November 8, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 15
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Today, in the Speaker's gallery, I'd like to welcome Pastor Lorne Goudie, captain retired, Canadian Forces and his wife Dawn. Pastor Goudie is the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon.
Welcome, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Today, I would like to recognize an historic and momentous occasion in our Legislature related to the 50th General Assembly.
On September 22, 2022, the Member for Waterford Valley and the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services became the longest serving Member post-Confederation with either continuous or non-continuous service at 26 years, seven months and one day.
The Member for Waterford Valley was first elected to the House of Assembly on February 22, 1996, as the Member for St. John's South, later changed to the District of Waterford Valley in 2015 after electoral boundary changes. During his tenure, the Member has served in many roles including Speaker of this hon. House from December 18, 2015, to July 31, 2017, as well as minister in various portfolios in the Executive Branch. On September 22, 2022, the Member has served with a total of 170 other MHAs since first being elected in 1996.
I ask all Members to join me today in recognizing and congratulating the Member for Waterford Valley and the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services on this historic and tremendous achievement to the service of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: And I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize and welcome back the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: It's great to have you back, Sir.
Statements by Members
SPEAKER: Today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for Terra Nova, Topsail - Paradise, Torngat Mountains, Baie Verte - Green Bay and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand here today to join with a group of students from Holy Cross in Eastport as they honour our veterans.
Students from Grades 7 to 12 were each given an assignment on a veteran. On Thursday of last week, they placed 43 memorial crosses in honour of all those who served. They have also created a slide slow that will be shown on Facebook highlighting each veteran. Each cross was made by Mr. Edgar Napier.
These students have painted rocks in honour of veterans. This year's assembly on Thursday, November 10, is based on the “No Stone Left Alone” program. The school will go to the cemetery across from the school for a brief ceremony and the students will be laying poppy-painted rocks at the graves of each veteran.
As a veteran myself, it is a privilege and an honour to lay wreaths and honour all veterans, as I do today and every day. I will honour the thousands that are still serving and the thousands of our fallen brothers and sisters that are not with us today.
I'd like to thank the staff and students of Holy Cross and the volunteers that have ensured that no stone is left alone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you may recognize the name Gavin Baggs as Easter Seals Ambassador for 2021.
Today, I am extending congratulations once again to Gavin, who is one of Newfoundland and Labrador sledge players and was just recently invited to try out at Canada's National Para Hockey's selection camp to compete for a roster on Team Canada for the 2022-23 season.
Hockey Canada had 30 players attend the selection camp in Calgary this past September. The seven-day camp featured 10 players who had won silver at the 2022 Paralympic Winter Games in Beijing, one of them being our very own Paralympian Liam Hickey.
Gavin was born with a rare birth defect, sacral agenesis/caudal regression syndrome. It was unknown if Gavin would walk, however, he has overcome all odds. Gavin's love of the game began when his parents enrolled him in the Easter Seals para sport programs and now is a volunteer coach with the organization's sledge hockey program. Having tried the sport myself, I can tell you it's not easy.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all to join me in congratulating Gavin on all his recent accomplishments and wish him continued success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.
Deantha Edmunds is Canada's first Inuk classic singer, releasing her first solo album Connections on the National Indigenous Peoples' Day this year. Deantha is an award-winning performer much in demand as a singer, actor and collaborator in Indigenous and non-Indigenous projects. We are all so proud of her.
This past summer she worked with PerSIStence Theatre Company in Stolen Sisters. She's a member of the Canada Opera Company Circle of Artists, she was nominated for the ECMA Indigenous Artist of the Year Award in 2020 for My Beautiful Home and in 2016 on an album with the late Inuk singer, Mr. Karrie Obed.
She is developing a reputation as a composer. In May, she presented her libretto and opera Irngutaq, the first opera sung in both English and Inuktitut at the Watershed Festival at Queen's University. She participated in the PODIUM National Choral Conference & Festival in Toronto, where she performed with Shallaway Youth Choir and the NL Deaf Choir.
Deantha sang the anthem of Nunatsiavut, “Sons of Labrador/Labradorimiut,” at the welcoming ceremony for King Charles and Camilla on their recent visit and toured Labrador schools as a featured guest artist of the Newfoundland and Labrador Symphony Orchestra in June.
She has a huge career ahead of her.
Deantha, keep reaching for the stars and we'll follow you.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
B. WARR: Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Life Unlimited for Older Adults in Springdale, a group who offer numerous services to the area.
A lifestyle clinic is presented by public health nurses at the Valley Vista rec centre and offer good health practices, including regular checkups for blood pressure and weight. Fitness programs are offered by trained exercise leaders at Manuel Hall, plus there is a Walk the Rock.
Educational programs include a book, DVD or CD exchange, introduction to computers, a basic instructional literacy program, a mobile book service and Facebook educational updates.
Social programs include Readers Unlimited, which meet to discuss recently books, chat and socialize. There's a Friday games night at the Kinsmen Club and the Red Leaf Centre holds a weekly coffee break as well as birthday celebration fun.
The Vial of Life program assists first responders in obtaining important medical facts. Along with Life Unlimited for Older Adults, the Vial of Life program is supported by Central Health, Main Street pharmacy, Lawton's pharmacy, the RCMP, the fire department and paramedics.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in applauding supporters, staff, volunteers and participants of Life Unlimited for Older Adults engaging in healthy living.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.
I have some honourable moments but this is one of the most honourable moments I have had in this House of Assembly as I recognize my friend, Pastor William Lorne Goudie, retired captain in the Canadian Armed Forces and veteran. He left for Ukraine on March 21 and, after seven months, I want to give him a hero's welcome home.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
C. TIBBS: Speaker, his duties during this time consisted of teaching tactical combat casualty care to soldiers on the front lines; assisting Ukrainian military drone units; establishing relations with the Ukraine Ministry of Defence; evacuation of displaced people; instructing and advising convoy operations and supply missions; purchasing, procurement and distribution of medical, food, clothing and other supplies; clearing debris from collapsed buildings and streets of Borodianka; providing advice and establishing bomb shelters and shelters for orphanages; raising funds in support of humanitarian aid, the war effort, special projects from medical surgeries, glasses and dentistry.
But maybe the most important task he has been called to do is preaching the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his spiritual counselling through prayer for dead and dying soldiers, while comforting their families in their most difficult of circumstances.
On the heels of Remembrance Day, my friend, our hero, I say to Pastor Goudie, thank you, God bless you and welcome home, Sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
K. HOWELL: Thank you, Speaker.
I rise today to recognize World Town Planning Day, celebrated on November 8 each year to mark the contributions of planners to their communities and commemorate the important role planning plays in the creation and development of our towns.
Town planning is one of the most important elements of building organized, livable communities. The work of planners is critical in creating areas where everyone can feel welcome, whether that be in housing, recreation or simply pride of place.
We were very pleased to have had our province represented at the Atlantic Planners Institute Conference 2022 last month in Charlottetown, PEI. It was an excellent opportunity to share knowledge and information with planners across Atlantic Canada.
Speaker, I remind municipalities throughout the province that planners are an excellent resource, and are there to provide guidance on land use planning processes. Such professional resources are important, especially in the light of the growing need of municipal leaders to consider ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change in planning for the future development of their communities.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in recognizing World Town Planning Day 2022.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL: Thank you, Speaker.
I do thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
Speaker, I join the minister in recognizing the many planners of our province and the important role that they play in the development of our towns. In each and every community, there are planners who work with fire brigades, church groups, seniors' groups, councils, recreation committees, environmental committees and many others to provide careful planning to ensure our communities are livable and citizens are proud of their community.
The work of planners is essential to the growth of any town. With regionalization on the government's agenda, it's important for councils to collectively recognize planners and use their expertise in providing guidance on land use planning processes.
We, in the Official Opposition, realize many communities have been built many years ago, who have been impacted by extreme weather, most recently on our Southwest Coast. It's important for all municipal leaders to listen to planners and ensure changing climate is considered when planning future development.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
Planning is very important to any level of government, but many small towns across this province don't have the budget to engage municipal planners. This government can help. You could focus on those supports to towns to have the funding they need to create better plans for many different situations. Namely, towns that could be built, resilient communities, provide for the residents and build communities that last the test of time.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Are there any further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working staff at the Health Sciences Centre and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for their dedication every single day; I witnessed this first-hand. But I also saw a nurse working a 16-hour shift. I saw paramedics waiting to unload their ambulance for hours at the entrance of emergency rooms.
I ask the Premier: How can nurses and other front-line health professionals deliver the care we deserve through these working conditions?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, let me take an opportunity on behalf of the government to welcome back the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
A. FUREY: While I'm glad that he had a good experience in the health care system, we all know that there are challenges facing the health care system, Mr. Speaker. We can go on with stories every single day. I've worked with many of them on the front lines myself. Coming out of COVID, they've put in the extra work and now they are again putting in the extra work.
That's why we've developed good relationships with stakeholders to understand the issues that they face. Whether it's nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, to understand the change in complexities that are required for a modern health care system, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Health and I have had robust conversations, along with the Health Accord, to ensure that we're trying to meet, as best we can, the issues that are facing our workforce within the health care system.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.
Robust conversations are fine and dandy, but action is what's needed here.
This administration is about to start its eighth year, and nothing has happened positive in the health care system here to ensure that health care workers have the resources, have the respect and are able to provide health care in Newfoundland and Labrador the people here deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: Speaker, one of the very first nurses who met me at my moment of need was on the stage when the Nurses' Union just a few weeks ago were demanding action from government. If it wasn't for that nurse, I wouldn't be here today.
I ask the Premier: Why does your government refuse to take action to end 24-hour shifts in our health care system?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've been working with the Nurses' Union, first of all, starting with the Think Tank, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that there's a changing dynamic within their workforce. It's complex; it exists across all jurisdictions. We've offered them significant incentives including retention bonuses; signing bonuses for casual nurses; double rate of overtime for vacation period; reimbursement for licensing fees for retired nurses; RN locum premiums; 24-hour, seven-day-a-week mental health supports; exploring child care options for nurses; bursaries for third-year Bachelor of Science in the nursing program. And in fact myself and the minister went and visited the nursing schools ourselves to indeed put job offers in front of them, recognizing that that's an important step.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.
For seven years the Nurses' Union have been telling government what is needed to be done and giving them a solution to it. It's only now when the government is pushed in the corner are they taking any action at all to try to solve the issue that we're facing here in this health care crisis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: Speaker, I'm lucky the emergency room at the Health Sciences Centre was open when I got there. Ask the people of Bonavista, Harbour Breton, Whitbourne, New-Wes-Valley, Port Saunders and Fogo Island if they can say the same.
I ask the Premier: When will you end emergency department closures in our province to ensure people have access to emergency health care?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know it's cold comfort, but this is not the only province that has emergency department closures. Every province across the country has the same thing. There are headlines every day from provinces across the country about emergency department closures, staffing shortages, people without family physicians.
We are working on the issue. We have started a robust recruitment campaign for physicians, for nurses and for other health disciplines. We've put incentives in place. We've seen a significant reduction in the number of emergency department closures in this province so it is getting our full attention.
Are we there yet? No, there is much more work to be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Speaker.
We on this side of the House worry about the health care workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador having access to health care, not what's happening anywhere else in this country.
Speaker, the nurses and front-line health care workers in our province have our back. They work long hours in impossible conditions and in demanding jobs every single day. They had my back when I was in my hour of need.
I ask the Premier: When will your government have the backs of the health care workers of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I have already addressed, we're significantly – we all owe nurses, allied health professionals and doctors an incredible amount of gratitude in this province, Mr. Speaker. They have put in an incredible heavy lift over the last two years in particular.
But beyond that, we recognize that the health care system needs significant change to meet, not only the demands of patients, Mr. Speaker, but to help the working environment for those health care workers that the Member opposite correctly addressed are undergoing significant stress and strain.
