unit. We know the benefits of
that versus the opposite of when children may have to come out of a home. Where
it is in the best interest of the children and the youth that is where our focus
is.
In my
department we have almost 400 social workers that work in 44 offices around the
province; social workers that work often in very challenging circumstances, Mr.
Speaker, often in remote areas. Every one of them recognizes the importance of
the family as the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the child
or youth. We do whatever we can, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that children remain at
home, but there are times – and we're talking about bringing in this bill today
– when a parent's ability to care for their child is impaired through drug use
to the point that they are no longer able to care for their child.
I've
seen many things, Mr. Speaker, over the three years I've been in the department.
One of the things I learned is often these parents that are struggling, they
don't love their children any less, but they become addicted along the way.
They're not able to help themselves and they need support. Very, very sad
situations. There are lots of sad stories out there.
The
impact of the misuse of opioids on the extended family also has a tremendous
impact, Mr. Speaker. In departments like mine where sometimes when we have to
remove a child, and it's in the best interest of their safety at the time, we
look to place them with an extended family member. We see that this opioid is no
respecter of persons. It may respect the parents – and it also has an impact,
the misuse of opioids, on the extended family. Then, that restricts or places
limits on where we are able to place these children in these circumstances.
Alternatively, there are times when CSSD has to intervene to ensure the child is
protected. Their safety must always be our main priority. Mr. Speaker, once
again, we always look to place them with someone familiar, someone they might
have had a pre-existing relationship with, but the opioid crisis we are dealing
with in this province and in Canada has an impact.
In the
interest of time and allowing some of my colleagues to speak, Mr. Speaker,
behind me, I'm going to sort of flip through some of my notes here. I just want
to say we talk a lot in my department about maintaining family connections and
how that is in the best interest of the child. I wish no parent or, indeed, no
person would be so impacted by their drug use that their lives become out of
control, but that is what we're talking about here. Then we see manufacturers
and distributors, we might say, that can take advantage of that.
I'm
reminded, Mr. Speaker, of a quote by American president, Thomas Jefferson, who
once said: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is
the first and only object of good government.” We have an ethical and a moral
obligation and a responsibility to the people of this province that we are
working for right now to bring in legislation like this to try and address some
of these serious issues in our province. I am pleased with the work our
government has done to support people and communities in this province and
address this opioid crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, some of the things my colleague for health talks about: developing a
safe prescribing course for health care professionals, implementing naloxone
community pop-up tents and these take-home kit programs, improving access to
Suboxone and implementing a prescription monitoring program are all very
positive steps in the right direction. I also want to say that people who are
struggling with opioid use and want help, they can access medication-assisted
treatment and counselling from regional opioid treatment centres in our
province. We have centres in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, Stephenville and
Goose Bay.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I want to say this bill is yet another action our
government is taking to address the harms related to opioid use in our province.
This bill will allow our government to commence action to recover cost from
opioid manufacturers and wholesalers for the harm their actions have caused
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This includes health care costs incurred in
our province in relation to the opioid crisis and the devastating impact it is
having on some of our population.
We must
all ensure we are taking all action available to us to ensure the opioid problem
that we face, that we are doing all we can, Mr. Speaker, to address it.
To that
end, I am pleased to stand here today to signal my support to Bill 17. I want to
give a little shout-out to the people in the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, the minister who is away from the House right now and also to his first
alternate, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, for bringing in this piece of
legislation. There is a lot of work that happens behind the scenes before we get
to the point of bringing the bill into the Legislature. So hats off to all these
guys.
I look
forward to listening to the rest of the debate on this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand and speak to Bill 17, An Act to Provide for Damages
and Recovery of Opioid Related Health Care Costs. We all, in this province, have
a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we get the best return for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. Particularly, when we've been hoodwinked, when
we've been led down the garden path, when people haven't been honest with us or,
in this case, health providing corporations.
When we
in good faith – and I say we, that means everybody in the health care system who
prescribed, who encouraged the use of, who lobbied for particular drugs to be
put in a system that would benefit people and, all of a sudden, we find out that
the information we were given, that the outcomes we expected, that the process
we were engaged in was flawed. In most cases, unfortunately, it was deliberately
flawed by not sharing information we could've had.
Keeping
in mind, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we're a very small part of the global
network here that deals with health care, the types of equipment, the
interventions to training, but, particularly, the drugs and, in this case, the
opioids that are provided by various companies
Now, you
give a shout-out to a company who spends tens of millions, hundred of millions
of dollars into developing a drug that is meant to improve the quality of life
for people through health interventions. We all accept it. We applaud it. We
engage it. We even invest in it a number of times.
The
unfortunate thing, what we've been seeing has become a pattern over the last
couple of decades, it has been companies who come up with almost a miracle drug,
to a certain degree, that will alleviate a particular issue, particularly if
it's around pain management. But, all of a sudden, either are neglectful in the
amount of research they do and their findings, or deliberately decide not to
share information with us, or misinterpret their findings to make it be
something that it isn't. That's what we found.
That's
why globally, and particularly in North America, there are a number of lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies who developed pills and pharmaceuticals that
were intended by their marketing strategy and by their selling to the health
professionals – particularly doctors who would be using them and the major
senior people of health facilities and to government, government officials,
about what would go on your dispensing network list as an acceptable drug that
would do two things, would ensure quality health care and would be affordable.
Sometimes you try to weigh both off. Sometimes you go with something that has
much more of a return on the investment, but may be extremely expensive. Other
times you may say I can take a less expensive one that in the long run will
still have the desired effects, and we've done that. We have a multitude of –
hundreds, thousands of different drugs that are under the system that benefit
people.
Unfortunately, what we found over the last number of years is through research
and through interventions within the health care system, the notoriety that a
number of people are coming in with addictions, and addictions relevant to the
medications they've been prescribed. Prescribed reasonably, prescribed
professionally and prescribed in the best efforts put forward by the prescribers
– the medical professions – to include outcomes that would be positive.
What we found, they all haven't worked. They haven't worked for a reason,
because the input of the information these health professionals had at the
beginning was misleading.
The understanding the patients had from marketing, from
reading stuff, from things that may be on social media, was misleading. It was
misleading, not because the individual who was sharing that didn't feel they
wanted to share it in the right manner, but because the information they had
wasn't accurate. It was either half-truths, not fully used in the intended way,
was partially researched to a particular group, or was sold as something that
would generate a benefit to masses; yet specifically in the research, would only
be beneficial to a small group. As a matter of fact, would be detrimental, from
a health perspective, to the other masses that would use the same medication.
So we've come to a point now where we're saying enough is
enough. People have to be held accountable – corporations, the research
components. Now we're finding out through research and through some of the
development of these opioids that individuals, people in good faith,
researchers, medical professionals, have recommended and have shared their full
findings, and in some cases have said, while this drug has many positives,
before we can put it to use in patients, we need to address the other issues
that are in it right now under its composition.
In some
cases, the corporations decide: We spent $50 million in developing this
particular pill, we spent a hundred million dollars, our shareholders need to
see a return on their investment, so we're going to put it out there because it
does do 75 per cent of what we said it would, or it does a hundred per cent of
what we said it would; unfortunately, we didn't share the 35 per cent negative
impact it's going to have on individuals when it comes to an addiction issue,
for those who might be more susceptible to being addicted to opioids.
When you
look at the bigger picture, what's being looked at here is finding the most
expeditious way that benefits us financially and ensures that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians receive some compensation back that can either address their
particular issues that they've had to face and the loss of quality of life for
themselves, but particularly the cost on our health care system.
We all
know what it takes for a health care provider to deal with opioid addictions.
All the other things that are related to that, from missed appointments to
misdiagnosis because of the individuals who are not sharing exactly what they've
been engaged in, to, again, the costing on our society from – unfortunately,
sometimes, when you get fully addicted, your need to get the extra high that you
need from that particular pill, what you're willing to do for it, the impact it
has on people's economic life, their costing, their ability to keep their
employment.
Also,
the time, because we're dealing with something that was man-made, that could
have been avoided had the proper research, the proper information shared, that
the health professionals knew exactly which groups may be more vulnerable so
that when they're treating them, they could say: This might be too harsh for
you. We're going to take another route to address your health issue.
This is
having a costing on our health system. We're spending over $3 billion in
Newfoundland and Labrador, $300 billion in this country of ours, and as part of
that process, it's at the expense of other interventions that may be necessary,
because every time somebody goes in for a particular medical procedure – if it's
an ultrasound, if it's an EKG, whatever it may be – because of something related
to a opioid addiction, or an opioid overuse, then obviously that has an impact
on other issues –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting too high.
Thank
you.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That may
be relevant to addressing the particular needs of those individuals, if it's
cancer treatment, if it's other interventions that people may have around aging
ailments, or it could be around newborn ailments. It has an impact there.
Our
medical professionals can only deal with so many people at a given time. If
they're having to unfortunately be directed in one direction – and opioid
addictions, we know the interventions after are much more encompassing than just
the standard if you went in and broke your arm and had it set and put a cast on,
you go back, get the cast off, you're done. There are all kinds of counselling
processes; there are all kinds of experimental approaches to see what will work
for these individuals. There are all kinds of counselling supports that need to
be done and they're all caused because in prescribing a medication in good
faith, to help an individual who has a particular ailment, the information that
was shared with those individuals who will help give the advice to make that
decision wasn't accurate and, unfortunately, it was deliberately not accurate.
That's
where, when you get into litigation there's a cliché we have – the good
Samaritan's rule, due diligence and these types, but you're pretty good in life
and feel comfortable that things may not always work out, things may happen. If
you did it in good faith, if you did due diligence, if you ensured you shared
proper information, the decisions made by other people that may end up being
adverse from a negative point of view is, unfortunately, their responsibility.
In the
cases of multitudes of people we deal with, 95 per cent or more, the addiction
issue here comes, in a lot of cases, from unforeseen circumstances. It comes
from an accident where they've gone and because there's extreme pain in an
intervention, an operation, the repairing of a limb or something, that they're
prescribed certain things to get them through a quality of life to be able to
continue their day-to-day activities with an opioid.
We talk
about opioids. As we know there are multitudes, tens of thousands of people in
this province who use opioids on a daily basis who don't become addicted. That's
either their own personal ability to be able to handle it, their biological
makeup, the genetic makeup, the fact that they'll understand when they're
getting to a point where they're becoming so dependent that they stop, that they
do it. Or some when they use it based on the principle I can now manage my own
pain, I don't need these types of things. But they're a vulnerable group here
for whatever reasons, social, psychological, genetically, biologically that
they're more apt to become addicted to opioids. They're the unfortunate
situations that we have here.
What we
have to do and what we're trying to do in this bill here – and my colleague had
noted there are a couple of concerns here that we would have about the
logistical part, the legal ramifications that may need some clarification so we
ensure we don't set a precedent that's going to be detrimental to other segments
of our society. In this House when we set laws and legislation, they're not only
necessarily sometimes about the piece of legislation we're debating, they have
far-reaching effects and they have precedent setting, so we need to ensure that
things are safer around that.
The
effort here to ensure that we expedite a court action to make these companies
accountable, to recover funds that are necessary to be able to put back into our
health care system, to give back to people to try to get their lives back in
order is in good faith, Mr. Speaker, and a good piece of legislation that we
need to move forward.
I know
we'll have some questions in Committee a little further that I hope will clarify
some of the concerns we may have around the logistical, legal ramifications
here, but I do encourage everybody to look at the benefits of what's trying to
be achieved here. We need to make companies accountable, no matter what industry
they're in, but, particularly in this case, when it has a major negative effect
on people's lives afterwards and affects everyone around them and affects our
society.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to further debate on this and look forward to us making
the corporate world accountable for information and services they're providing
us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take very long, but I always like to speak, even just for the record, I
suppose, to indicate where I'm going with these pieces of legislation.
On Bill
17, I'm not going to belabour it, but, obviously, what we're doing here is we're
allowing for legislation to assist and to give the authority for the government
to enter into civil litigation against companies responsible for opioids.
Certainly, in general, that's something that I support.
I can
tell you, over the last two or three years, in particular, I've had a number of
people come to my office, constituents and so on, with various issues that had
opioid addictions. I've seen first-hand how that has impacted their lives in so
many ways because of that opioid addiction.
Sadly,
in each case that I dealt with, at least, that addiction started at the doctor's
office, which was very, very unfortunate to say the least. While it's important
that we go after the companies that manufacture these very addictive drugs, I
think we would all be remiss if we did not, at least, acknowledge the fact that
much of the addiction that we've seen throughout our province when it comes to
opioids did indeed start at the family doctor's office or at emergency or
wherever the case might be.
I'm not
suggesting that there was anything done from a negligible point of view. It
could be, it's possible, like in any profession, but perhaps from not being well
enough trained and educated specifically in some of these drugs, I think it has
caused a problem. There's no doubt about it.
I'll say
another thing that I've noted, which is another big problem around opioid
addictions and around doctors is that there have been a number of people who
can't get a doctor if they have an opioid addiction. Now, we know we have a
problem with getting family doctors in general, but again, I had an individual
not that long ago who came in and had an opioid addiction. His doctor had
dropped him, which I thought was outrageous, to be honest with you.
I did
put in a complaint to the College of Physicians on that matter and I hope that
some action does get taken. In the meantime, called up a particular office that
had opened, where I heard that they were taking patients. I made the call, said:
Are you taking any patients? Yes, we are. I said: Well, what about if you have
an opioid addiction? Sorry, no, we're not.
So, we
have this issue with certain physicians now refusing to take patients if they
have an opioid addiction. That is a problem in itself. A big shout out to Dr.
Bruce Hollett, out to the Waterford, who has a clinic there, and certainly I was
able to refer some people to him. I think he's a tremendous resource, but we do
need to do more. I know that addictions and so on are something that this
administration has been working on and has made some progress. I applaud them
for doing that and I encourage them to continue, but there still is a problem as
it relates to these opioids.
I know
that's getting off on a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's important to
at least acknowledge those issues. It's one thing to produce a product, but
somebody had to prescribe them, someone had to be monitoring and so on. There
have to be proper mechanisms in place to address them when we run into problems,
as so many people have.
In terms
of the legislation itself, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I will support the
legislation because, in principle, I do agree with the concept of going after
these manufacturers, to hold them accountable, no different than what was done
with tobacco manufacturers. It's really the same thing. I think vaping, perhaps,
will be the next thing, that if there's not already class actions, there
probably is going to be and probably should be things put in place to deal with
that as well; but, certainly, I support it in principle.
I have
to say though, just for the record, while I do support it, there's a log of
legalese in here. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins
and outs of this. I can only say that the Department of Justice and their
lawyers have obviously had input in this. They feel that this is the legislation
they need to do what they need to do, which is a good thing.
I will
say in terms of process and in terms of a Member having to stand up here and
vote for a piece of legislation, this one was particularly frustrating because
when I went to the briefing, I asked questions such as – and hopefully when we
get to Committee, the minister might have some answers. In the briefing, asking
the question aren't we already part – and I think this has already been
referenced by the Member for Harbour Main and so on, but we're already part of a
class action which was initiated by the Province of British Columbia, I believe.
We're already named in that; we're already a part of that.
My
question was if we're simply part of that now, why would we need to be passing
legislation? Why do we need this legislation if we're already named a part of
that? We can't really say. Okay, you can't really say. So, does it mean then, if
we pass this legislation, the intent is that we're going to detach ourselves, if
you will, from the class action in BC and do it on our own? We can't really say.
There
were a number of questions around exactly why is it that we're doing this. Why
are we doing it? What is the strategy? What is the plan? The answer kept on
being the same: We can't say, we can't say, we can't say. I'm like, well, why
can't we say? Client-solicitor privilege was basically the answer. I said: Okay,
so what do you mean client-solicitor privilege? Who is the client here? The
Department of Justice. I said, okay.
So, you
want me to stand in the House of Assembly, support a piece of legislation –
while it may very well be good legislation – but you're asking me to support a
piece of legislation to allow you to take some action or not take some action. I
don't know what you're going to do with it; I don't know why you're doing it,
but just vote for it anyway. Basically that's what we're being asked to do.
We're
being asked to vote for this legislation which would allow the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to enter into a civil litigation. I guess it means if
the one that we're part of in BC fails, we can try it again on our own. Or if we
don't like the way the one in BC is going, we can opt out and try it on our own,
or maybe we can join a different one. I don't know, again, I don't know the
strategy, but I can only assume it gives us more options and opportunities. I
guess on a little bit of leap of faith, I suppose, we're saying: Okay, we're
going to give you this tool that you're telling me that you need that will help
us in getting the best result for our province. I guess that's what it comes
down to.
I guess
I'm prepared to do that, but it's important to point out that if by passing
this, that they use this tool and someone says, well, you shouldn't have done
that; you should have stayed as part of the other one or whatever and you would
have done better, well, it's no good to say, well, you voted for it, because I
don't really know in a sense what it is I'm voting for in terms of the strategy.
All I know is I'm voting for a tool that I'm being told is something that they
need and can use and would better our cause, and I have to take faith in that I
am being told the best information to do what they feel is the best thing and
what's going to work best for our province.
I throw
that out there because I'm always a little bit hesitant, because I've sat in a
room before, sat across a table before from people who supposedly had the best
interests of our province in mind and told information and told don't worry
about this, don't worry about that, we got it handled. We know where that went.
Of
course, I'm referring to the Muskrat Falls Project and so on and being told by
people who supposedly knew what they were doing and had all the answers and I
had to believe them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
(Inaudible) this bill.
MR. LANE:
I had no choice but believe
them.
Again,
I'm doing the same thing and I'm not trying to say what I'm being told here is
wrong or is not the right strategy, but I guess I'm just trying to make the
point, Mr. Speaker, that to draw that little comparison that that's kind of what
we're doing. We're voting to allow the Department of Justice to have another
tool for some strategy that I don't know what that strategy is because nobody
will tell me. That's the point I'm making.
With
that said, I will have faith in our officials and our Minister of Justice that
they do know what they're doing, that this is going to be useful, it's going to
get us the best result. I will support the legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
saddened, in a way, to have to stand and support this bill, rather than pleased,
but it is the way I think to go.
You only
have to sit in a room with a recovery forum and listen to the tragedies unfold
as to what opioids have done to the people of this province, mirrored across the
rest of the country, to realize that really, in a sense, the money that we're
talking about here is simply a pale reflection of any kind of compensation; but
having said that, it's the best we can do. It's the only way of holding to
account the people involved, because that, at the end of the day, is the only
thing they place any value on – and it's been blatantly obvious from their
behaviour from the outset – is money. The whole of this has been driven by
money.
This,
Mr. Speaker, is not a warning shot across the bows of Purdue or Sackler
brothers. This is actually a piece of plate armour going on the tip of the spear
that's going after them for the damage that they have deliberately inflicted on
the Canadian public and the people of this province. I don't think that is a
hyperbole or exaggeration.
They
have deliberately misled prescribers and deliberately misled the public by
concealing evidence they had in their possession that would have told them and
allowed prescribers to know of the full dangers of these drugs. They withheld it
simply to increase market share and become simply the most successful drug
pushers this province has ever seen.
Our
problem, as the Members Opposite have alluded to, has been around prescription
opioids. They have been prescribed because the medical profession, the
pharmacists, the nurse practitioners were essentially told there was no downside
to these drugs at all, and that was blatantly and knowingly false at the time
those statements were made by employees of Purdue and representatives of the
Sackler family.
When
you're talking in second reading, you have to talk about the intent of the act.