That's why we have been working with the nurses, for example, in their Think Tank. We have been communicating with the NLMA, Mr. Speaker. We've launched the Health Accord. All in an attempt, not just to change the system for the patients but equally to allow the professionals to practice in their full scope while –
SPEAKER: The Premier's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, an internal Nalcor experts report now show that they selected Port au Port as an ideal site for wind generation in 2015.
I ask the Premier: Did the former chair have access to this insider information while at Nalcor?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to answer this question. I think the Member is referring to the launch yesterday of all the different pieces of land in this province that are going to be put up for access. The reality is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was a part of that process and, in fact, they've known that for some time because the wind issues is something that they have been asked about for 10 to 15 years now.
The reality is there are a lot of people that have access to that, a lot of people who have been interested in that. I'm assuming that the former chairperson and anybody who was working at Nalcor also has access to that information.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
The former chair is now trying to build a wind project in the same location that experts recommended to Nalcor in 2015.
I ask the Premier: Did the former chair use insider information to further his business interests?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can say is that there are over 31 groups trying to do business in this province in various locations. In fact, Stephenville, that area, the Bay St. George area, has been identified as one of the best wind resources in the world. That is known globally.
So the reality is that there are multiple entities that have expressed interest, certainly to me, in doing business in the Bay St. George area. I know that area is excited for it, as are other areas.
Come December 15 we are going to let people in this province know what areas are up for bid and, hopefully, as we move forward, that area will have an opportunity to see wind development.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
The first permit application for GH2 was submitted – get this – the day after the wind ban was lifted. The day after. This makes it clear that the former chair was working on this project while at Nalcor.
I ask the Premier once again: Was the former chair in conflict of interest?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to point out a couple of things. In fact, the former chair had been on a leave of absence from that position since September of 2021. They had not been there. They were working on rate mitigation, actually, on that file.
The other thing I want to point out for everybody, because in fact it's getting close to the year anniversary. On December 16, I launched our province's Renewable Energy Plan whereby the first action to be done within one year was reviewing the current wind moratorium policy.
So the reality is – and in fact, if you go back, the quote is still there on CBC, I said I'm extremely bullish about wind opportunities onshore and offshore. That's almost a year ago that I said that, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
We all know the timelines. I listed some yesterday. I'm adding to them today and we also know, as a province and a House of Assembly, that the Premier will not stand in his place and answer the questions that he should answer, not his minister. He should answer those questions. Short. Full stop, Premier. I'll use your words. Full stop.
Speaker, the Premier continues not to be open and transparent with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask the Premier: Who else was on your luxury fishing trip?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I can see that they've moved past the substance here now.
I'll say to the Member, just as I don't dictate who asks questions, they are not going to tell me who answers them.
The reality is that this plan that we have put out there, one that stands above repute, one that will withstand any questions because it is just absolutely filled with substance and work filled by numbers of public servants. The reality is it was almost a year ago that we announced that we were going to move forward in this plan.
L. O'DRISCOLL: (Inaudible.)
A. PARSONS: I hear the Member for Ferryland, if you have a question, I will answer yours as well. Just give me a chance to answer.
SPEAKER: Order, please!
A. PARSONS: What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, again, they moved past the substance of the plan because they know that it withstands all the scrutiny.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Once again a disgraceful response. It's a government trying to defend themselves. We all see that. Dig your hole deeper. That's fine.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have trouble trusting this Premier when he isn't transparent with the public, and he hasn't been.
So I ask the Premier yet again: Will you table the receipts for your luxury fishing trip with billionaire John Risley?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the question, I've said this before, comes back to now they're wondering who went fishing. But the question I'm always worried about: Did it actually affect the process that involves taxpayer dollars? The reality is that no one can say that it does because that is simply not the case.
About a year ago, I announced that we were moving forward with this; in fact, it was multiple years ago that other parties, including some Members on the other side, talked about wind in this province.
The reality is we have not announced which land we are putting up for bid; we have not announced who's getting it yet. In fact, one of the companies that the Member has asked about were one of the companies that were not happy with the plan that we developed, because we put everybody on the same page.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.
In much of our province diesel fuel is now over $3 a litre. This, of course, has an impact on just about everybody in our province when it comes to the cost of food and vegetables.
What I want to know is: Will the minister suspend the collection of all taxes on diesel?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.
It's an important question. This is very concerning to the people of the province.
I will tell the Members here in this House of Assembly and the people of the province, we have one of the lowest taxes on fuel in the country. As Members opposite know, as part of our cost-of-living plan, we did lower our taxation on fuel, including diesel, to one of the lowest in the country. In fact, if you look at Newfoundland and Labrador, I think we're at 9.5 cents and Quebec is at 20 cents, just to give you an example.
I will say to the Member opposite, as part of the budget considerations, we'll certainly consider what more we can do to help the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer.
Again, the temporary measures are just that, temporary and due to expire.
Given the fact that we have such high tax rates, including the carbon tax, and the government is actually collecting more money because of the high rates on fuel, I ask the minister: With people struggling to put food on the table, will she suspend the tax?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much.
Allow me to say to the Member opposite, and indeed to the people of the province, we have provided over $430 million back to the people of the province due to the cost of living.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
S. COADY: We're going to continue to try and help the people of the province, Speaker. As the Member opposite knows we're heading into a budget cycle in 2023-24. We'll consider what we may be able to do.
I will again say that we have one of the lowest fuel taxes in the country, plus we have also provided a 10 per cent increase in the Seniors' Benefit. We've provided a 10 per cent increase in the Income Supplement. We're going to continue to do what we can help the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Speaker, what I do know is last year the government collected over $500 million in additional taxes from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now, the minister is still collecting 49 cents on each litre of diesel. In a matter of days, diesel has gone up by 20 per cent. This is an extraordinary time.
So I ask the minister once again: Will you suspend the tax?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.
Allow me to say that the reason why we were able to collect more taxation was because we have a strong economy – a very strong economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
S. COADY: I think it is thanks to the work that this government has been doing. Things like oil and gas, mining, fisheries and forestry, we've been able to increase the level of economic activity which indeed has increased the level of taxation that this province collected. Because we were able to collect more taxation, we've been able to provide $430 million back to the people of the province.
We're going try and do everything that we can to grow our economy, to grow our population. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the (inaudible) –
SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER: Speaker, people are struggling right now. We need solutions right now.
Speaker, parents with children with exceptionalities at Sacred Heart Academy in Marystown are upset with the lack of student assistants that is significantly impacting their learning. I know of one Grade 3 child who is missing the bus and school because there's no one to accompany him.
Why is this government failing this family?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
J. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for the question, Speaker.
Staffing, student assistant and in other areas across the education system is a challenge at the moment. We have met with the NLTA and are working with them to put together a recruitment package to co-create some attractions and incentives to come to this province. We have some in place. We want to know from the NLTA can we do better.
Certainly in terms of student assistants and supports in the class, we're currently looking at the teacher allocation review report, which makes some recommendations in there, and we will be happy to endeavour to work to provide more supports within our fiscal envelope.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J. DWYER: I remind the minister that these allocations are done on historical values, and this is something that can be done in June instead of September and putting everybody up against the wall kind of thing.
So, Speaker, we are well into November and families are still dealing with the issue for the last two months. I am also aware of another child in Grade 4 who is not receiving appropriate education from the instructional resource teacher due to a lack of student assistants.
Again, why is this government failing the people with exceptionalities that try and get an education?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
J. HAGGIE: Thank you, Speaker.
I think it's important to correct some errors in the preamble. Student assistants are not allocated on a ratio basis in the same way that IRTs, teachers and like are. Student assistants are allocated on a needs basis based on an individual plan developed for students with exceptionalities. Those student hours are then baked in to the HR requests from the district.
Certainly in terms of that, that sometimes has to wait for enrolment. In case of an existing student, it can be done at the end of the year before. And one of the things we're working through with the NLESD is to make sure that next year's requirements are addressed ahead.
Recruitment –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
SPEAKER: Order, please!
I heard the question; I want to hear the response.
The minister's time is expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, there's a constituent in my district that needs radiation treatment. He saw the oncologist yesterday and he was told the radiation unit is down. There's a backlog in treatments and a lack of staff. They offered him a referral to receive treatment in Toronto without a timeline.
I ask the minister: What effect is this having on the patients that need radiation treatment?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Until recently, Mr. Speaker, we were able to provide radiation therapy to patients in this province within the provincial and national benchmarks of 28 days. Because of staffing shortages now in that unit, we have come to an agreement with Princess Margaret hospital in Toronto where we are sending patients there and referring them, with all costs covered by the province, to ensure the treatment they require they are getting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY: Speaker, in the last four days, diesel has increased over 50 cents. Before food goes on grocery store shelves, it must travel on a truck.
Can the minister responsible for food security advise how much food prices will increase because of the fuel increase?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J. ABBOTT: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
I think the simple answer is I can't answer that question.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY: In my district, a head of lettuce now costs $10. The Liberals are quick to bring the sugar tax in, but won't help ensure healthy food remains affordable.
Is the minister responsible for food security – the cost of healthy food is becoming too expensive. Is he concerned?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: In the preamble, the Member opposite referred to sugar tax. Allow me to say that even the former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party – and I'm going to quote from Hansard from 2017. He said: Well, we have a tax for cigarettes, we have a tax for beer and alcohol and we have a tax for recycling. We have a lot of taxes and I don't know why they couldn't create a sugary drink tax.
Now, Speaker, I will say, I've read out in this House, support for the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. It's about choice. You can choose not to choose something with sugar in it, or you can choose to pay the tax. I can also say that the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Paediatric association all speak in favour of this tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Recently we heard of an 83-year-old that arrived in the ER with signs of a stroke. There was no bed available, but eventually he was moved to a hallway where he waited hours for a CT scan.
I ask the minister: What assurances can he provide to ensure situations such as this no longer happen?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is unacceptable situation. Obviously, we are striving to ensure that the human resources are in place, that the beds are in place, that the infrastructure is in place so that we can provide the services that the people of the province need and they are provided where they need them and when they need them, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
This man in particular had one leg amputated years earlier and had mostly been in good health, outside of diabetes which he tried to control through diet.
Will government provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the proper supports to manage diabetes?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Regardless of what the health condition is, the province strives to provide the services that are required to allow people to manage their health and to allow health professionals to provide the health care that individuals in the province need.
Mr. Speaker, we are working with our health authorities to ensure that the health authorities have the resources that are required to provide health care to individuals throughout the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
The Health Accord recommends continuous glucose monitors for people with diabetes to improve health outcomes. The use of such devices can also result in savings to our health care system and improve quality of life for patients.
I ask the minister: Why does this government continue to ignore this recommendation?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Health Accord was provided to the province in the not-too-recent past, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at all of the recommendations within the Health Accord. There are many, many recommendations. Obviously, not all recommendations can be implemented immediately but we do work on the recommendations that are in the Health Accord towards achieving what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.
Many residents on the Southwest Coast of the province have been left in limbo after contacting their insurance companies and learning they will not be covered, while others wait for a decision.
What has the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL done to get these people answers?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My thoughts go out to anyone impacted by a storm or anything who has incurred costs. You know, we have been working with the insurance industry. I've met with various insurers in the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They're keeping us up-to-date on the number of claims and the number of claim denials.
I know there are programs in place that the federal government are helping where someone who had maximized what they could get insurance for but was not available. So we're working with the federal government on that.
I'd encourage anyone, if you have an issue with your insurance company and you think you're not getting the appropriate coverage, you should contact the ombudsman for that insurance company and after that feel free to reach out to our Superintendent of Insurance.
Thank you, Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS: Thank you, Speaker.
I think the problem is these people aren't getting the answers.
Speaker, it's been six weeks since Fiona devastated the region. Families are being forced to make insurance payments and even mortgage payments on houses that aren't there or in ruins.
When is the minister going to be able to get these people answers so they can begin to move forward with their lives?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I feel it's appropriate as the Member for that area to stand up and take the question. I certainly don't mind the Member asking because the reality is that we're facing a situation unlike one we've ever seen.
I, too, find it difficult when I see these stories about people paying insurance, people paying mortgages, but the reality is that the government, right now, just can't come in and say banks stop collecting the mortgage. Insurance companies stop collecting that. We simply cannot do that.
What we have done is we've worked with everybody to ensure that they have funding now, that they've got a place to stay and we are working on a plan and a place for them as we move forward. That is going to happen. We have said that not one person will be left behind.
I can tell you and I can tell this House that I will sit here every single day until we get that situation resolved and when the time is right we will deal with these insurance and other situations.
SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
Yesterday, I asked about a gentleman confined to St. Clare's because there is no specialized dialysis bed closer to his community of Sunnyside. Today, there is a story of a man confined to the Miller Centre while government departments squabble over who is responsible for making his home accessible.
I ask the Premier: Why is your government not interested in improving the social determinants of health for these people who just want to be home?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Member opposite would like to, I'd be happy to look into these individual cases with the health authority and other officials. I welcome him to provide the details for me and we will certainly look into these situations to ensure that they are receiving the appropriate care and that the appropriate decisions are being made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.
Speaker, health ministers from across the country are meeting to advocate for better health transfer payments from the federal government in BC.
I ask the minister: Why did you choose not to attend at the federal table?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would say that is a stretch of the longest magnitude I can imagine. I am here debating a bill that every Member on the opposite side is saying is an important bill and it needs my attention and we need to debate it.
I ask the Member: Would you rather I had gone to Vancouver for those meetings?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J. BROWN: If the minister listened to this House, took the bill and moved it over to the Committee so that we can have a grander look at it, then, yes, that is what we asked for, but we're here debating this bill because there are some flaws in it.
Speaker, underfunding of the public health system has caused workers to be over worked and it have caused burnout. In government's haste, the provincial health authority bill has come to this House so we can review, and has not been reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. The need for Ottawa to increase transfer payments is also a major issue that has been on the table for decades.
I ask the minister: Are we still lobbying the federal government for an increase to health transfer payments?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.
Many people in my district tell me they are unable to benefit from the rebate on furnace fuel. Most have purchased directly at the fuel station and the only fuel receipts provided to them this past winter and spring were the small little receipts which you get from the machine with little information on it. Plus, they didn't keep these little receipts because they didn't know in advance that there would be a rebate program.
So I'm asking the Minister of Finance: Can your department work with the fuel service provider in my district to find a way so people can get this rebate that is so badly needed?
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much.
This is an important conversation. I haven't heard from the Member concerning this. I'd be happy to meet with you, meet with the Member and review the situation and have my officials review the situation.
I'm pleased to report to this House that over 3,000 cheques have already gone out and we're expecting to send out many, many more in the weeks to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
S. COADY: We have had a great uptake in this program. We encourage everyone to put their applications in before November 30. We'll be happy to work with you and any Member in this House with any special circumstance, but we do require notification that we have an issue and how we can resolve it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.
My constituents have been receiving information from your department from this program saying that they can't avail of this rebate without those receipts. Thank you for the invitation. Maybe we can get together and discuss this further to help my constituents. I really do appreciate it. This is something that's badly needed.
Speaker, people in my district could also not avail of the Residential Construction Rebate Program announced in 2020. The certified contractors required by the department were not available in my district and the cost of bringing them in negated any financial benefit from the program.
I ask the Minister of Finance: Will she direct her department in future to consider the unique geographic and logistic circumstances of my district that excludes them from accessing programs?
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much.
I'm always happy to work with MHAs, Members of the House of Assembly, on helping their constituents. This is an important program, I recognize that, as was the Construction Rebate Program. I wasn't aware that there were so many people that were not eligible for that. We did provide a tremendous amount of money back to the people of the province during a particularly important time and really stimulated the economy.
Regarding the home heat rebate, we do need an auditable trail, obviously, to ensure that these programs are auditable and required under the Financial Administration Act. But we'll work with the Member opposite to try and find a resolution.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: If I could, Mr. Speaker, I said something during Question Period that I wanted to correct the record. The former chair of –
SPEAKER: If you don't mind, could you do that during questions (inaudible)?
A. PARSONS: Sure.
SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.
I move the following private Member's resolution, seconded by the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Buchans:
WHEREAS volunteer firefighters are true community heroes who provide an indispensable service to their neighbours despite the risks, costs and sacrifices often required of them; and
WHEREAS our province's declining, aging population base in some areas may leave communities with fewer people to serve as volunteer firefighters; and
WHEREAS our province and other jurisdictions have found innovative ways to support volunteer firefighters reduce their costs and facilitate their work; and
WHEREAS more can and should be done to support Newfoundland and Labrador's volunteer firefighters;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to explore innovative solutions and best practices that will further support our volunteer firefighters; reduce the cost they bear, both as individuals and as departments; help them balance their firefighting roles and their other obligations with policies that better adapt to volunteers' individual circumstances; lessen their need to undertake their own fundraising activities; improve the gear, facilities and vehicles they rely on for their work and their training; enhance, modernize and mobilize training opportunities and equipment to properly prepare them for the range of circumstances they encounter and the risks they face; care for them and their families more effectively if they are injured or their health is compromised while better protecting them from injury or illness; debrief firefighters and better support them after traumatic events; promote volunteer firefighting to upcoming generations, women and new Canadians; better educate the public on effective fire prevention; and collaborate inclusively with firefighters on any other measures that may work to attract and retain volunteer firefighters and protect Newfoundland and Labrador communities.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
B. PETTEN: Thank you, Speaker.
With leave, Mr. Speaker, this will be the private Member's resolution which will be debated tomorrow afternoon in this hon. House.
SPEAKER: Does the Member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S. COADY: Thank you very much, Speaker.
I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the granting of Interim Supply to His Majesty.
I had to think about that – His Majesty.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
J. HOGAN: Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend Various Acts of the Province Respecting the Alternate Witnessing of Documents by Lawyers, Bill 23.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Management of Information Act and the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administrative Act, Bill 21.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion that notwithstanding Standing Order 9, this House shall not adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 2022, but shall continue to sit to conduct government business and if not earlier adjourned, the Speaker shall adjourn the House at midnight.
AN HON. MEMBER: May?
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. What's the date tomorrow?
AN HON. MEMBER: November 9.
S. CROCKER: November 9, Mr. Speaker.
I think whoever does my notices of motions, it is actually just copy and paste. My apologies, Speaker.
Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will move in accordance with Standing Order 11(1), this House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 13, 2023.
SPEAKER: Any further notices of motions?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A. PARSONS: Yes, as I was saying, Speaker, I said in Question Period that the former chair of Nalcor, Brendan Paddick, took a leave of absence in September of 2021. I apologize; it was actually September 4, 2020, that he took the leave of absence. So I wanted to clarify that.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: Any further answers to questions for which notice has been given?
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.
This petition is for adequate health care for the community of Postville.
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge our leaders to ensure the residents of the Northern Labrador community of Postville have access to adequate health care.
The community of Postville has only one Labrador-Grenfell Health nursing position in Postville at the single community nursing clinic. This means that there is only one clinic nurse physically present in the community. This nurse does not have access to RCMP support during a medical emergency because the community does not have RCMP stationed in their community.
The community of Postville is isolated with no road access to the outside world. The only means of year-round transportation is by aircraft. Often inclement weather prevents air services, including medevac – medical evacuation services – from getting to Postville. Also, if the lone nurse becomes ill and inclement weather prevents the nursing relief from reaching the community, Postville will be without a nurse.
Therefore, we petition this hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the community of Postville has adequate health care in the form of two clinical nurses stationed, at one time, in the community.
Speaker, I've presented this petition before and I focused a lot on one nurse in this remote, isolated community where the only way in and out is through aircraft, a lot of the times, and that's actually sometimes interfered by bad weather – no roads.
Also, one of the biggest concerns with the one nurse in the community is there's no RCMP presence. Sometimes they do go in on patrols and the AngajukKâk from Postville has advocated, almost weekly, to the RCMP, to the staff sergeant, even to the MP of Labrador for more patrols. There was an agreement in the past where RCMP would be actually present in Postville for 20 days of the month and, now, there have been months have gone by when the police haven't even come in for a patrol.
It seems kind of ironic that I would be standing here advocating for police presence, but at the end of the day, we have to make sure that our nurse is protected and has access to professional supports. In an emergency like a multi-casualty incident or a fire, where the single nurse would need professional supports and would be able to call upon the RCMP officers in the community to assist, that's not there. It's so important for us in the community of Postville to make sure that our nurse is supported and has the help available so she can do the best job possible.
Thank you, Speaker.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to present a petition today on behalf of the Forestry Safety Association. I'll read the prayer of the petition. Petition: Wildlife regulations to include any active workplace operation.
There are the reasons for this petition: There are many instances where forestry companies and workers have witnessed hunters discharging firearms near active forestry operations.
Such actions are dangerous and could lead to serious injury and possibly a fatality.
The current wording in the wildlife regulations allow hunters to discharge a firearm if it is not within 1,000 metres of a commercial wood harvesting operation, 1,000 metres of a school or playground and 300 metres of a dwelling.
The focus on commercial wood harvesting puts some forestry-related workers in jeopardy, including those engaged in silviculture, transmission lines, forest access roads, bridges and buildings, et cetera.
The current legislation seriously limits law enforcement in their ability to protect these workers. A more all-encompassing term would be any active workplace operation.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to review and update the wildlife regulations section 111 re: hunting near dwellings, schools, et cetera and ensure that any active workplace operation be appropriately referenced in the regulations.
I attended the Forest Safety Association AGM in Corner Brook a while back and they mentioned to me about this and they asked me would I present a petition.
I spoke to the minister on this and the minister is willing to meet with this group to see what they can resolve on this matter. The concern that they have is that, for example, if you're building a bridge on the road, this is not what you call a silviculture area, but you still could allow hunting in that area. If, for example, you're going in and doing any type of work, Mr. Speaker, like silviculture work, for example, if you're building a bridge, that's not included in the regulations right now.
So their concern is safety. I think the intent of the association is to make it safer for the workers themselves and it's also a workplace situation that would help them out.
I spoke to the CEO today, the executive director today, and he's very excited that the minister will meet with the group, sit down and have a conversation about this and see what can be done to make sure that it's safe.
These petitions go all across Newfoundland for all the workers that are working there. There are almost 100 people who signed these petitions.
I thank the minister for immediately agreeing to a meeting and I look forward that they have a resolution.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.
The background to this petition is as follows:
WHEREAS individual residents and municipal leaders have spoken to the deplorable road conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and
WHEREAS the district is made up of many smaller communities and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers, South River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons who have roads in desperate need of repair and paving, specifically Routes 60 and 70; and
WHEREAS these roads see high volume traffic flows every day and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many washed out areas along the way.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately take the necessary steps to repair and repave these important roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a regular basis.
Speaker, this is not the first time I've presented this petition. I have presented this petition many times in this hon. House of Assembly. I have to say it still remains one of the most serious issues in our district, the conditions of the roads. They are deplorable. Not only am I hearing now from constituents within the District of Harbour Main but I'm hearing from people outside the District of Harbour Main. Other people who have to travel over these roads to get to either work or to see family and other reasons.
This issue has grown, Speaker. The frustration level is high. People are very upset. I have to say, I am very disappointed that we have not seen any action with respect to getting the roads repaired.
I can bring attention to one call I got who was from outside the District of Harbour Main, who was complaining about from Upper Gullies right on through to Holyrood, how bad it is. He said it was the worst that you could ever see in the province. Also, we have conditions down in South River that are also very serious. What worries me is the safety issue.