I think we've already gone very rapidly from that into details around
litigation. Some of the challenges the staff, I think, at JPS had, when in the
briefing, was around litigation strategy.
Contrary
to popular opinion, I think this piece of the House Legislature televising will
be actually quite popular in legal circles. Because you can bet your bottom
dollar, that for $52 billion, Sackler has somebody somewhere sitting there
watching this, seeing where we are going with our strategy. Whilst it would be
nice to be able to answer some of those questions, the what ifs and where you
go, the reason they're watching is in case I'm daft enough to tell them what our
plan might be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
So, for example, the Members
offered it quite legitimately, referenced section 12, which seems to kind of
undermine other previous decisions of the court. It's there in an act which is
not going to be proclaimed unless necessary, but is there to deal with what's
already on the books.
Which
is, for some reason, Saskatchewan has it in its head that it represents
Newfoundland and Labrador in the courts and has signed on to what can only be
described as a pathetic agreement which the best would give us $1 million or $2
million. That's not going to go anywhere near this. In the course of four
months, my department will spend more than that on prescription fees alone for
opioid treatment – prescription fees alone for opioid treatment. At some point,
we need to be able to say what is in the best interest of the people of this
province.
What
this bill does, which is unique, is it presents part of a united front. This is
a transnational lawsuit. The settlement in the States – at the moment, Purdue is
before the courts in the States trying to suck all its Canadian assets into the
States so we have nothing. So when we get to the table it's all gone to the
States. We need to find ways of protecting ourselves against that.
The
bottom line is this is part of the piece of armour, as it were, that goes across
from Vancouver and Victoria all the way to St. John's and all the way up to the
Arctic Circle. Because, together, it sends a very clear message of intent to
courts in the States and it also sends a very clear message to the Canadian
courts that are already involved.
We have
learned that tobacco has dragged it through litigation into settlement in a
sequential fashion and it tied things up for well over two decades. This allows
parallel litigation and settlement discussions to proceed unimpeded across the
board. It allows us as a government to take direct action against the drug
companies, the wholesalers and the individuals who are on the boards of those
companies as individuals.
Sackler
sucked his money out. He has it stashed away somewhere, but as an individual he
– with this legislation, if it's ever enacted – can become liable if other
things do not work.
The
bottom line is it also allows us to use population data. We have to be able now
only simply to show harm to the people of this province and provide a quantum,
not harm to a named individual in the class action, which is unique as far as I
have been told.
Again,
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not here as a lawyer. We have legal expertise on both
sides of the House who can go into the detail. We are actually here as
legislators. I am here as a former prescriber of OxyContin who has seen the
light and now wears a different hat. You can't turn the clock back, but you can
go on the next best steps.
So it is
focused on the population of this province and safeguarding our interests. The
reason it is phrased like this, it is tied up in litigation strategy which is
best left to the litigators; it's best left to the lawyers.
These
tools are all ones that have been tested under fire all the way up to the
Supreme Court of Canada in relation to tobacco, and there are a couple of twists
of things we have learned since then which are in there. They speak to some of
the questions, quite legitimately raised by Members of the Opposition, around
some of the nuances of the technicalities of this bill. We can get into that in
Committee.
Again, I
would caution people, remember, it will be a question of balancing due diligence
so that everyone is comfortable that we're making the right decision in the best
interests of the people of this province. Within actual fact, laying out your
entire game plan for someone else to look at. To be honest, I would suspect the
kind of legal minds this crowd can employ would be able to see the – join the
dots and join the lines, but we can't do anything about that. We just don't need
to make their job too much easier in the process.
So,
again, if the Sackler brothers or Purdue or their lawyers are actually
listening, this bill is to hold you accountable as organizations and as
directors for the untold damage you have wreaked on the people of this province.
All we will be able to do through our resources is to put in health economists
who will come up with sums, and they will boggle the mind.
We have
millions of dollars a year being spent on medical transportation for addiction
services. We have nearly $5 million a year we have put into the new addictions
hub and spoke model – and that will expand. We have an ask in for the federal
government for further support. We have huge bills coming, and this does not yet
quantify the health impact that's indirect.
There
was an estimate in 2014 through CIHI that we were, as a province, $50 million
down on indirect health care costs in this province. Since then – that was 2014
– in 2015, when I walked into this office, there were 1,200 people on the
methadone program. As of the beginning of this year, there are 3,300 people on
the methadone and Suboxone program. In addition to that, we have wrapped
services around them that were not there before to fill the gaps.
This
morning, I was speaking to stakeholder groups who are involved in peer and
front-line work around addictions and people with substance use issues. They
were suggesting to me that the number of people whose lives have been impacted
directly by opioid and substance use issues is, in actual fact, probably three
times the number that we are aware of. We've gone from 50 million in 2014 to at
least three times that number today on the figures we know about. You can
multiply that in turn by three; this is a geometric progression in terms of
cost.
On that
note, I wish to just sum up once more so if anyone is in any doubt about this.
To the wholesalers and the manufacturers of these drugs that were marketed
deceptively: We are coming for you. I would urge every Member in the House to
vote for this bill.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
excellent legislation and I am pleased to see it come. I do have a couple of
questions I would like to pose to the House. I would like to point out there are
a number of areas that this opens up for discussion, so perhaps it could lead to
some other potential legislation along the way.
Certainly, one of the first things that comes to mind is while this legislation
is a backstop to the broader legislation being proposed in British Columbia, I
see nowhere the criteria listed for when this legislation would be enacted. For
example, if the legislation in BC turns out to not be making any headway or any
traction, or looks like it's not going to go where it should be going, then will
that be when we enact our legislation or are there some other criteria for that?
I hope when we move to Committee we'll be able to answer some of those
particular questions along the way.
In
addition to that, how we actually enact this legislation. If we get to that
point, there are a couple of interesting pieces that I find also need to be
considered. First of all, while British Columbia thought it prudent to include
Newfoundland and Labrador and all other provinces in their legislation or in
their lawsuit, I see no reference to any financial gain that might come from
this lawsuit, how might it be allocated across provinces.
Will
that be allocated based on population? Will it be allocated based on opioid
deaths? Will it be allocated based on number of opioids actually prescribed?
That is very unclear, so I think finding out where we fit in this British
Columbia lawsuit might actually give me a better sense of when and if we might
actually enact this legislation, because as I understand it this legislation
just-in-case legislation. In addition to that, some other questions that I would
have some concerns about, when we talk about the costs associated with opioid
addiction, certainly I know there are some remarkable health economists that can
touch on some of the very important costs associated with this.
I do
notice that some of the Members opposite did reference the children in our
neonatal unit and our maternity ward, our Janeway, that have no one to take care
of them who are suffering from opioid withdrawal, whose mothers are unable to
care from them because they, too, are in the full throes of an opioid addiction.
We have infants there who have no one to care for them. That is one of the most
crucial pieces of someone's development, is to have someone hold them close when
they are born. We don't have that, so are we going to include the cost of
someone who is volunteering to go in and hold these children as they suffer
through withdrawal? Is that some costs we're going to see?
Also I
have found that on numerous occasions – I've been talking to individuals in
through my district, as well as many other districts – I hear that grandmothers
now know how to reduce opioid patches, morphine patches, down to get the opioid
ingredients out of that. They know that because their grandchildren are in the
throws of an opioid addiction. Do we include the cost that a grandmother has
spent worrying over the care of their grandchildren and how that child is going
to make his way through life and whether or not they're even going to survive?
While these are intangible costs they are still very, very important costs.
Mr.
Speaker, I've also heard far too many times – my parents who do a great deal of
child care for my brothers, both of whom are single parents. My parents go out
and do child care for those and they often find themselves conversing with other
grandparents. Luckily, my family is quite whole and we have not been afflicted
by any opioid addictions, but I hear too often that other grandparents are
stepping in to care for their grandchildren whose parents are opioid addicts,
who are no longer able to care for their children. These are day-to-day things.
This is getting the children up and getting to school on time, making sure they
have lunches and making sure there is someone there when they come home in the
afternoons and there's a warm meal associated there for them.
These
are intangible costs that are very, very real. These are heavy burdens that
weigh on grandparents, parents and anyone who has seen the costs of these
addictions. We also see far too often the unfortunate side effects of crime
associated with opioid addiction. When you are in the throes of opioid addiction
you don't care what the criminal consequences are, you don't care what the
physical consequences are, you just need to feed your craving.
Are we
going to include the costs of policing? Are we going to include the costs of
putting in extra protections for people who work in convenience stores, as we
see more and more robberies and we see more and more break-ins associated with
people trying to feed their addiction? These are costs that are intangible but
very, very important. I think I'd like to see some of those things start to be
included in this.
We also
have a housing issue. That is huge. If someone is attempting to feed their
opioid addiction, they don't care where they live; they don't care if they pay
their mortgage. Eventually, they're going to find themselves out on the street,
so that's going to exacerbate an already difficult housing shortage that we
have. I'm sure every Member here can speak to the housing issues in their
districts.
We also
have lost time in production. Individuals who are addicted to opioids I'm sure
have difficulty maintaining work, being productive at work, just being a
contributing member of society. Again, these are other costs associated with an
opioid addiction that must be captured in such a lawsuit.
Some
other things that I have seen that could very well lead to other types of
discussions is what are the criteria to break from the lawsuit and move to our
legislation? That is very, very important. Here's another thought that I've had.
This legislation, of course, brings to mind a great number of questions. Do we
have or ought we put in place mechanisms to ensure continual evaluation of the
safety of all drugs that we have?
We've
realized that opioid addiction is a serious issue, but if we put a mechanism in
place that allowed for continual evaluation of this, perhaps we would have
recognized the grave peril that individuals were in and the problems that opioid
addiction has caused. Maybe we would have addressed this problem far sooner and
we would have had fewer deaths as a result of that.