I have to bring up one thing with respect to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I had reached out to officials in his department since February on a problem in Chapel's Cove. When I brought the issue to the minister, I must say it became clear and evident to me and to our residents and people who are complaining about this safety issue in Chapel's Cove, that it was a priority for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. He's immediately going to look into resolving this issue.
I just ask that he look to other areas now within the district that have similar problems.
SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Member's time has expired.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.
E. LOVELESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for those words. It's appreciated.
In terms of the challenges in her district, as I've said before, there are 40 districts in this province and there are many challenges. We're working through it. Being responsible for the budget that we do have to spend and looking at a better maintenance program, which I believe will help us all in our districts. But your district will be considered like any other district as we're doing our work around the Roads Plan for next season.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
This petition is about equity for education for the deaf and hard of hearing. The reason for the petition:
Deaf and hard of hearing, DHH children in the public education system of Newfoundland and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to quality education because of the lack of appropriate, full-time resources and are in environments where social isolation is inevitable; and
WHEREAS from 1964 to 2010, DHH children were provided with full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf. DHH children currently placed in mainstream schools throughout the province receive only a fraction of a school day with a qualified teacher to instruct them; and
WHEREAS in June 2011, the report entitled a Review of Services for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Newfoundland and Labrador provided recommendations to ensure all DHH children are provided with equitable access to the same quality education as hearing classmates as well as access to sign language in an environment free from social isolation;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to fully implement the recommendations in the 2011 report that have been overlooked for 11 years, to close the gaps identified and support the commitments made to all current and future students when the Newfoundland School for the Deaf was closed in 2010.
Speaker, certainly, one recommendation, one gap that was identified was the ambiguity within the educational system of who is responsible for providing the intensive supports that some deaf and hard of hearing students require to access the curriculum: district or the department? And it was noted that their funding needs to be earmarked. The update on that recommendation stated that districts continue to look for support from the department when a student needs services beyond what a typical itinerant for the deaf or hard of hearing is able to provide on a weekly basis.
Testimony from the current CEO for the NLESD said that no matter what the issue was, no matter what the discussion was around resources, it was always about using what you have and repurposing what you have. This is the allocation. That's it. That's what you get.
From the parents of Carter Churchill who brought forward the human rights case, it was heard and that was testimony at that hearing, it's clear that even within today's system there is still this pervasive, I guess, not only in that department but the pervasive notion that don't ask. Here's your budget. You're not getting it.
Instead of looking at things from a needs-based perspective, it's very much a fiscal and financial and budgetary process that's got to end, especially, if we're looking at amalgamating systems.
Thank you.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced a 20 cent per litre tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at a time when families, seniors, and residents of the province are struggling with the already skyrocketing increased cost of living in the province.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to encourage the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to cancel the sugar-sweetened beverage tax at the earliest opportunity.
Today in the House, Speaker, we heard the minister talk about the sugar tax in relation to a question from one of my colleagues and she talked about the organizations that support a tax. I can go back and forth with the minister all day about this particular impact of this tax and whether it works or not, but the real issue here is taking money out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I would suggest if you were to poll people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in all 40 districts, you will find the majority of people in this province do not support this tax and certainly can't afford this tax at this particular time.
Today in the House, I talked about the significant increase in the price of diesel, which is going to drive the cost of food higher again. So again, this is one thing the minister has control of; it's control of a tax. So I would suggest and ask the government, it's time to rethink the tax. Never mind rethink the drink. Rethink the tax. Rethink your campaign. If you want to talk about having people switch to something else then have a campaign, but don't tax people to have that campaign.
So I simply say that this is not a time, the minister has an opportunity to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would suggest removing this tax because this tax is being charged on items that it was never intended to be charged on. It's total confusion. It continues to be confusion and it's an unnecessary tax.
The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want this tax. So I ask the minister again and the government to please consider, as the petition says, cancel the sugar-sweetened beverage tax at the earliest opportunity.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you, Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 18.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Education that Bill 18, An Act Respecting the Health and Safety of Workers and the Compensation of Workers for Injuries Suffered in the Course of their Employment, Bill 18, be now read a third time.
SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
CLERK (Barnes): A bill, An Act Respecting the Health and Safety of Workers and the Compensation of Workers for Injuries Suffered in the Course of their Employment. (Bill 18)
SPEAKER: This bill has now been 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 Resecting the Health and Safety of Workers and the Compensation of Workers for Injuries Suffered in the Course of their Employment,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20.
SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now the leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
On motion, that the Committee resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 20, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.
A bill, “An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.” (Bill 20)
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Terra Nova.
L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, last night there was some conversation around the matter of cherry-picking, and we immediately went to the second letter that the Privacy Commissioner had sent and never talked about the first letter. What I find strange about that is the importance of what he said in the very first paragraph, and I'll read it: “Today, November 2, I wrote Minister Osborne, copied to the Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Assembly, the Clerk of the Executive Council, the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services, to express my concern that the introduction of this Bill in the House of Assembly has resulted in a violation of sections 112(1) of ATIPPA, 2015, as no meaningful consultation occurred prior to notice being given to introduce this Bill into the House, a Bill which does indeed contain implications for the protection of privacy of this Province. Indeed a copy of the Bill was never forwarded to this Office,” – this is the key part – “despite our requests for the same.” The Privacy Commissioner said: “… despite our requests for the same.”
So we sat here last night and we listened to the minister, who I will say was very good in his responses and it was great to see him stand and respond to most speakers last night. But he stood here and he said it was an oversight. Now, that lacks credibility when the Privacy Commissioner writes a letter and says we requested a copy of this, we reached out to all the parties involved and we said we needed to review this but the minister explains it as a simple oversight.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. So somebody is most likely not telling the truth, I would think. He actually goes on to say: “In response to our request to receive the Bill, we received only further offers of verbal discussion, which was meaningless if we did not have access to the Bill's specific provisions, and under no circumstances would we say that we have been consulted on a Bill that we haven't seen.
I'm not sure how an oversight can happen after the Privacy Commissioner reaches out to government and explicitly asks for a copy of the bill. So somebody is not telling us the truth. So when we stand over here and we ask very specifically for this bill to go to Committee and we say we have no reason to trust government, when government tries to tell us that the difference between a bill and regulations, we don't have any reason to buy into that. We've seen in the past when bills have been discussed in this House where we've agreed to pass a bill, where we've been told that when the regulations come back they'll look one way and they come back looking an entirely different way.
I know that the Member for Mount Scio agrees – she is over there shaking her head – as it happened in the past. It is great to see.
This letter also goes on to say: “The organizational restructuring of our health care system is one of the most significant public policy considerations of our time. Even though the Health Accord discussed and made recommendations around some of these issues, it was unknown until now whether these particular aspects would be made law, and most importantly, how they would be made law. The specific provisions of this Bill do not, unfortunately, tell us very much about what is intended here, and unless there are significant amendments, it is my view that the Bill is far too vague about those intentions, to the point that this Bill could result in significant negative impacts on the privacy of citizens in this province.
Well, I would say that this bill could not only result in significant negative impacts on privacy, but it could have significant negative impacts on health care delivery and that is the discussion that needs to be had here.
I listened to the Minister of Finance yesterday talk about the Health Accord; a document that everyone in this House thinks is wonderful. The Health Accord: Sister Elizabeth Davis, Dr. Pat Parfrey and the job they've done was spectacular. The consultations, the amount of input that was put into it, everything done in a manner that the people in this House should be proud of them and the people of this province should be excited about what it may or may not offer. They made very specific recommendations.
What I really, really, really want to focus on here is the fact that they talked about social determinants of health. Think about that word. The social determinants of health were one of the largest portions of that entire document. This legislation, in an amendment that government is going to put forward, is going to eliminate the word social determinants of health. But guess what they're going to do? They're going to figure it out and bring it back with the regulations.
I don't know if I buy into that. There should have been consultation to find out how to bring the social determinants of health directly into this bill prior to bringing the bill to the House. Again, another enormous flaw in this bill that gives me no reason to support it.
When we sit and talk about the Health Accord and the great work they've done, we can't overlook the fact that this recommendation from them on the social determinants of health is being left out of this bill in its entirety and because the Privacy Commissioner wasn't consulted, we've decided that we're going to eliminate it from the bill. Because government made a mistake, whether it was intentional or whether it was by accident, the mistake was made, we're going to eliminate the social determinants of health from the most important piece of legislation this House has debated in God knows how long.
It is absolutely mind blowing how that doesn't bother everyone in this House. I'm sure it bothers everyone on this side of the House, but I can tell you the social determinants of health, pick up the Health Accord and read it, everywhere you go through it's all you see. It's all they talk about. As a matter of fact, it's all we've talked about in this House for quite some time.
Now, when the most important piece of legislation that we've seen in this House, certainly as this sitting group here, probably without the exception of the Health Minister given his long tenure in this House, we are going to eliminate a core piece and leave it up to government to decide to bring it back in regulation without debate or consultation.
They had an opportunity when we supplied a hoist amendment to go to Committee. Here we are now, two or three days into a debate that could last days and days longer, when there should be a resolution to go to Committee and figure this out properly. We all know that there is a path forward with this, but the reality of it is that nobody on that side, other than the Health Minister, wants to say that this was done wrong. The Health Minister is taking the fall for something I would suggest that he has nothing to do with.
When you have the Privacy Commissioner saying he specifically requested this piece of legislation for review as per the ATIPPA and he didn't get it, that's not a slight – that's not somebody forgetting to do their job, that's intentional. It was done intentionally. There it is, it's out there.
Mr. Chair, everybody knows the scenario with health in this province. Every single person in this House of Assembly gets calls from constituents, I would argue, on a daily basis. I stood in this House today and spoke about a cancer patient; a cancer patient who went to see his oncologist yesterday and was told he couldn't get radiation treatment.
Now, it's okay because we've got a plan set up to send people to Ontario and we're going to pay for it, but that doesn't make it okay. Just because we fixed the flaw doesn't mean we fixed the problem. At the end of the day, if you're sick, you don't want to be going to Ontario for treatment if you don't have to. Those services can and should be offered here and they always have been historically. We've heard the Health Minister respond and say very matter-of-factly: we do have an issue with staffing.
But these issues with staffing didn't happen overnight. They did not happen overnight. In 2002, when the former minister of Health was the president of the NLMA, he talked about the shortages. He became Health Minister in 2015 and from 2015 to 2022, he spoke repetitively about how robust – and that was one of the words he used all the time – our health care is robust. We have a robust health care. We don't have shortages in nursing staff, we don't have shortages in doctors.
Well, guess what? We've got shortages in all staff in hospitals now, not just nurses and doctors. We've got shortages in everything. We are in the middle of the largest crisis that our health care system has ever seen. Now we want to change things around from an administrative standpoint, we want to take people who are currently in positions and add the stress of them not knowing if they're going to have a job in six months. We want to add the stresses and strains of amalgamating four health care systems into one to a bunch of people who go to work every day under more stress than they should have to bear. That stress is unbearable for some, to the point that a lot of them – there are a lot of them that have even left their jobs because of the stress that they bear on a daily basis.
So here we are, we're going to add to the stress of the workers, the front-line workers in our health care system by amalgamating our four health care systems without any consultation, without any Committee work done in this House.
The consultation that was done in the Health Accord is fine. It's great. I agree with what the Minister of Finance said yesterday about the Health Accord and the amount of consultation, spectacular, but guess what? We're not listening to it. We're not listening to everything that was in that Health Accord. All we have to do is look at what they want to do with quality care.
Quality assurance: one of the key components of working in any industry including health care is quality assurance and that document clearly says that the quality care people should be at arm's-length, instead we want to bring it in under the minister.
Not negotiable is the way it was put forward yesterday when we put forward six amendments for review, those are the amendments that were turned down. Government has an option here to take this bill and walk away, go to Committee and come back with a solution that fits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, they choose to find a way to get a solution that fits the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're here for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and this is one of the most important bills that we've debated in this House. It's been said time and time again by people in this House. It's been said by people outside of this House. The reality of it is, we have an option here where we can make this bill acceptable, through Committee work, putting in the hard work, a small delay, but we can get it done.
I see my time is expired, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.
I would just like to raise a point of order.
Section 49: the Member for Terra Nova claims that I shook my head. I assure this House and I assure you, Chair, I absolutely did not shake my head. If I did, I would absolutely own it. The Member called me out, I believe he's trying to diminish my character and I absolutely did not shake my head.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you.
I'll certainly take it under advisement.
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to stand again and talk about this bill and how it impacts the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the future impacts on people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, we're debating a bill today about the future of the health care system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, part of which is a restructuring of health authorities. Much more importantly is it's talking about the Health Accord and how it's going to move us to better outcomes in health care.
One of the principle recommendations of the Health Accord, as I said last night, was an independent quality council, which becomes reporting to the House of Assembly. That, in itself, would be a huge accomplishment for all of us in this House. To actually move a quality council of health where we spend over $3 billion, almost $4 billion and we're now going to have a quality council that reports directly to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is something that we should all be proud of, if we decide to go down that route, but for some reason my colleagues opposite, in presenting Bill 20, want to diminish that recommendation, water it down and not have the quality council as an independent body of the House.
I cannot support that. This is a real opportunity that I see for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the health system to finally have a quality council in place that is independent and that reports directly to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
T. WAKEHAM: The single biggest department where we spend the most amount of money, where our outcomes are not where they should be. We all acknowledge that, but at the same time, an opportunity to take this significant recommendation of the Health Accord and make it part of Bill 20. So I urge the minister to do whatever he needs to do to make that happen. Whether it's sending it to a Committee, whatever he needs to do, but let's not water down that recommendation, please.
The other thing I heard today was a recommendation around what the minister had said in response to my colleague from Terra Nova in terms of the shortage of staff in radiation. In fact, I think the minister said that they are sending people to the Mainland, Princess Margaret, with all expenses paid. Imagine, if we had a medical transportation system in this province where people could travel with all expenses paid.
Do the people who travel from Labrador to St. John's get all expenses paid? Do the people who travel from the Northern Peninsula to services in St. John's get all expenses paid? Do the people in my district and on the West Coast who travel for health services to St. John's get all expenses paid? No, they do not.
The current Medical Transportation Assistance Program, while the concept is great, is a very challenging program for people in filling out all of the forms and, secondly, of course, we all recognize that it only covers part of the cost. That needs to change. So when we talk about the budget consultations and next year's budget, let's hope that part of the introduction to health improvement of health outcomes in this province includes accessibility, so that no matter where you live in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador you won't have to worry about whether or not you have enough money to be able to afford to go to your appointments.
I brought up the issue yesterday about an individual being required to go on a bus versus a taxi. I'm happy to say right now the minister has made an adjustment to that policy that allows that person to take the taxi. That's improvement, but it shouldn't have to be that way. We need policies that look after the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The other point that I'd like to make, when we send people to the Mainland, like, for instance, Margaret or others, we bring them home. We bring them back home, but under our current Medical Transportation Assistance Program, if I am air ambulanced from the Northern Peninsula or from Labrador or from Western Newfoundland because I need services at the Health Sciences, I get the services I need and then I'm discharged from the hospital, but then I'm on my own to get back home. Doesn't matter if I don't have a vehicle. Doesn't matter if I can't afford it, I'm on my own. That's a problem.
Again, we need to be able to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we're going to have their backs and we're going to leave no one behind. Not one single person should miss a medical appointment because they simply can't afford it. Not one single person – not one.
The restructuring of health authorities, one single information system, would be absolutely beneficial. It's too bad that recommendation that was before government wasn't implemented seven years ago. The current minister's job would be a lot easier if it was, but that didn't happen. Right now, because we don't have that connectivity, people often travel in for appointment, as some of my colleagues have said, only to be told your appointment is cancelled. No previous warning. Their own dime. No help. Those are critical pieces.
If we're truly going to reform health care in Newfoundland and Labrador – we all recognize that we have a small population. We all recognize that we're scattered over a large geography and we all recognize that we cannot have tertiary care services in every part of our province. But what we should also realize is that when somebody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador needs our help and needs that medical attention that they cannot get in their local community that their government is there to help them, their government makes sure that they don't have to worry about being able to get to their appointment. Those are the keys to health care. You have to be able to have accessibility and people have to be able to afford to travel to those appointments.
Again, this bill, while not addressing all of those issues, certainly the health care system of the future should make that part of its mandate. Again, I go back to Bill 20 and this Health Accord document. It lays out the plan for the future delivery of health care in our province. The plan that's supposed to result in better outcomes.
One of the pieces of that plan, a significant piece, in my opinion, is the establishment of that quality council and when you read through that and talk about the objectives of what the quality council is meant to do, I urge you to read that. Read what the objectives are of an independent quality council. A council that will report to this House of Assembly. Read those objectives and then when you have done that stand up in the House and say I agree. I agree with the recommendations of the Health Accord when it comes to the quality council of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I don't care what side of the House you live on or work on or sit. Look at the objectives of what the quality council, the people who spent the time and effort – and there were hundreds – to produce this document and look at what the objectives were of an independent quality council.
I urge everybody in this House of Assembly to take an opportunity to establish in Newfoundland and Labrador for the very first time an independent body that will look at health care from a different perspective. We have an opportunity to do that. I trust and hope that everyone in the House will make that happen.
Thank you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: I recognize the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.
Last night, the Member for Labrador West talked about the uniqueness of Labrador. I just want to enforce what he was saying. We both agree that the uniqueness for Labrador is not just the geographical largeness of the Big Land, the remoteness, the beauty of Labrador. Unfortunately, the uniqueness of Labrador extends much deeper to the health care issues that we face. A part of what makes Labrador distinct, the remoteness, the largeness of our great land, really makes us vulnerable for the delivery of health care. That's something that all Labradorians are really concerned about with this new bill.
Looking at the health care issues – we've brought up in the past, and still it happens today, where we don't have air ambulance support for Labrador. It's been days on end where there was no air ambulance support in Labrador but when we looked on the charts off the web, we could see the air ambulance for the region of the province, for Newfoundland, flying back and forth.
I remember calling – they referenced the former CEO of Eastern Health. I called him on day three of no ambulance support for Labrador. In actual fact, I think at that time we ended up having no air ambulance support for five days. I was talking to him and I was really alarmed, but that's one of the concerns that we have.
It goes much deeper than that. When we look at the legislation here that's in front of us, it talks about the health authorities that we have today being replaced with one Provincial Health Authority with the supporting health councils. Now, what's really concerning for me with the legislation – and it's been raised on this side of the House – is the lack of authority. The regional health councils' roles and powers are very limited and the legislation expressly notes that the role is simply to provide advice and recommendations. That's in stark contrast to the regional health authorities that we have in place today. So that's something that we really need to raise.
When we look at Labrador, especially in my region, what we struggle with when we struggle to access timely health care and effective health care is, a lot of times, we don't get diagnosed in time for a lot of these diseases that really impacts our health and sometimes really, actually, ends our life, such as cancer.
We're not properly diagnosed, we're not diagnosed in a timely fashion and a lot of times these delays are very, very costly. Also with the treatment, a lot of times we can't access treatment because we can't even get on the flight to actually travel out to Goose Bay or to St. John's to get our treatment or get our scans, or even get our chemo. I was shocked and I actually had to check it, because I didn't think it was accurate, where I actually had a message from a concerned citizen in Nain, where a chemo patient, a cancer patient, was bumped off the schedevac twice. To me, that's really, really alarming and that shouldn't be happening today – a cancer patient.
Then I have other concerns. I was talking to somebody in one of the communities that I represent, and what really was unfortunate and was really, really concerning is they were diagnosed with cancer and they actually went out and they were told by the staff who were was a bit upset with them – this was in the summer. They were there with the staff and the staff said: You should have been here in April. They said: I didn't know about that. What are you talking about, April? They said: You had an appointment to come out in April.
This was, I think, in July for cancer treatment. Those delays can be so costly to their recovery and the ability to recover. They said they didn't know. So when they went back, they went to the clinic and they said: Did I have an appointment in April? The nursing staff looked it up. They said: Yeah, it was in April but it was probably a weather delay. But she would have liked to have known. As a cancer patient, she would have liked to known that she had that appointment and she would have tried to make it. She may have even went out earlier to make sure that she could get diagnosed properly and receive timely care.
People are dying. People in my district are dying because they're falling through the cracks and it's so, so concerning. It's really, really concerning.
Now, the Minister of Health actually responded last night to Opposition comments about the health councils. He said the senior executive will be living throughout the province. To me, that indicates that there'll be representation on these councils throughout the province, and that's a positive thing. I give them credit for that. Also, it said that the health councils will have representation and their voices will be heard. Yes, but we have to look at the authority of the health councils. It's lacking. They don't have the authority. That's what's really, really concerning because we always talk about regional advocacy, regional representation, to make sure that each area, each region are properly represented and gets access to timely and adequate health care.
Also the Minister of Finance, the Member for St. John's West, spoke last night and she talked on the Health Accord. She was saying since 2020, they were speaking to people in the province, with the Health Accord, as part of their mandate, town halls, round tables, talking to health care professionals – and that's true, and they did that. Actually, they did a good job of it. We're not arguing with that.
Also, the minister said that two years of developing the plan for health care – and that's true. This is the first step of the Health Accord. It's a really good document. Like I said, there was a lot of consultation around the province to arrive at this document. But the problem for us is this bill does not represent the Health Accord. That is a huge issue for us on this side of the House of Assembly, and that's the reason why we want to actually be able to go through the bill. We want to actually have things taken care of so that everybody in this province has equity in terms of health care services, has equality in terms of health care services. That is so, so important to us.
Just speaking on the Health Accord, the Health Accord isn't reflected in this bill. I'm just going to look at some of the things that I spoke – because I spoke on the amendment and I spoke on the bill previously, and I'm just looking back through my notes. That's why they're highlighted again, to reinforce what I said.
Looking at the Health Accord, it was tasked with devising a new governance and management approach to health care in this province. That's a good thing. But one of the recommendations of the Health Accord, and is similar to the bill, was to create a single Provincial Health Authority to address the parts of this system that need provincial-wide integration and oversight. That is actually action 48 in the blueprint.
So one of the concerns about one Provincial Health Authority is centralization and not having the ability to totally advocate. In the Health Accord, they did counterbalance that. In the Health Accord, they did. They basically said that to counterbalance the centralizations, they would propose the creation of regional health councils that would report to the Provincial Health Authority – Action 49 in the blueprint – similar to what's in the legislation.
But where it diverges, where the difference is, is that the Health Accord said that these regional councils would have the authority to address the delivery of health care at the regional level – the authority to address the delivery. They would also listen and respond – respond means actions – to the voices of the people in their regions and be sensitive to regional differences and needs.
Now, when we're looking at the act, which is different from the Health Accord, the act tends to centralize the power and authority in the hands of one Provincial Health Authority rather than what we have currently with the four regional health authorities. They can govern their own affairs.
The new regional health councils appear to be mostly in an advisory role meaning their recommendations may not be taken up by the Provincial Health Authority or the department. Unlike the quality councils, there's nothing binding the Provincial Health Authority to implement on the advice or recommendations of the regional health councils. No authority, no autonomy.
This seems to go against the vision of the Health Accord report, which envisioned the Provincial Health Authority would delegate authority to the regional health councils so that they could assume responsibility for the direct provisions of the health care services at the regional level and the source for that is –
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member that her speaking time is expired.
I am recognizing the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Chair.
It's an honour, again, to stand and debate this very important bill, Bill 20, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.