To pivot
slightly on that, I commend the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands for bringing
up the issue of vaping and vapes and the health problems that are associated
with that. This was something that had been moved through Health Canada
relatively quickly and we're already seeing that youth, in particular, are
picking up vaping at phenomenal rates. We know that vaping includes higher than
normal –
MR. SPEAKER:
Stay relevant to the bill,
please.
MS. COFFIN:
Pardon me?
MR. SPEAKER:
Stay relevant to the bill.
MS. COFFIN:
Pardon me.
Also
related to that would be antibiotics and antimicrobials, which perhaps we need
to consider because those too have some significant problems associated with it
and we do need to address that. So that continual evaluation is also very
important.
Another
concern I would have with this would be in this legislation, I understand that
there is some concern that Purdue would be moving some of their assets outside
of Canada. So, perhaps, we can talk about a legislation that would freeze the
assets of Purdue in Canada until we can straighten this lawsuit away so they are
unable to move the money out of Canada and into the US to satisfy the US
lawsuits. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's an important consideration and perhaps
the House can move towards something like that if it falls into Newfoundland and
Labrador's legislative authority.
At the
same time, we have legislation regarding opioid prescriptions. Perhaps this
legislation calls to mind – we may want to think about some alternative
medications to opioids. Certainly, that would be a consideration for maybe the
Minister of Health. I know at one point I did bring up during Estimates that we
consider legalizing cannabis as an alternative to opioids or other stronger
medications. That certainly is a suggestion or a pivot point from this
legislation.
Perhaps
we should also consider that all opioid prescriptions should include a program
to wean patients off those opioids. These are again some key points that will
address the fundamental problems that we have with opioids.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, that might be all that I have to say on this. I do look forward to
some consideration – no, I have one more thing. Something else we want to
consider here is, we know that methadone prescriptions are increasing in an
effort to help wean people from opioid addiction, but it is not a solution, it
is a just a stop gap. We need a plan that is going to supersede the use of
methadone and actually prevent opioid addiction, not just treat opioid
addiction.
Again, I
guess the final point that I will make is, whatever money that we do find
recovered, will we be applying that directly to the treatment of addictions and
addicts and prevention of further addicts being created by inappropriate use of
these drugs?
Mr.
Speaker, in principle, I do support this bill, but I would look forward to
having a more fulsome discussion about some of the questions raised here once we
take this bill to Committee.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Education
and Early Childhood Development speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the contribution of my colleagues during debate in the House of
Assembly: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member
for Mount Pearl - Southlands, the Member for Gander and, certainly, last but not
least is the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, and it's great to have you
back in the House of Assembly today.
This
bill will play an important role as this government and this province hold
opioid manufacturers and wholesalers accountable for their role in creating the
current opioid crisis. In debating the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this
government and this House are committed to continuing to address the opioid
crisis, including taking the necessary and important steps towards recovering
the costs of health care benefits.
Passing
this bill does not prejudice the province. I'll repeat that, Mr. Speaker.
Passing this bill does not prejudice the province. It protects from us
prejudice. Passing this bill has no downside. It does not require us to take any
action. It does not require us to spend any money. It does not require us to
make any decisions today. What it does is send that message. It sends a message,
Mr. Speaker, that has been echoed in the comments during this debate today. It
equips this government and this province to respond to an ever-changing and
unfolding crisis.
As I
said, enacting this bill will help ensure that we have the right tools to pursue
health care benefit cost recovery. In the absence of this bill, we will be
required to produce evidence of health care costs for each individual resident
affected by this crisis. We know that opioid manufacturers and distributors are
watching the actions of Canadian governments with interest. We are not going lay
out litigation strategy in this House, but we are telling them today that we are
going to hold them accountable for their role in this province's opioid crisis.
With
respect to some of the legal questions of some hon. Members, we will look
forward to Committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and thank
everybody else for their (inaudible).
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Is the House ready for
the question?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Provide For
Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related Health Care Costs. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Provide For Damages And Recovery Of Opioid Related
Health Care Costs,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 9,
Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that Bill
15 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill
15)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today we are going to be debating amendments to the
Liquor Corporation Act. It's regarding
the NLC, who is responsible for the importation, sale and distribution of
alcohol throughout the province. This is a significant task. It requires the
expertise of a large number of individuals at the NLC to ensure that they
continue to build that business and provide revenue for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the
past year, the NLC mandate has evolved to reflect responsibility of regulating
the sale and distribution of non-medical cannabis products in our province as
well. The NLC has been at the forefront of regulating this new industry and is
now focused on the next step of regulating and moving the market to include
edible cannabis products.
Mr.
Speaker, with this evolution of the NLC's business practices and
responsibilities, it's natural that we look at legislation and how legislation
will need to change and follow suit. We need to adjust legislation and
regulations to reflect the corporation's changing business model. The amendments
that we're proposing here today, Mr. Speaker, will better reflect the new
mandate and best practice with respect to corporate governance at the NLC.
I will
explain each of the important changes that we're making for Members of the House
of Assembly today, and then we'll open it up for debate.
We are
introducing some flexibility to the size of the NLC board of directors and also
setting minimum representation. Currently, the NLC board is set at a maximum of
seven members, which has historically included a government representative and
the president and CEO of the NLC.
With
these amendments, Mr. Speaker, we are going to set a minimum of five
representatives as voting members on the board and a maximum of nine voting
members on the board. This added flexibility will allow government to increase
or decrease the size of the board based on operational need.
We saw,
Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of cannabis products, that the board had
requested an increase to the size of the board to reflect not only the knowledge
that would be required, but also to ensure that with the changing and evolving
responsibilities of NLC, that they were able to have the appropriate input. The
fact, Mr. Speaker, is that this is specific to voting members, and it's
important because of another change that we're making as well.
We are
introducing an amendment to ensure that both the president and CEO of NLC, as
well as the deputy minister, or the designate of the Deputy Minister of Finance,
will be automatically appointed to the board by virtue of their positions.
Historically, both of these positions have been represented on the board and,
currently, both of these positions are on the board, Mr. Speaker. This change is
merely formalizing the past practice. However, we're also introducing another
change such that both of these positions will be non-voting members on the
board, instead of their current role as voting members.
These
changes are being made to avoid any potential conflicts of interest that could
arise from the automatic inclusion of the deputy minister on the board and
because the president and CEO of the NLC reports to the board of directors.
We are
also making changes around the reappointment and term limits for board members.
The legislation as it is currently written doesn't allow for the reappointment
of current board members, so what we're doing, we're introducing a change to
allow for the reappointment of board members without requiring us to go back to
the independent appointments process.
There
are times when government believes that reappointing a board member is important
for continuity on the board, Mr. Speaker. This can happen when there is a
significant turnover on the board and government would like to maintain one or
several members of the board who have gained valuable experience on the board.
Since the board members are vetted through the Independent Appointments
Commission before their first appointment, this allows government to reappoint
without forcing current members to reapply and go through that same vetting
process.
We're
also proposing changes to allow board members whose appointment term has ended
to continue on in their roles beyond the end date, until the Independent
Appointments Commission can vet and appoint new members. This change ensures the
continuity of board members during the interim period until new members are
appointed. This will help ensure the ongoing operations of the board are not
disrupted by the recruitment process.
Mr.
Speaker, because these changes will change the board composition, we must also
formalize new rules around board quorum. The current quorum rules dictate that
there must be four members present for votes; however, we have changed it to
make the board a maximum of five voting members – sorry, a minimum of five
voting members – or a maximum of nine voting members. To reflect the new format,
quorum will now be set as a majority of voting members. This is flexible to
coincide with changes to the board makeup. With the current composition of the
board, for example, quorum will be three voting members, as there will be five
voting members in total if these changes are approved in the House.
Mr.
Speaker, finally, before we open it up for debate in the House of Assembly, what
we're doing here is clarifying language in the act such that the president and
CEO will be appointed by virtue of their positions, via the independent
appointments process. We introduced the independent appointments process as it
is a merit-based process for our agencies, boards and commissions. We're
updating the Liquor Control Act to
bring it in line with the IAC process, as it has an oversight to not do it
previously.
Mr.
Speaker, it's important to note that we've already begun a recruitment process
for the permanent president and CEO through the Independent Appointments
Commission, and we expect to have a permanent president and CEO appointed in the
very near future. This will ensure that the legislation aligns with our
intention for how we plan to appoint the NLC president and CEO in the future.
Our
government is dedicated, Mr. Speaker, to the independent appointments process to
ensure that boards are filled using the merit-based system. Over the coming
years, the NLC will strengthen their business, achieve operational excellence
and continue to improve the experience for customers, all with a strict
commitment to its social-responsibility mandate.
These
amendments, Mr. Speaker, will ensure the ability for the NLC to work towards
these goals. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to any comments and debate here in the
Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I want to thank the minister
for his explanation. It answered a couple of questions that I have at the
beginning.
We're
talking about expanding a board of directors here, and obviously it's important
to have enough board of directors present at any time to make good decisions.
The fact that they will expand it will certainly give them more flexibility, I
guess, in terms of how they hold their meeting, when they hold their meetings
and so on.
The
minister talked about the expertise of the board of directors being important
and being able to add more expertise because of the whole cannabis thing, all
good points. I have some questions that I'll ask in Committee.
The
reappointment process, I mean, the fact that they're limited to three years is
really not a long time for anybody who serves on a board. Again, through the
Committee process, I'll ask about if there's a limit on the number of terms or
not. I want to ask some questions about that.
All in
all, the idea that the president and CEO will be non-voting is a good measure. I
think that's a good thing for the board. The other changes are simply some
housekeeping changes and stuff, but there's really not a whole lot here that –
like I said, we have some questions that we'd like to ask in Committee.
Other
than that, I'm not going to stand up and delay other than to say we'll ask some
questions in Committee.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm only
going to take a second there now to speak to Bill 15.
This,
Mr. Speaker, is basically housekeeping, of course, as the minister talks about,
that the appointments and so on would be through the Independent Appointments
Commission. There are a few points and changes there around the reappointment of
people to the board of directors, what constitutes a quorum and so on. There's
really nothing here of any great substance. It's obviously something that needed
to be done to clean up the piece of legislation, make things, I guess, clearer
and more efficient.
I
certainly have no issue with it, so I will be supporting the bill.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
nice to see that we are going to be putting more people who will be appointed to
tier-one organizations via the Independent Appointments Commission. I do laud
that. I think that's a wonderful idea.
I do
have a couple of quick questions and I'm sure they will be addressed during
Committee. I'm curious to find out why the Deputy Minister of Finance or their
delegate might be included on this. Certainly, by including the deputy minister,
even though they are non-voting, they could tacitly have an influence on the
decisions of the board, so I would be curious to see what rationale was for
appointing that individual.
The
other point that I would like to point out is we've gone from five to nine
voting members, to seven to 10 voting members. That serve includes an additional
cost. I know we are attempting to be fiscally prudent, so I would like to know
what the actual cost would be associated with that and, again, the rationale. I
know it will provide additional flexibility, but, again, at what cost?
In
addition to that, what else did I find? Since we are going through the
Independent Appointments Commission, I've taken the time to go through some of
their requirements and some of the skill sets they suggest as being appropriate
for members appointed by that committee. Under those, in some cases I found that
despite my reasonable qualifications, I would be inappropriate for many boards.
What I'd
like to see is what kind of criteria would we have in place for appointing these
members? For example, would there be gender equity? Would there be diversity
criteria? Would we have skill sets that weren't necessarily associated with
business orientation? For example, for accounting purposes or someone who has
come from chairing boards before?
How
about we talk about people who have relevant experience associated with, say,
the distribution of alcohol or cannabis. How about someone who is very familiar
with the use of it. Or how about someone who has much less formal credentials
and someone who has more – let's pretend – street credentials or people who have
credentials associated with experience as opposed to education.
I'm not
seeing any reference to the types of individuals we are going to try and capture
under this expanded board. I would like to see a little bit more information
along that. However, on its face, this bill makes good sense and I will say that
we will support it, pending the responses to the questions that I have currently
posed.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now he'll close the
debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A couple
of the questions that were asked, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the requirements for
members being appointed through the IAC process. They're not set out in
legislation here. The IAC process is a merit-based process. I'm speaking to the
Leader of the Third Party now with some of the questions you had asked.
The IAC
process is an independent process, it is merit based. First and foremost, they
look at qualifications. Then they look at geography, they look at gender, they
look at Aboriginal or Indigenous involvement, for example, and they look at
minority involvement, but first and foremost it is merit based. They determine
the qualifications of an individual and then look at other aspects.
In terms
of what qualifications would be required to be on the board, it depends. For
example, we just made recently appointments to the board to fill two vacancies.
With those, we were cognizant of the fact that the previous board was appointed
when the NLC was only responsible for the distribution and sale of alcohol
products. They now have a new line. So we had asked the Independent Appointments
Commission to, through the merit-based process, look at individuals who could
add value based on the new product line.
So it
depends. When you appoint individuals to whatever board, if there's a void on a
board in a certain level of expertise, there are times that you may ask the
Independent Appointments Commission to look for individuals who may be able to
add value with that in mind. It's not prescriptive in the legislation but once
they go through the IAC process, that's what the IAC look for. The IAC will do a
search for individuals and determine the best individuals to be placed on a
board.
I'm
hoping that answers the questions from the Member. I know the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port had asked a question as well. I'll ask him in
Committee to re-ask that because I can't remember what it was. I'll endeavour to
answer that as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 15 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. CROCKER:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that this House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. 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 (Bennett):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill 15)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Just a couple of quick
questions, Mr. Chair.
The
expansion of the board – has the minister given any consideration to prescribing
in legislation that the appointment of members must be staggered to ensure
continuity, knowledge transfer and to ensure that all new members are not
appointed at the same time?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
That is
a good question. That is certainly something we can look at. By nature of the
fact that board members are appointed at different times, it's automatically
staggered. With that question in mind, it is a good question and there could, at
some point in time, either the resignation of board members or for various other
reasons – you could have four or five members who are reappointed at the same
time, which would create that problem.
Currently that problem doesn't exist because the members that are on the board
are already staggered. So, generally speaking, the reappointments would be
staggered as well, unless for some reason you had a large number leave at once.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
On that same note, I notice
that we're going to change so that the members can be renewed. Is there a term
limit on how long someone can serve as a member of the board?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
No, there isn't. The term is
three years for appointment but then they can be reappointed. Generally
speaking, if someone is performing very, very well on a board, whichever
government is holding office at any given time could decide to reappoint a
member more than once.
We're
always open to amendments if the Member wanted to amend the limit, but if
somebody is performing very, very well and has a certain expertise, you may want
to keep them there beyond three or six years.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I know it's a challenge in
the health board system in that there are term limits, so I just wanted to
figure that one out.
Are the
board members in this particular board compensated by way of honorarium or
anything like that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
Yes,
board members receive $145 per meeting. Last year, I believe there were 10
meetings. It's roughly 10 meetings a year, so the honorarium would be in the
range of $1,400 or $1,500 a year.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did
have one question: In the criteria for appointing a member, would we include
someone from the executive of Alcoholics Anonymous or from Al-Anon or from
someone who has – from an organization that is significantly aware of the
detrimental effects of alcohol and/or cannabis?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and Presidents of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Currently, there isn't a
provision for that. I'm not sure if any of our boards in the province really
contain those types of provisions. The IAC, Independent Appointments Commission,
when they go through their process if they determine that a certain set of
skills or certain representation is required on the board, they provide an
individual based on the merit-based process, but can provide any level of
background or expertise. They can make recommendations of individuals to
government.
CHAIR:
Seeing no other questions,
shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
Seeing
no questions, all those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 and 3 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:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Liquor Corporation Act.
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 Bill 15
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 Deputy House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 15.
CHAIR:
The motion is the Committee
rise and report Bill 15 carried without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 15 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole has reported that the Committee has considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 15 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. CROCKER:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall it be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Deputy Government
House Leader.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 8, Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Service
NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 13, An Act
Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province, be now read a
second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 13, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The
Province, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate
Trading In The Province.” (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to
stand once again in this hon. House to introduce legislation that will have a
positive impact on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The
current Real Estate Trading Act was
proclaimed in 1965 and has received only minor amendments since that time. Many
times I have said on the floor of this House that it is important that
legislation be current and responsive to the people it serves. Given the fact
that the purchase or sale of a home is perhaps the largest transaction a person
will ever make in their life, it is imperative that we have legislation that
protects consumers in our province to the greatest extent possible.
Real
estate transactions affect a large proportion of individuals in every region of
Newfoundland and Labrador. A modern and robust regulatory framework is necessary
to deliver consumer protection to homebuyers and sellers, while also ensuring
the needs of real estate brokers and salespersons are taken into account.
In 2012,
government engaged industry on reviewing the act, which reinforced the view that
the current legislation is outdated and inadequate. At the time, those
discussions did not lead to any amendments to the act. Mr. Speaker, when our
government developed The Way Forward,
our plan for sustainability and growth of the province, we made better services
and increased consumer protection core elements of the plan. Our Premier also
included a review of this legislation in my mandate letter, signalling its
importance to both consumers and the industry.
We
launched public consultations and gathered feedback through a number of sources.
Government representatives met with key stakeholder groups, such as the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors, to discuss issues of
importance and potential changes to the act. Feedback was also gathered via
email and online at government's engageNL portal. Ninety submission were
received during the consultation period.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors also held its own meetings
throughout the province, and officials from my department attended these as
well. I was happy to attend a session myself. The feedback from these sessions
was part of the realtors association's submission to the provincial government.
I want to thank Mr. Bill Stirling and the entire Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Realtors for their tremendous effort and their focus on helping
bring about improvements for their industry.
Through
our review of the Real Estate Trading Act,
as well as the feedback received through the previous consultation process, we
had identified several areas that merit significant amendments, as well as a
need to clarify the act's language to ensure it is modern and clear.
Mr.
Speaker, on June 18, 2019, the Government House Leader referred the draft bill
entitled An Act Respecting the Regulation of Real Estate Trading in the Province
to the Government Services Committee to review and report to the House in the
next sitting of the House of Assembly. I want to thank the Committee for their
work in helping us bring this legislation to the floor of the House.
As I
stated earlier, the legislation we are introducing today will address concerns
raised by both industry and consumers, as well as modernize the act to reflect
today's real estate environment. I'd like now to specifically address the key
changes.
In the
current legislation, Mr. Speaker, an agent is defined as a person licensed to
trade in real estate, and a salesperson must act on behalf of an agent. In
keeping with industry practice, the term broker is used. This was recommended by
industry and also supported in the public consultations. Six other provinces:
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia all
use the term broker when referring to the real estate company. We have amended
the act so that broker is now used throughout the legislation instead of agent.
Mr.
Speaker, feedback from public consultations and industry both indicated that
more stringent requirements need to be in place prior to registration as a real
estate broker or a salesperson. We were told that the application needs to be
expanded to include more suitability checks, such as criminal background checks,
along with three-year work and address history. All provinces except
Newfoundland and Labrador require criminal background checks prior to licensing.
The act
currently allows the superintendent to modify the application form required to
be completed by a licensee. Under a new section, the superintendent sets the
form of the application. The act now contains a requirement for a criminal
background check and additional information that needs to be provided.
Additionally, section 48 has been added to give the Minister of Service NL the
power to set fees and establish forms. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council will
now have the authority to make regulations which prescribe the requirements,
qualifications and conditions for issuing licences. We have also added a section
to require licensees to notify the superintendent of changes in the information
submitted to obtain the licence, which would include the status of a criminal
record check.
Mr.
Speaker, we recognize the importance of continuous education and having a
working knowledge of the latest trends and practices in any industry. Both
public consultations and industry feedback showed strong support for continuing
education. Given the industry is continually changing and evolving, all
provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have continuing education
requirements in their legislation.