Chair, yesterday, I had the opportunity and the privilege to speak on this piece of legislation and at that time I attempted to highlight some of the major concerns that we in the Official Opposition have with respect to this legislation. I focused primarily on two themes. First of all, the issue of consultation and I do want to revisit that theme first.
I would like to say that the concerns that we expressed yesterday remain on the issue of consultation. I want to highlight a couple of important points with respect to consultation.
We received letters from the Privacy Commissioner with respect to his concerns about consultation. He forwarded to Members of this hon. House two letters by email about his concerns on consultation.
I just want to say, as far as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, for the benefit of people who are watching, it is one of seven statutory offices, established by statute that reports to the House of Assembly through the Speaker. It is an independent office. It's independent of the Executive Branch of government which means it's independent. It's not directed by Cabinet and it's not directed by the minister.
What does this important statutory office do? It provides oversight. It has an oversight role. It reviews Cabinet and departmental decisions. It reviews their actions and it reviews legislation. So it is important to understand that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has a legislative mandate.
So let me, with that backdrop, bring you to the two letters that we received as the Official Opposition and other Members of the House of Assembly. The first letter we received on November 2 on Wednesday, I believe; the second was November 7, this Monday, yesterday.
Now, the first letter outlines some grave – it was in essence and virtually a scathing interpretation of what had happened in terms of how the lack of consultation was very disturbing to this Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
One of the main concerns that the Privacy Commissioner had was in respect to the fact that it was a violation, to quote from the email: “… the introduction of this Bill in the House of Assembly has resulted in a violation of section 112(1) of ATIPPA, 2015 ….” Why? Because it's had no meaningful consultation.
So we have that stated in the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. Why was the Privacy Commissioner concerned? Because he said that it “occurred prior to notice being given to introduce this Bill into the House, a Bill which” – was noted and acknowledged by the Commissioner – “does indeed contain implications for the protection of privacy in this Province.”
So as a result of this first letter, there were discussions, I understand meetings between the Commissioner and officials from the Department of Health and Community Services. I understand as well with the minister.
We are left with the impression from debate yesterday that basically government has appeased, if you will – those are my words – appeased the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. However, I do not see that from these two letters and here is why.
When I look at the first letter from the Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner said, “The only consultation that occurred was a brief, high-level verbal overview, which happened well after notice of the Bill was given to the House.” But this is the key, Chair. “In response to our requests to receive the Bill,” –the Office of the Privacy Commissioner requested to receive the bill – “we received only further offers of verbal discussion ….”
Why is that important, Chair? It's important because we heard the minister say this was simply an oversight. Apparently, an official within the department, it was an oversight, an error by that person not to have this sent to the Privacy Commissioner. But really when we look at what the Commissioner said, that is not the case. The fact is the Commissioner requested to receive the bill. “In response to our requests to receive the Bill, we received only further offers of verbal discussion, which was meaningless ….”
That has not changed. We received another email from the Commissioner, which in my interpretation looking at that email has not satisfied that point. For the minister to say it was just an oversight, that is not evident from the response that we received from the Privacy Commissioner.
Now, if there's an improper or incorrect interpretation on my part, I accept that. But what we need –and I believe one of the Members of the House of Assembly on this side, on the Opposition side asked – perhaps we need to hear from the Privacy Commissioner to clarify that. Because that is a very important point. If this Officer of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which plays a very important oversight role, has not given clearance, has not given full endorsement of this legislation, then we ought to know before we proceed any further.
Why is that the case? Because we know that this is such a fundamental massive legislation. In fact, the Privacy Commissioner himself said, “The organizational restructuring of our health care system is one of the most significant public policy considerations of our time.”
Chair, that has to mean that we have to slow down on this. We have to make sure that there is meaningful consultation and careful attention is given to this bill, that we, the Official Opposition, had put forth a motion, called a hoist motion. That motion suggested that we send this legislation to review, to a review Committee of the House. What's wrong with that? Why is that not reasonable? What is the problem with doing that? We don't understand.
For a reasonable period of input from – let's hear from the Health Accord authors, Sister Elizabeth, and let's hear from Dr. Parfrey. Let's hear from professional health associations like the NLMA who also wrote – and we have letter from them – indicating they're concerned about the proposed additional power of the minister, which this bill would include. It provides discretionary power that that be deleted from the act. They're not in agreement, so we need to have this go to further review, Chair. That's all we're asking. There's nothing unreasonable. This is too important.
We know that we are in a health crisis. We know that our health care system is the most important issue facing the people of this province and we need it. We owe it to them. They deserve that we give this proper analysis, proper review. Let's look at this, let's put it out so that we can hear from the other health care administrators. Let's hear from the unions. Not just a meeting with David Diamond, but let's hear from them and the general public.
That is important. That, in our view, is something that's very important. It has to be addressed. We have to review this. We're going too fast and we have to give it its proper due diligence.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.
J. WALL: Thank you, Chair.
It is indeed a pleasure to stand here today and speak to Bill 20, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority. Some heavy, heavy words in the title of that bill, Chair, and it's something that we are taking quite seriously.
As my colleagues have said, Mr. Chair, we do have some major concerns with this and around consultation. I know in anything that we do in today's age – and from my former municipal career and there are colleagues here as well – there's nothing done without proper consultation. That is indeed an eye-opener for me. Why wasn't the Privacy Commissioner consulted with respect to the full scope of this bill and what consultation has really been done?
When you look at this bill, Mr. Chair, the scope that it has and the impact that it has for the entire province, for all residents of our province, we have to ask why wasn't proper consultation done. If the Privacy Commissioner does have some concerns with respect to this, does he fully endorse it? Is this something that we are good to go with? Right now, we are not.
The Privacy Commissioner, as being an independent body, provides important oversight for all bills, especially one with respect to the delivery of health and community services. Most Members in this House have stood representing their districts and speaking to the situations that they find their residents in with respect to the crisis that we are in health care.
This is of grave importance, Mr. Chair, when we're looking at an independent Officer of the House reporting to the House of Assembly with respect to the quality council. This is something that we cannot take lightly when we look at why we are where we are today and, of course, why we're debating this bill in Committee.
Mr. Chair, being in a health care crisis, we all have personal times we can speak to and I'm no different. When it comes to just my immediate family with respect to the health care crisis, my wife is a cancer survivor who currently doesn't have a family doctor. When we're at the oncology unit speaking to the oncologist for further follow-ups, well, without a family doctor the process is interrupted. We all realize there are Members of this House who are all impacted by cancer, themselves or family members, and we all realize the importance the continuity of care that is required that a family doctor provides. As we're in this health care crisis, my wife is no different than the 125,000 people in this province without a GP or a family doctor.
As some of my colleagues are aware, this has been a difficult week for my family with respect to my father being in hospital. I'd like to speak just a moment about that with respect to his care that he's had in hospital and what we've witnessed in this health care crisis.
C. TIBBS: It is important.
J. WALL: It is important. My colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans says it is important. It's important that we remember the personal aspects of what we are dealing with. When we are discussing bills in this House, again Bill 20 with health care and community services, it is important to remember the individual, personal aspects, from the time you go in to the emergency room and you spend two days there with a family member who is not well.
This is no slight on the health care professionals that look after us. Our leader said earlier today with respect to the health care he received it's important. Those are the ones that give you the first line of defence when you're coming into any health care facility. My father was no different; the care that we received, once you got in there, Mr. Chair, was top-notch. But it's the look on the faces of the nurses and doctors who are working double shifts and who – I know most of them now by first name – on a daily basis are working 16, 18, 20 hours, working short staffed, who are welcoming family to come in to help with the care of their loved ones.
You see the compassion on their faces and what they're working under. It's important for us to remember those are the people who are caring for us. So when we are here standing in this hon. House and we're discussing Bill 20, and when we look at the social determinants of health, as my colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port said with respect to the Health Accord and what that fully outlines, Mr. Chair, that can't be thrown to the wayside. That Health Accord outlined quite carefully a course for us to take and a delivery model that should be followed, no doubt. The social determinants of health, as outlined in the Health Accord, are very important. If we're looking at the overall benefit for all residents of our beautiful province, it no doubt is important for us to keep in mind.
Mr. Chair, when we look at the people in all of our districts – I know many times I've spoken about cataract surgery, the MTAP with travel and what have you: all of these are very important aspects that we have to remember. I have residents in my district who are caring for loved ones but are suffering because they're in need of cataract surgery. They can no longer drive to appointments, they can't do their banking and they can't do their day-to-day living. They're looking after their loved ones who have more severe health issues.
So when my colleagues raised the importance of cataract surgery throughout our province – again, you go back to the personal aspect and you go back and you sit at their tables and you listen to what they're going through – Mr. Chair, it is indeed troublesome when we're looking at the health care crisis that we find ourselves in our province. When we go back to Bill 20, it's – we look at the issue of the quality council.
Again, my colleague from Harbour Main discussed it earlier with respect to being an independent Officer of the House, and coming back to here and reporting to this House from a set of eyes outside of this House of Assembly. I think that's very important. My colleague from Stephenville - Port au Port spoke to it earlier with respect to the importance of that and how it cannot be overlooked or missed, Mr. Chair.
So when we look at the total bill, we do have major concerns with it, as I started off with consultation. When we look at going forward with respect to the Health Accord, what do we need to do to make this better? I have constituents that have reached out to me over the last couple of days asking why this is being bulled ahead. Why is it going forward? When you can look at what can be done with respect to amendments and what have you, it causes us concern.
Mr. Chair, I do know that this is a contentious issue, no doubt. We do have the care, of course, of all of our residents first and foremost when we're dealing with bills here in this House, and that's why we are going to keep this going forward.
I thank you for your time and I'll get a chance to speak on this again in short order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Exploits.
P. FORSEY: Thank you, Chair.
It's again a pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 20. Actually, this is a very important bill and I know a lot of Members want to get up and talk, but sometimes they're not ready. But anyway, we have a lot of health care concerns. We're hearing it all through each Member of the House of Assembly, all on this side, and we have a lot of health care concerns.
The people of our districts, the people I know in my district, have a lot of health care concerns, especially, we're all saying, doctors and nurses and all through the health care system. This bill is the start of what was started from the Health Accord. You know, the Health Accord took the opportunity to change our health care system – not change it, they gave some solutions and they gave some suggestions of how to change the health care system and how it could work better.
So with the due diligence that they did give us, Sister Elizabeth and Pat Parfrey and all the crew involved, I think it's unfair to them to just look at the Health Accord and pick out so many things from it and then pass that through the House as quickly as possible just try to get something done with regard to some part of the Health Accord part being done. We can't just push this through like that. It's been too much work into it. I think all sides need to sit down and get work done on this.
When you look at the Privacy Commissioner having concerns, the Privacy Commissioner himself even had concerns. A couple of briefings – two or three briefings – just to try to get it right. We can see that this bill is not ready to be at this stage and being passed; it's just not there. There are things in the bill that we don't know about; we haven't been really briefed on it. So there are a lot of things in that bill that can be discussed and it needs to be discussed in a different manner.
It needs to be sent to a Committee, it needs people on both sides, all sides, to sit down and discuss what can be done, what is actually in that bill, and to pick out points and bring it back so that everybody has a fair opportunity of putting in amendments, putting in suggestions, whichever way it may work, and get somebody to actually tell us the way this is going to work and how it's going to be. This is one of the biggest bills, health care is one of our biggest aspects of government and we need to get this right.
There are people in our province with dire problems; they're in dire straights, most of them. They can't get to a doctor right now. They can't see a doctor. They can't even get in to get a prescription filled most times. They use our emergency services just to get prescriptions filled, and that's not fair to be pushing things through. We need to be trying to get things to be looked at for those people right away so that we can look after the needs of those people.