Currently, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors offers
continuing education training for its members; however, brokers who are not
members of this organization do not participate. We have amended the legislation
to give the superintendent of real estate brokers and salespersons the authority
to begin the process of developing appropriate and modern educational
requirements for the industry.
Mr.
Speaker, the ability to incorporate also came to the forefront during our
consultations. The current legislation refers to an employer-employee
relationship with the brokerage employing a salesperson and does not allow a
licensed salesperson the ability to incorporate. The industry has evolved such
that some salespersons operate as independent contractors and should be afforded
the ability to establish and operate as a personal real estate corporation.
There
was strong support for the real estate industry to allow salespersons to form a
real estate corporation. Salespersons requested the ability to incorporate
similar to other independent contractors in other industries. Seven
jurisdictions in Canada allow personal real estate corporations, including
Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia.
We added
a section to the act which will allow the establishment of personal real estate
corporations. This section will be proclaimed once the IT system has been
updated to allow for issuance and tracking of licences for such corporations.
Mr.
Speaker, errors and omissions insurance is a type of professional liability
insurance that protects companies, their workers and other professionals against
claims of inadequate work or negligent actions.
In terms
of the real estate industry, current legislation does not require the broker or
salesperson to carry liability insurance; however, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Realtors requires it for all of its members. This insurance
protects professionals whose clients could claim damages as a result of a
negligent act or an error or omission by the professional's negligent actions.
It also provides coverage for legal defence costs, if they were to be required.
The
coverage provides a level of comfort for clients by ensuring that there will be
adequate funds to pay for damages incurred if the professional services are
deemed to be negligent. It is acknowledged that the majority of real estate
licensees in Newfoundland and Labrador already carry errors and omissions
insurance and the public consultation process overwhelmingly supported the
requirement for all brokers and salespersons to carry it.
All
provinces, except Prince Edward Island, require salespersons to purchase this
insurance. There is also a requirement for it under insurance and securities
legislation in our province. We have amended the act to require errors and
omissions insurance for real estate brokers and salespersons. The regulations
will prescribe the amount of insurance required, but it is understood that
$1-million liability coverage is the real estate industry's standard across the
country.
Mr.
Speaker, the current legislation contains a public interest test only and does
not clearly reference a code of conduct for real estate brokers and
salespersons. While the Canadian Real Estate Association maintains a realtor
code, it only applies to its members and it is not something that can be
enforced by the superintendent. This has resulted in government being challenged
at times to deal effectively with unacceptable conduct.
Our
consultations told us that the establishment of a code of conduct is widely
supported by the public and the industry, which is also recommending the code of
conduct plus the implementation of a disciplinary process to handle infractions.
All provinces, except PEI, have adopted a code of conduct in their act.
With our
amendments we have brought forward today, the superintendent of real estate
brokers and salespersons would take on a more active role in establishing and
enforcing a code of conduct. The superintendent would also have the ability to
suspend, revoke or cancel a licence for breach of the code.
Mr.
Speaker, another area which was identified as being significant during our
consultations deals with the restriction of a licensed real estate person to
provide both real estate and mortgage broker services. There are potentially a
number of conflicts or perceived conflicts of interest that currently exist,
such as when a real estate broker represents both sides of the real estate
transaction or represents two buyers who are interested in the same property.
Dual
agency occurs throughout the province, but particularly in regions where there
are few real estate professionals available. According to the data provided by
NLAR, sales by their members for 2018-'19 include nearly 30 per cent dual
agency, but this was less frequent in St. John's at less than 16 per cent.
Nearly 75 per cent of the Burin Peninsula transactions, however, were dual
agency, showing the prevalence is more so in rural regions. A personal conflict
of interest can also arise when a licensee or close relative of a licensee is
one of the parties in the real estate transaction. It can also arise when the
licensee provides other related services to a client, such as a mortgage.
The
current legislation addresses a licensee trading for themselves, but does not
address other potential conflicts of interest. During public consultations, 62
per cent of respondents felt there was a potential for consumers to be harmed
when the real estate licensee was in conflict of interest. While the response to
banning or restricting exclusive listing and dual agency was mixed, the response
in preventing a real estate licensee from also providing mortgage broker
services was strongly supported.
The
consultation also cited disclosure and conflict of interest as requiring
guidelines and rules. While the real estate industry did not recommend a ban on
exclusive listing or dual agency, it recommended stronger disclosure
requirements. From a jurisdictional perspective, British Columbia is the only
province in Canada to have banned dual agency, except in limited circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, they made this change in June of 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, this government recognizes the important service that licensees provide
in rural areas of the province. A ban on exclusive listing or dual agency would
pose challenges for consumers of real estate transactions in certain rural areas
and would limit consumer choice if their preferred broker or salespersons was
already representing another party in the transaction. Instead of a ban on
exclusive listing or dual agency, the amendments to establish a code of conduct
will allow the superintendent to address concerns by requiring disclosure and
consent of the individuals involved in the real estate transaction.
Another
area where we have addressed conflict of interest concerns of both the public
and the industry is by amending the legislation to restrict a licensed real
estate person from providing real estate services and mortgage broker services
to the same client on the same business transaction. Mr. Speaker, in this
regard, the amended legislation will not prohibit any individual from acting in
the dual capacity of real estate broker and mortgage broker; we understand that
certain professionals act in both capacities in the province.
Instead,
in the interest of protecting consumers during transactions that can often be
very complicated, the legislation will require consumers to engage different
professionals for the real estate and the mortgage brokerage services. With
these changes to address conflicts of interest we are seeking to balance the
objectives of creating an efficient regulatory system while also providing an
appropriate level of protection for the public.
Mr.
Speaker, within the real estate industry licensees often provide referrals to
their clients for related services such as mortgages or inspection services. In
turn, they receive a referral fee. Licensees may also pay referral fees to an
individual when a client is referred to them by that person.
As it
currently stands, the legislation does not address this issue. Other
jurisdictions have in fact established disclosure requirements regarding
referrals. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have added a section to the act which
allows the superintendent to establish disclosure requirements for referrals.
Mr.
Speaker, the real estate bond was established to protect consumers from
financial loss in cases where the broker or the salesperson is convicted of an
offence, a civil judgment arising out of a trade in real estate made against the
broker or salesperson, or the broker or salesperson declares bankruptcy. Over
the years these bonds have been called upon very infrequently, and in a couple
of instances they were not sufficient to fully cover the financial loss.
The
legislation currently requires brokers and salespersons to carry a bond in the
amount of $15,000 and $5,000 respectively. Such bonds cost a minimum of $200.
Public consultation and industry have mixed views on the current bond
requirement, although 85 per cent of respondents agree that bonds should be
replaced with another mechanism. Industry brought forward a suggestion to
establish a recovery fund financed by the real estate industry members as an
alternative to the bond. Six jurisdictions, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia in Canada currently operate a
recovery fund.
In my
Department of Service NL our Financial Services Regulation Division operates a
recovery fund for prepaid funerals. The act will now allow the establishment of
a recovery fund similar to the one established for prepaid funerals in the
province, financed by the industry participants and managed by Service NL.
Mr.
Speaker, another area that was brought to our attention was that of trust
deposits, specifically the streamlined release of trust deposits, as well as a
mechanism for aged trust deposits. The Financial Services Regulation Division
regularly receives inquires about releasing trust deposits where conditions in
purchase and sales agreements have not been met. Even when agreements clearly
outline the conditions for the release of a deposit, the majority of industry
participants are still reluctant to return deposits because of the risk of civil
action.
The act
currently requires the broker to disburse money from a trust account when
written notice from the vendor and purchaser have been received by the broker
authorizing the return of the deposit to the purchaser, or when the court has
given direction to the disbursement of the deposit. The consultations called for
greater clarity in the act, and an alternate mechanism to deal with trust
account disputes, other than the court system. The new legislation will allow
the deposit to be released according to the terms of the contract signed. A new
subsection 26(4)(e) has been added to enable the superintendent to direct the
disbursement of the deposit. This should speed up disbursement considerably.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of aged trust deposits that, for many reasons, have
not been disbursed and remain in trust with brokers in the province. Currently,
if a buyer or seller does not want to go to court, they have no recourse and the
deposit remains in the trust account. The only alternative to address aged trust
deposits is through the court system.
Also,
brokers are being named in civil actions and the cause of the dispute and
resolution of the dispute is beyond their control. We have amended the act to
enable the superintendent to make decisions on disputed trust deposits as an
alternative to the court process. Further requirements for the superintendent to
direct the disbursement of trust deposits will be outlined in the regulations. A
new section 27, unclaimed trust money, has been added, which states that brokers
may pay money held in trust for more than two years to the Real Estate Recovery
Fund.
Mr.
Speaker, a key component of a strong regulatory system is the ability to enforce
legislation. Under the current act there is limited ability to discipline a
non-compliant broker or salesperson. The penalties outlined are generally
inadequate, outdated and involve significant resources to move forward with any
type of violation. This significantly affects the department's ability to
respond in a timely manner. At present, when a broker or salesperson is
non-compliant with the act, their licence can be suspended or, alternatively, a
conviction is required prior to moving forward with appropriate penalties.
Formal
charges for minor breaches of the act are not a good use of resources or the
court system and therefore rarely happen. This impedes the ability of the
superintendent to act in a timely and efficient manner to deal with breaches of
the act. Both public feedback and the real estate industry strongly advocated
for enforceable consequences to breaches of the act. Tighter enforcement and
associated fines or other penalties. The submission from industry recommended
the act contain stronger enforcement mechanisms to handle minor infractions.
Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
British Columbia have a range of options in place to handle various types of
offences. Administrative levies can be used for listed minor infractions such as
late filing of an annual report or non-compliant advertising.