I know the minister said that he wants to start hiring people, but you can hire people. The minister can hire people and get things working. We still want to get doctors and nurses that sort of stuff, so we can get that done. But people have got concerns – like, I have a doctor in my town of Bishops Falls; we lost our doctor only six months ago, back in April. We've got 3,000 people, like I've mentioned before. I'd say the file at that office that clinic held, was about 1,500 files for patients just in Bishops Falls, and that was in April they lost their doctor. She retired and she did her work and I thank her for her service, actually.
But there was nobody there to replace her, and that left 1,500 people without a family doctor. Left them going to emergencies, left them calling the health hubs, which when they called those health hubs, went to the emergencies, they weren't getting treated. They weren't getting assessed the way they were supposed to get assessed. So that left those people scrambling for doctors and still scrambling for doctors. I hear it every day, and I know all Members of this House of Assembly hear it every day that people are looking for doctors and looking for health care needs.
So that's the kind of attention that we've got to pay to get those things done. To push this bill through without due diligence, it's unfair to the health care system; it's unfair to the people of the province. We need to pay more attention to this. We need to get down in a Committee form and send it out to the Committee, let the Committee sit down and, like I say, brief all this and go through each bill piece by piece, again, add amendments to it, put in what can be done, what may make it better. I'm not saying that the bill is not probably – where most of it is, but we just don't understand it. Our briefings were short. Again, even the Privacy Commissioner had resolve with it.
That means we certainly have to dig in to that bill and make sure that everything is on the up and up and it's the best thing that can happen for the people of the province. People of our province deserve better, we need to give them better and we need to do better. We know the health care system for the past seven years has been the worst. People called me and said it's the worst that they've ever seen, so there have been concerns.
This bill, not only the last couple of days we should have been debating this, we should have been debating the bill like this as soon as we came in the House of Assembly when we got here. When the House opened, this should have been priority. It should have come to every one of our desks and said now this is what we're going to debate right through – we've been here for almost five weeks, six weeks, whatever, and we want to do it in five or six days. Well, we want more than that if we can get it.
The said bill should have come on our table first when we got here back in October. We should have been debating that bill for it to be a very important part of what we need to provide to the residents of our province. We need to give them due diligence; we need to make sure that we're doing it right.
They've had problems for the past seven years. There's been unfair treatment with regard to the health care system. We've been losing doctors, losing nurses. The system has total failure to them in the past seven years. So we need to get this right, need to do it right and to make sure that we're giving the service, the primary care to the people of our province that we need.
The further out into the rural part we go – and we it every day; we saw questions again today with regard to emergency units, emergency services. Again, we hear it all the time, Fogo Island, Wesleyville, Baie Verte, Harbour Breton, Buchans, Lewisporte: all those areas; Bonavista is another one. We hear it throughout the provinces, closures and diversions of emergency services. It's terrible, it shouldn't be.
When those things have been happening in the past seven years and a bill like this has not come to the table to give it due diligence, only in a couple of days, right now, that's all we've been discussing this bill for, it's only two days. It takes a lot longer.
It took us seven years for the health care system to get to the point that it is now so it's going to take a while to get it back. I agree with the minister, it is going to take time to get it back, but we can't go pushing it through. We cannot push it through. We have to sit down and do the best we can and give it the best treatment we can and make sure that, at the end of the day, the residents of our province and our districts have the best primary care, the best treatment that we can offer them.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to stand just to have a few more words on this because it is so important to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.
First of all, I just noticed that on this side we must see a different part because I can't see no one from the government side speaking on it, only the Minister of Health and Community Services. I give him credit for that. But I guess we must see a different part of the bill; we don't have the same concerns as the government Members.
I just find it strange that there is no one speaking up and saying, yeah, here are some of the concerns that we have. Because when the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association says we have concerns, they represent doctors all across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, every district here, I just find it kind of odd that they're not saying that they feel if there are any concerns they are getting from their constituents back home or in town when they meet their constituents. That they're not getting concerns about the health care situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or any concerns that are raised through this health care board.
I heard last night the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speak. I take a lot of notes when people are speaking. Sometimes people don't think that I'm listening but I always take notes. One of the notes that I took last night, the minister started rhyming off about Dr. Parfrey and Sister Elizabeth Davis and all the work they did, the number of groups they got, look what they did, look how many groups they met. Great.
If you're going to go with that logic that so many groups were consulted, they had so many meetings and took so long to do it, why don't you just follow that same logic for this bill? You cannot stand up and say they did all this great work and look at all the groups they met, look at all the consultations, what a great job, because it was a great job. But then you can't turn around and try to use that, when you're trying to ram a bill through about the health care across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Logically, that don't make sense. If you agree that we should have consultations, if you agree that we should met with groups, if you agree that all participants should have some kind of input, you should speak to the government and say withdraw this bill.
But if you want to rush it through because there was a commitment made, or because you feel that this is so urgent, we have to have it through so quick, then stand up and say it. Don't go using another report where there was great consultation, great input.
I met with them also. I thought it was a great conversation we had, very open, very frank, very sincere. But now we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association saying no, b'y, we weren't consulted and we have some major concerns with this.
Can we say for sure that the concerns were addressed? I can't. I don't know if anybody else in this House can, I can't. The letter that they wrote the minister, they sent to all Members, that their concerns haven't been met. So why are we rushing this through? This is going to be the biggest decision this House made in a long while. The biggest decision this House of Assembly will have to make in a long while. This here is going to affect every resident in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, every resident, bar none. Right from birth, right until your death, affect every resident.
Here we are now, and I've been around this House a long time, this is the first time that I ever seen a bill put through by government and government is going to make four amendments on their own through the bill, because it's rushed. Never seen it before.
You might see a friendly amendment if there's something minor, but to have a bill concerning the consolidation of four health authorities across the province and Labrador, brought in by government, then after outcry and after people saying they weren't consulted, after information not being included, the government themselves are going to make four amendments, at least four, to their bill that they just brought in. That's unheard of. It's actually unheard of.
Now, if you listen to the – well, the only one is the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, she spoke a couple of times, and the Minister of Health and Community Services, who speaks on a regular basis on this, that's fine. But now when you hear them saying, okay, we have to make amendments because there are problems with the bill. And you want us to say, okay, let's go vote on these amendments without having a discussion, without – and I agree with the Opposition and the Third Party and my colleague for Mount Pearl - Southlands, what's wrong with sending it to a Committee? What's wrong with sending it somewhere and let's hash this out? If we have to come back for a day in December or January, April 1 is the deadline. What's the rush? There is no rush.
I could start naming all districts here that have health care concerns, because everyone does, we all do. When you make a decision on health care across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to be able to make sure that when you look at the people who need it the most, which will be all of us, too, and our families, that we did the best we could do. We thought it out, we sent it out to everybody, we got professionals involved, we got anybody that's going to be – any input in this here has been consulted. But they haven't been.
This is my big concern. I don't mean to be harping on the Minister of Health and Community Services, but last night he made a statement also. One of the things that he mentioned was it is good to bring the four boards together because they'll be able to use the same equipment. I made a note of that last night with the minister.
This is what I've been telling the minister for a while, and the previous minister. You can't even use the surgeries for cataracts out in Stephenville because the equipment is so old. Yet, they will not give the money, will not give the okay to get surgeries done because they're saying, oh, you could do it in Stephenville. Stephenville has equipment right now that's so outdated they can't even use the equipment for it. They have to borrow equipment to use for it.
I don't know if the minister is aware of the equipment out in Stephenville, and I leave that up to the minister to answer it, but when you stand up and say the equipment must be different – Stephenville, Corner Brook, cataract surgery – I'll say to the minister, you should check it out.
When I get letters saying that there could be cataract surgeries done at the two locations. They can't. They can, no doubt, but they have to borrow equipment because the equipment is so old. Two of the specialists won't go out there because the equipment is so old.
If the minister is using the logic that it's nice to consolidate the four boards because we all have standard equipment, that's great. But why are the people in Western Newfoundland going to be put behind with the cataract surgery, keep on being delayed because now there's old equipment in Stephenville?
I say to the minister, check it out once again. I'll guarantee you 100 per cent I am correct because I made the phone calls. I checked it out.
So this is the concern that I have. When I sit down and take all these notes and listen to the things to try to justify this here, and it flies in the face of logic, it's hard for me to say okay, they may have something to this. They may say this may be a rush but when you use this type of logic that all the equipment is going to be on par all across the province when now you're putting 800 people, mainly seniors in Western Newfoundland, their quality of life is gone because they can't get cataract surgery or out in a place where the equipment is old, two professionals won't even go there – so be careful what you say in the House because sometimes there are people taking notes and some people who are realizing that some of these things that are being said, either they haven't got the knowledge of it, but to give the benefit of the doubt, check it out.
This is why it's hard for me. I say again to the minister and I know the minister – I heard on several occasions the minister: nurse practitioners. I know a lady, just the last couple of days, went to a nurse practitioner; 91 years old, right away seeing the nurse practitioner. She had to pay $50; 91 years old and had to pay $50 – boom. And it's so easy to get nurse practitioners tied into MCP. I've yet to hear – and I know the minister says he's working on it and I have no doubt that he probably is, but there's no one can tell me that if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could take this bill that's going to revamp the whole health care system across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, wants it done in one day here in this House of Assembly, can't order someone to tie that in to MCP so that people can see a nurse practitioner who haven't got a family doctor.
Here we are saying – Mr. Chair, I see my time is winding down. I will be back again.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C. TIBBS: Thank you very much, Chair.
I concur with my colleague. We need to use every resource we have at out fingertips, whether it be nurse practitioners, pharmacists – we've got some great people throughout this province in different sectors that can add so much more that are being underutilized it's not even funny. I know it's been happening for years, decades, that sort of thing. But if anything COVID should have taught us, it's now is the time to bring it all together to ensure that the people of the province are taken care of. We should be using every resource that we have available.
During Question Period today we learned that some people for radiation treatments, I guess, are on their way to Ontario and I'm wondering if the minister can answer this the next time he's up. How many people do we take into our province from other provinces, patients for any surgeries or for any sort of care? I'm assuming we don't take any. So my question would be: If every other province is feeling the crunch on the same level as Newfoundland and Labrador, how are other provinces able to take in other patients from other provinces?
Obviously, the crunch cannot be felt the same across this country. So that would be my question moving forward because we constantly hear that every province is going through it. Obviously not. So maybe the minister can answer that question next time he stands; I'd much appreciate it.
I'm going to refer back to the Privacy Commissioner's letter here for the next part of this. We talk about rushed legislation sort of thing. Listen, there's absolutely zero doubt that this was rushed to us. This may have been worked on for months by some very credible people, and we appreciate the work that goes into it behind the scenes by the bureaucrats, we really do, but it was rushed here.
I'm just going to take a little statement here, a small statement from the Privacy Commissioner. This is his words verbatim: “By rushing this process at the last, most crucial stage”– are we debating that it's not being rushed or if it is being rushed; that shouldn't be even a debate – “which is legislative draft, privacy consultations, and debate in the House,” – so the Privacy Commissioner is even noting that it is being rushed; the Privacy Commissioner says that – “Government runs the risk of taking good intentions” – which we have no doubt – “and implementing them in such a way that could cause unnecessary harm to the public.”
The public can't afford any more harm. They can't, and I don't think there's anybody here, out of the 40 Members, that want to hurt the public or harm the public in any way. So that's why we have to get this part right. We've been saying it now for – well, it's almost been a week; let's refer this to a Committee. Listen, why am I here? I'm not stood her until midnight tonight, until midnight last night or 11 for my own sake. I'm fine. I'm here for my two sons. I'm here for all the young people in my district that I want to keep in my district. I do. Unfortunately, we see them leaving, and it's heartbreaking to see. I'm doing it for the seniors, in my constituency, like the Member just said, who had to pay $50 to go see a nurse practitioner. I'm doing it for the cancer patients. I'm doing it for the people who need it most.