When
dealing with more serious non-compliance issues, other jurisdictions had the
option to utilize an agreed statement of facts or consent orders and apply
sanctions, add terms and conditions and require continuing education,
restrictions and/or penalties. The decisions are often published, providing
additional incentive to comply with the legislation and serve as a learning tool
for other licensees.
In
Ontario, for example, charges for more serious offences may result in penalties
as high as $50,000 for an individual, $250,000 for a corporation and two years,
less one day for imprisonment. We have updated the act to allow for the
establishment of administrative fines and conditions for minor infractions up to
$10,000, as well as provided authority to the superintendent to publish
administrative decisions.
The
proposed changes also increase the maximum amount of a fine to not more than
$50,000 and to imprisonment of not more than two years where a person
contravenes the act and is found guilty of an offence in the court. This is an
increase from current fines which are $1,000 for the first offence, $2,000 for a
subsequent offence and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.
Furthermore, there is no longer a distinction between a first and subsequent
offence, and fines apply to both individuals and incorporated bodies. Every
contravention of the act is considered a new and separate offence.
While
the maximum fine is higher than in certain jurisdictions, it is lower than the
maximum penalties in securities and insurance legislation. The intent is not to
drive revenue but create a stronger regulatory system with greater compliance.
Mr.
Speaker, as consumer protection is a driving force behind the changes we have
introduced today, we felt the need to address situations which the
superintendent may deem is not in the best interest of the consumer. As an
example, the holdover clause protects a brokerage and states that if a client
enters into an agreement of purchase and sale within a specified time, known as
the holdover period, after the expiration of the contract the client may still
need to pay commission to the brokerage.
In some
contracts, this clause provides an end date where the contract is cancelled but
does not provide an end date where the contract expires. As such, the
superintendent will now have the ability to issue an order to correct that
situation. The act now allows the superintendent to issue orders to suspend or
cancel a licence and pose conditions on a licence or pay a fine not exceeding
$10,000 or other orders prescribed in regulations. An appeal mechanism related
to a decision or order under the act would also continue to be available through
the Financial Services Appeal Board.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, I would again offer my appreciation to the Government Services
Committee for their work in reviewing the legislation and the valuable comments
provided in their report to this hon. House. In recognition of the new process
that was followed for the legislation by engaging the Government Services
Committee, I would like to recommend to my colleagues that we consider an
amendment to the in force date from January 1, 2020, and I intend to bring this
forward during our debate in the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, the final amendments I will speak to today are mostly of a housekeeping
nature dealing with clarification of language and organization of the act.
The new
legislation provides for the appointment of a superintendent and deputy
superintendent of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Minister of
Service NL rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. These positions are
filled today through a merit-based process under the
Public Service Commission Act and this will continue to be the case.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we are amending clause 19(1) of the bill by adding
“or salesperson” immediately after the word “broker.” These words were
inadvertently omitted in the bill.
Clause
19(1) clarifies the disclosure that is required when a broker is seeking to
purchase, make an offer to purchase, acquire a property for themselves or a
family member and they themselves have listed, also applies to the salesperson.
This amendment was referenced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Realtors
Association in their appearance before the Government Services Committee.
As I
stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this act was written over 55 years ago. It required
a review to ensure the use of plain language, as well as ensure the language and
provisions are modern and unambiguous.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to deliver on my commitment in my
mandate letter to complete a review of the
Real Estate Trading Act. I want to thank everyone who participated and
shared their thoughts. Again, I want to thank the Government Services Committee.
Your feedback has helped us modernize a piece of legislation that goes far in
enhancing consumer protection in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I feel
we have brought forward a progressive piece of legislation to the floor of this
hon. House today and I look forward to debating these amendments.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my
pleasure to rise in the House today on Bill 13, An Act Respecting the Regulation
of Real Estate Trading in the Province.
Mr.
Speaker, I serve on the Committee of Service NL. Also, a Member of the
Government Services Committee as well, which was reviewing the draft bill.
Let me
start by saying, for this one, this bill was somewhat interesting and unique to
me, and I'm going to say unique to a good many Members. I think it's the first
time since 2002 that the Committee has gotten together and met on it and went
over the regulations. Everybody had some voice and input into it. It's pretty
interesting from that point of view. We got to speak on it, and the Member for
CBS got to speak on it with all the other Members, and it was pretty
enlightening to see how it all happened.
This is
the second time this bill has come to the House. This bill was actually
introduced in April of this year, prior to the provincial election. The election
was called before it could pass. So most of the legislation was done when I got
in there and I was appointed to the Committee, along with a Member here on our
side. Just sitting over there is a bit eye-opening. The information that was
processed was – there's just so much information in this bill.
We spoke
on it, with the minister across the way from Service NL, in saying everybody
else got one piece of legislation or two little bits, this is a whole new act.
It has 54 amendments, 54 clauses in it that we're dealing with. So there's a lot
of information, and I'm sure we're going to have some questions that are going
to go across that we have to ask. It's part of the job to do that.
I'll
give a story on that, when we're talking about being honest and trying to get
this information. When I was running for election, sitting home listening to
Open Line and the statement a man made
on the radio was that the third most dishonest person – they had the top ten. So
the third most dishonest was a lawyer – I don't want to offend anybody here –
the second was a car salesman, and number one was a politician. I'm sitting in
bed saying, what am I doing? I'm getting out of one and getting into another. I
said, where am I going with this?
As a car
salesman, I would say – and hopefully bring the same here to this profession –
that you're honest, you're trying to treat the people right and you're trying to
take care of your customers. That is basically what it's all about. Customers in
this instance are your constituents. So hopefully we can do that, and everybody
in the House can do that.
Bill 13
will repeal the existing act, as I said. Most bills amend sections and existing
acts. Having the opportunity to review this piece of legislation, like I said,
was very interesting. You're sitting there like a deer in the headlights and
just getting paperwork and questions, you're just in awe of what's going on. It
was a great opportunity, and I would hope that the government continues to do
that in a Committee stage, that they're introducing some legislation or bills,
rather than get in here; you can have most of these questions done before you
get here. You don't have to debate them and waste your time on them. In my mind,
I thought it was great for a first time being here. Now, it doesn't happen every
time.
Perhaps
now is an appropriate time to thank the Committee. The Service NL officials who
represented the Committee that were there, they were absolutely great answering
all the questions that we asked them. Mr. Stirling from NLAR, he was great, and
Mr. Whelan as well. They came back a second time and gave a presentation. So
they certainly listened and answered all of our questions that we wanted
answered.
I will
speak to the comment that the Minister of Finance had said some day last week,
that with a thousand dollars on the corner you're going to get three different
answers. So it's never going to please everyone. You can only try to please the
full contingent or the majority of the people, and, hopefully, that's the way
it'll be.
Just to
provide some background. This legislation, 1965 was the last time it was
updated. That's older than I am. So that's a big legislation – I see the guys
laughing now, they thought I was younger than that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
While it has been amended
over the years, there have been no major updates to the original act. So that's
something that is really needed in this legislation.
Not
being in the real estate world – and taking the Minister of Service NL, you're
buying a piece of property that is $200,000 – $300,000 is probably cheap now,
but it's a major investment. Unlike in the car business, when you buy a car,
that's not an investment, that's gone away after five years. That depreciates
down to nothing. In your house, you hopefully would be able to, in 10 or 15
years, get your money back out of it. It's an investment. So it's important that
all the regulations and everything are in place to be able to handle that.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors also held their own series of
public inquiries in 2018 from its membership and the public. In those
questionnaires that they sent out – let me read some here – they had a total of
90 questionnaires that were submitted to the engageNL online portal during the
consultation from December 21, 2017 to March 2, 2018. Over 50 per cent of those
lived in the Northeast Avalon. Another 30 per cent lived in the Eastern part of
the province.
Mr.
Speaker, just over 30 per cent indicated they were a real estate person, 20 per
cent were real estate agents and 38 per cent were from the general public. So
you're getting a wide variety of questions. This was presented by NLAR. They
formed the questions and they're the questions that should have been asked.
They're the right questions to be asked, in my mind.
You're
getting the answers from the people that are dealing with it, not from me making
a regulation for somebody that's selling something else. These people are making
the regulations because they know the regulations. They're sort of setting it up
that these are the questions that should be asked. We should, hopefully, get the
legislation in place to make the job easier for them without having hang-ups to
be able to sell the properties.
Also,
NLAR represents 650 real estate licensees in the province; approximately 95 per
cent of these are under NLAR. NLAR considers the current legislation governing
the real estate industry to be outdated and advocated for modern – they wanted
that done. They needed it done in order to be able to move on and do their job
properly.
The
Government Services Committee, which I serve on, conducted two hearings: one in
September and there was another one I'm going to say about two or three weeks
later that we attended as well and one that I didn't make. In those meetings,
there was a lot of information. A lot of the rules and the changes, some are
pretty standard: agent to broker is just wording; the appointment of the
superintendent and the deputy superintendent is changing from the Cabinet now to
the minister. Some of this stuff we will have a lot of questions that we're
going to ask when we get into Committee stage. Some of the ones on the
incorporation of real estate brokers, errors and omissions, disclosure referral
fees. This is all that stuff that we're going to ask when we get there.
Hopefully, we'll be able to get some answers to some of the questions that we
all have concerns on.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Labrador
West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
interesting where it's something that hasn't been changed since 1965, for the
most part. That's the year my father was born, so just to show, right?
It's
important that we review bills frequently I feel. It's good that we see this now
as an important step forward as we come into the more modern era.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
noise level is too high in the House. I'm having trouble hearing what the Member
has to say.
The hon.
Member for Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
It's
important that we review our legislation frequently, especially as we come into
a more modern era. As a lot of this shows, the fines in this were outdated and
we're moving towards a more modern fine system for penalties. Also, we're giving
the superintendent more power to oversee the industry.
The
industry has evolved considerably, I'm guessing, especially since 1965. Our
homes have become more than just a home in some cases; they also become an asset
to the individual. It's important that we follow all due process.
With
errors and things with transaction, we need to be more relevant in that case.
With bonding, errors and omissions insurance, things like this that we need to
move into more things that protect the consumer, but also, there are some things
that we can also protect the real estate agent as well. Incorporations, giving
the people who sell real estate more power to be an independent individual, to
create their own business around themselves, which gives more flexibility to
individuals within the industry, we need to keep working towards that.
The bill
will create a recovery fund to protect consumers from financial loss in the case
that a broker or a salesperson is convicted. These things are very important to
the individuals and to the real estate agent. It's good that there was a lot of
consultation used with NLAR that was consulted on this, too, because these are
the people in the industry, since 1965, that have seen the industry change and
grow. It's important that we had their input in making these decisions and
changes.
As the
bill stands right now, I'm very supportive of changing and moving to a more
modern approach to these things. It's very important that we continue to move
all of our things into a more modern approach on things, especially going to a
space where you can use technology to keep track, and using technology in our
advantage in this way.
I'd like
to say, as it is right now, I look forward to moving to Committee and asking a
few questions on a few things.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I almost
missed my call that time. It's a pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of
legislation.
I had
the pleasure of sitting on the Committee with my colleague from Ferryland, and
as he said, it was an interesting process, and I guess we learned a lot going
along. Our Leader's call, I guess, since he was elected, has been for democratic
reform and more use of committees. I know the previous Government House Leader
also committed to that, and this bill was the test run for the Committee stage
of our Legislature.
So I
thought it was an interesting concept. Someone that's been here now a while and
seen a nice bit of legislation go through and sat through many Committees, I
thought removing it and putting in the Government Service Committee was a very
interesting concept. I know in my first couple of years here in this Legislature
there were times that legislation was passed – and I know government opposite
had a large majority so it was something that even if we try sometimes to bring
in amendments and whatever, it's sometimes defeated. Every now and then we'd get
some change.
There
were times after the fact I remember thinking that there was a piece of
legislation passed that I did not know. After the fact I realized I should have
read that closer because I missed that or something never came up. It's human
nature. I made a commitment after that happened a few times and it was never
anything too serious, but it made me think that I have to be more attentive in
the sense of when this is coming through.
What
happened was we were getting a piece of legislation on – we were getting a
briefing and we were having our staff do up some notes. We'd talk about it as a
caucus, then we'd come in here and we'd do second reading, the critic and
everyone else. We'd go to Committee; we'd have questions for them. We'd try to
get debated out and we'd discover stuff on the fly, which is fine, but you're
always going to miss something.
Any time
you say it's on the fly you'll always miss something. Going to Committee I
thought made a lot of sense. We participated here, we had two days in the House
in Committee; they came back the second time. We had several meetings to
ourselves as a group, a lot of good debate. I know my colleague for Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune – I'm trying to remember the name – me and him had a lot of back
and forth with his previous experience in the industry and it was enlightening.
I know
that ideally a Committee would come back and say we have unanimous support or
the committee went through this process and everyone are in agreement. We agreed
on, I think, everything in this piece of legislation except for one. There was
one specific issue and we've had a lot of debate on it. As a matter of fact,
there's some conversation going on about it today. It's one that I've
maintained.
I'm not
going to go through the rest. The minister spoke on it. We have no problem with
the rest of this legislation. We feel that this bill makes a lot of sense, the
first time since '65, so I'm not going to belabour what the minister already
said. Through committee I think we all unanimously agreed that this made a lot
of sense.
The
problem I have – and our caucus have talked about it and we all agree – is the
prohibition clause 28 that's in this legislation. Now, we're going to get to
Committee and there are more conversations going to be had and I know that
government are talking about it as well. I want to highlight, I want to make it
clear to everyone in this House or anyone that's listening or in the industry,
Mr. Stirling or Mr. Whelan, whoever happens to be listening and the department –
I thank all them too, by the way, because they did a great job and very good
ensuring our questions and very obliging. I commend them for all that.
This
prohibition piece, you're basically – and it gets kind of complicated when
you're trying to explain it, but what we're saying is you can be a real estate
broker on the same transaction for the buyer and seller. That's not in this
legislation, no issue. You can carry on doing that forever and a day.
There's
a key component there. If you're a real estate broker and you're dealing with
the buyer and seller, you have information on the best price that someone wants
to sell their house and the top price someone is willing to pay. It's human
nature. I'm sure all of us have dealt with a real estate broker or agent over
the years. That's the nature of the beast. That's not being touched.
A new
emerging part in the industry is the mortgage broker. It's a new thing. We're
not that familiar with mortgage brokers. Most, I think, when looking around this
House, would've dealt with a bank. I've had mortgages – and I see people
nodding, we all dealt with a bank. I went to the Royal Bank. I've always dealt –
that's it, you go in there and you do your mortgage.
My
daughter, who happens to have just purchased a house this year, dealt with a
broker. I helped her through the process and I have to be honest, I learned a
lot because at first I was, like, why aren't you going to the bank? What's the
matter with the bank? You've dealt with this bank all your life. I know this
person down to the bank. Go to the bank. I'm old fashioned and the new age is,
no, we're dealing with this mortgage broker. They're good; they'll get us better
rates, whatever. She went to the mortgage broker but the real estate agent or
broker that she dealt with actually recommended this person. I said hang on.
This doesn't make sense.
Fast
forward, when it all happened – and the mortgage broker asked me more questions
than I care to repeat, I was at wit's end trying to help her through it all –
after the fact I looked back and I said, wow, this person really crossed their
t's and dotted their i's. They did their homework. They made sure everything was
covered, that everyone was covered – including my daughter, of course – and they
were covered. It was tight regulations and they had to get – what they had to
get signed off on I was blown away by. Yet, the real estate agent or broker
operated in a very respectable manner as well.
Now,
even though they were two separate people, they were interconnected. I reviewed
it and I was Mr. Skeptical, and at the end of the day I felt good on you.
Ironically, it was back in April, the pre-election, that we sat down on this
Committee, one month later – literally it was one month after this happened. I
was in the room and I told Bill Stirling a similar story and I said I'm not so
sure about this, because I still hadn't processed what just happened. Then when
we came back this fall I had time to process and watch how everything unfolded
and I had a different opinion.
My
opinion was I see no problem with it. I'm a believer that we have to be careful
of what we prevent. If there's no problem, why are we fixing a problem that's
not there? I asked the questions and then answer, there's no issue. There's no
issue with a mortgage broker/real estate broker doing anything. There's no
issue. There's no corruption, there's no big list of faults. There's actually
one person that we know of doing it. According to, I think, Mr. Stirling, he
said there may have been four or five others, but we're only aware of one. Why
are we fixing something that's not broken?
I have
no problem with disclosure. I believe in disclosure. I think we need disclosure.
I think if you're the buyer and you're coming up and I'm the mortgage broker and
the real estate broker, and I look at you and say: sign here. By the way, I'm
the broker, both mortgage and real estate broker. I do both. You make sure
you're aware of that, sign the dotted line and if you don't do that, you're
guilty under the act. I have no problem with something like that. To put in a
prohibition clause to say you can't be a mortgage broker/real estate broker on
the same transaction, that's been the bone of contention.
I know
the minister alluded to the fact that the committee recommended this with no
amendments; it wasn't unanimous. I went to school and I was pretty good at math
and I knew I was losing the vote. If anyone were to take notes from that
meeting, I think Ms. Murphy might be able to tell you that's my exact comment. I
knew I had the vote lost so I just stood back and said, very good. I can count
and I lost the vote.
That was
fine, but I felt there was some communication around the table at the time we
don't have unanimous support in this committee. We didn't, but still I think the
committee worked because the amount of questions we asked, the amount of debate
we had and the way we all had to learn, you learn by questions and answers and
debate. That's the way we all operate. Sometimes I go from not knowing anything
to, all of a sudden, I'm listening to an hours' debate and it's enlightening.
Through our debate in the committee stage, Government Services Committee, that's
what happened.
I really
believe that's the only flaw – and it's not a flaw. I shouldn't say that. It's
not a flaw. The only issue I think we have with this legislation – other than
that I think it's a perfect piece of legislation; it's well needed and it's well
received by all involved. We have to be very conscious of the prohibition in
clause 28 of being a mortgage broker/real estate broker, that you can't do that.
I don't see any problem with doing that as long as there's disclosure. The same
principle with a real estate broker doing dual roles for buyer and seller as
well.
On that
note, I'm not going to belabour much longer. I could go on forever and I'm not
going to go on. I think this was a worthwhile exercise. I do believe that we're
going to continue the debate until we get to Committee stage on this. I've
spoken to the minister and others opposite, so there's no secret to where I've
stood on this. I just wanted to remind and be on record in debate to express my
concerns. I do believe that we do these processes, we do these debates, we do
these readings for a reason. We do this committee – it was the first one ever –
to make a better piece of legislation. I think that's what we all intend to do.
There's
no one going to get elected or defeated on this legislation. There's not a
political move here. It's what I feel and our caucus feels that makes this a
better piece of legislation. No politics involved; it just makes it a better
piece of legislation. I'm open to discussion on it – we all are, obviously – in
the next day or two and hope we get a good piece of legislation.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Service NL
speaks now, she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd just
like to thank my colleagues from Ferryland, Conception Bay South and Labrador
West. I'd also like to thank my colleagues who were in the Government Services
Committee. I really liked the process and I'd highly encourage it for our bills
as we go forward.
I'd like
to thank NLAR for their contribution and their involvement as we drafted this
new act and my staff. There has been significant work done on this act since
August of 2017. I mean, I think that was the longest time I ever spoke in this
House of Assembly, 33 minutes.
I just
want to thank everyone for their involvement and I look forward to the debate
when we go into Committee.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 13 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting The
Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The Province. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Real Estate Trading In The
Province,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
We've had a very good day's
work, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, that we now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that we should now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
House now stands adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.