That's why I'm stood here and that's why – like I've said before, the very first hitch I ever did on an oil rig was 76 12-hour night shifts straight. I have nowhere to go. This is my job. This is my passion. This is where I want to be. I really, really want – I know everybody seems like they're digging their heels in sort of thing. It doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way and listen, I know we can be just as guilty of it, but it don't have to be that way. This should be an honorary House of robust debate – robust debate. That's why I love when somebody on the other side gets up and gives us their point of view. It's important. Your voices on the other side are just as important as us and vice versa.
So when somebody new gets up with a different perspective or point of view, it means a lot. It doesn't just mean a lot to me, but it means a lot to the entire province. So I would encourage Members on the other side to please get up and give us more of a point of view of where you're coming from and why you think this bill should be passed today. I would love to hear it, I truly would. Who knows, maybe I could learn something and my ears are always open to learn something and I look forward to learning something.
People out there are worried about their jobs as well in the health care. If we put this all into one health authority, that's fine, but there's tension out there. There truly is. People want to know exactly if their job is going to become redundant, if they're going to have to move to keep their job – it happens – and some of these questions need to be answered. Again, I think this would have been a great opportunity to send it to a Committee to answer some of these questions. It's truly important.
Our health care professionals, whether it be backroom or front-line professionals, they deserve the respect of honesty, integrity and transparency as well. So I would love to give them some answers about what's going to happen to their future and their careers in the future of health care right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I mean, we've had a CEO in Central Health now who's a good CEO, she truly is, and I have no doubt that she's been doing her job.
But the fact that our CEO hasn't been on the ground, our CEO has been in New Brunswick for all this time – and again, it's nothing against our CEO. I think she works hard, I think that she's definitely filled the boots as she needed to, but she's already quit once and they kept her on and she's been in New Brunswick all of this time. What are we looking at, is it two years or one year? It's two years now, I guess, she's been in New Brunswick. We've been pleading with government forever to find us a CEO on the ground that can deal with the front-line issues that we have out there.
I don't know about anybody else's district, but I have doctors in Grand Falls-Windsor who have become locums themselves. They have left Newfoundland on a rotational basis to go to work somewhere else to make more money and come on back here and do their stint at home as well. I think we can do better. I know we can do better. The closures of the ERs across the province, it is mind-boggling. I know, again, we go back to the bill and I asked some questions yesterday about what specifically this bill is going to make better about health care tomorrow – specifics.
We talk about a Committee. If this bill is brought to a Committee where Members can sit down, without any cameras, without any pressures of the outside world and can truly go through this and can add insight to what may be lacking, that would be great. But I think the biggest thing, if this went to a Committee, is the Committee could break it down, strip it down, take it section by section and explain it to the rest of the province exactly what the plan is. That's the biggest thing right now.
You cannot say as government: trust us; we have your best interests, no doubt about it. In order to gain the confidence of the people and the trust of the people outside of this House, we need to ensure that they know exactly what's going on with this bill. I don't think there are a whole lot of people here after five days can tell us exactly what this is going to do specifically to make our province a better place for patients, for health care workers tomorrow, a year from now, ten years' from now; I think it's a missed opportunity. I do.
If you want to sell me something, if you want to sell the people of the province something, well, present it in a way that makes sense. Taking it into a technical briefing without any real hard-copy notes and expecting us to come in here on that afternoon and vote for it – or the next day or three days later or here we are today – is absolutely ludicrous. It is not good enough and I don't think that's the way bills have to be, especially for something as big as this.
One last thing, Chair, before I sit down. I'm thinking about the Lionel Kelland Hospice. Of course, the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor will be the first community hospice in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only province without one right now; it's scheduled to open in June. I am assuming this will fall under the one health authority. I would like to know about funding. So far, the people in all of Newfoundland and Labrador and from abroad have given so much money to ensure the Lionel Kelland Hospice is open so people can die with dignity. I'm just wondering, after all this fundraising, is the next community hospice going to open up somewhere with more funding, after the folks in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas did a great job in opening that hospice in June.
So that will be a question that I have moving forward. Again, I'm here for the long haul. I will not back down on this bill until we get a better idea of where it's going.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
Good discussion, good debate. I want to speak to – I think most in the House probably realize it and some may not. Certainly, I would think some of our viewers are not familiar, but before this bill gets here, before it lands on our table, there's a fairly meticulous process that happens. Government or Cabinet would determine, based on reports and consultations that are happening and different things within their jurisdiction – they'll say we need to address this, we need to change this, we need a piece of legislation and they determine what they need to put forward or table during a sitting of the House.
So once that comes up, once you're told that we need to look at combining the regional health authorities into one umbrella group, it's handed off to staff within the appropriate department. I know, having worked with government and having been on that end of it and knowing the people out there, they're a very qualified staff who do that.
There is a process for what a Cabinet paper would entail before you get to a point where Cabinet says, yes, this is what we want. That process will go through a document that would provide background on the issue, basically telling you why, where did it come from that we need a provincial health authority. Talk about the need, talk about why it's there and maybe even talk about the expected outcomes, which is a big piece of this.
The whole analysis that would entail from there is fairly meticulous; you'd place a gender lens on this piece of legislation. There would be a financial lens. You'd look at the financial implications, anything to do with the budget on this. Environment issues would be looked at, of course, legal and privacy. So there's a whole array of different lenses that would go on this piece of legislation or any piece of legislation in preparing it. There would be a jurisdictional review. You would look at other jurisdictions and see what they are or are not doing in respect to the legislation you're trying to present. It may be a brand new piece of legislation. But you also include in that paper who might be affected by this piece of legislation, as well as who has been consulted, who needs to be consulted.
So my point is, with a piece of legislation, there's such an array of checks and balances that occur before that piece of legislation lands on our tables here. It's quite a piece of work. As the minister alluded to, they've been working on this for months and I don't disagree. Having been there, yeah, some legislation could be done quickly, some will take months.
Then, within that department, it's vetted through assistant deputy minister, deputy minister and the minister. You sit down with the staff, you go through your paper, you go through and answer all the questions and make sure everything's done. That may happen a couple of times. That document, as well, is circulated to every other department. Every other department should have a look at that. They would look at it from the point of view of their mandate. They will look at it and say, okay, can you have a look at this, respond back within a week or whatever time limit. Some will say it doesn't affect my mandate. We have no issues.
Other departments may raise a few red flags and say, hang on now, you're doing this but it could affect this or it could affect this legislation. So it's vetted through quite the process and it takes a lot of time and effort to do it. I know I've been on the other end of it. I've sat down in those meetings and I've told the minister of the day: Minister, here's the situation, here's how this lays out, here's what's happening. The minister may say I don't really agree with that, but again, as a senior bureaucrat, you're there to advise and give the information. Whether they agree with you or not becomes their decision. So it's a whole process.
But we've come and we will accept that there was an oversight here somewhere in the process that ended up with proper consultation for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner not being, I'll say, properly consulted because there was some back and forth, but it was late. So it raises a red flag for me because of how meticulous the process is and how it gets there.
I almost default to, well, okay, how do you have an oversight like that unless it's been rushed? We saw with the Medical Act legislation, recently, a similar issue there. We saw a similar issue there in that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association wasn't consulted. And this is surprising me because I'm familiar with the process that takes place and it's difficult to think that such groups would be overlooked.
Again, we talk about this bill. We talked about the letter from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but we have not yet spoke to the letter from the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, which also raises some red flags.
So we're not disagreeing with the need for this piece of legislation. We just would like to see, especially in light of the oversight, we certainly want to see a little bit more time to go through this on our own, clause by clause, and actually have a Committee outside to have a look at it. The minister has said, he said it yesterday evening, I can't quote him, but I can paraphrase. He essentially said he was willing to stay as long as he can here in this House and answer any question, clause by clause, until he was satisfied and we were satisfied.
That's a good offer. No doubt about it, but I think we need to take it one-step further. If that's the thought there, why can't we take it away and handle that and go through it and make sure we have the best piece of legislation proper for us? It's not just for us. It's for our people; it's for those out there who need health care.
You know, that's not a lot to ask and we did talk about – I mentioned last night how this recommendation is not one of the first recommendations to come out. There are a lot of other recommendations that we should be addressing and can be addressing before we get to this one and do it right.
In the Oral Questions today when I asked the question on the continuous glucose monitoring device, which is in the Health Accord, the minister, again, responded that the Health Accord was only provided to us in the most recent past, and we all agree with that. Not all will be implemented immediately and, at the end of the day, it is for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's essentially what was said. I stand to be corrected, but that's essentially the gist of what we were told today.
I agree with that. That's the reason we were talking about this today. We only got this document in June. We got this document in June. We understand that not everything will be acted upon immediately, but there are issues in here. I think it was in this that we talked to transitional structure that's creating – that the Health Accord talked about creating these structures needs appropriate time and careful attention. That's what we're asking for here.
We're asking for careful time and appropriate attention. That's what we're asking for here. This is not what we would call housekeeping legislation that we can agree on and move along and see it as the regular changes to legislation. This is the cornerstone of where our health care is going. We all agree that we need to construct a better foundation for our health care and come out with better outcomes, because that's how this is driven.
Again, the process to get here is so meticulous. There's really not a good reason why we can't pull this back, why government can't pull this back and let's lay it to the side, have some proper talk on it between the people here that have not yet really had a good look at it. That's all we're asking for.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Glad to have an opportunity to speak again. Mr. Chair, I have to say that you know that this is an important bill, and it's been said many times in this House of Assembly, this Bill 20, I would argue it should have been Bill 1. Because Bill 1 is normally your most important, your signature piece. Arguably, this is the most important bill that's come before this House of Assembly in a long time and maybe a long time to follow.
It's easy to tell because when you look at the level of engagement that I'm seeing from the other side and everybody there sitting in their seats and listening attentively and contributing to the debate, you can tell that everybody feels, on both sides, they understand the importance of this debate on our health system.
One of the things I want to raise, and the minister raised this yesterday, actually, which I thought was a very good concept. It's something that I've certainly talked about in the past and I've wondered aloud and I've talked to officials in the Department of Health.
One thing that the minister indicated would happen, I'd love to get his feedback on this and I know he's listening there attentively, is the whole idea about – he said because we'll be under one health authority, that means if I wanted to see a specialist say in Corner Brook, because I had to wait two years to see one in St. John's, now there might be an appointment in Corner Brook, that I could drive to Corner Brook on my own dime and see that specialist maybe in six months, which is a great idea.
I've actually had people in the past, I've contacted Eastern Health in the past, even within that health authority to say: I have a constituent, for example, who needs to get a CAT scan done, or whatever, and they have to wait two weeks to get it done at the Health Sciences, but you find out that if you're willing to drive down to the Burin Peninsula, as an example, you'd get done tomorrow.
I questioned at the time with the department, well, that's the way it should be, shouldn't it? Why wouldn't we have that system? Why wouldn't it be a case of, when they say to go book a CAT scan in Eastern Health, they say, okay, Mr. Lane, you need a CAT scan and they give me the options: Health Sciences, two weeks; Carbonear, next week; down on the Burin Peninsula, you want to drive down there, you get it done tomorrow. If you're willing to do it, because perhaps we're bombarded at the Health Sciences, perhaps at one of the other places it's not really busy, so you have the equipment and you have the staff that are not that busy and they could get it done. It would make a whole lot of sense.
Now, I was told that unofficially, so to speak, tell them to go down to the Burin Peninsula to get it done, but we can't give the patient the option, as you're suggesting, to say go to the Burin Peninsula to get it done, or go to Carbonear hospital to get it done. I said well why can't you give them the option? I don't understand. If the option is there, you can tell them under your breath but you can't make people aware of these options, why wouldn't we do it?
The reason I was given why we couldn't do it, and that's why I'd be interested to see how it would work on a provincial-wide system, because I actually think it's a good idea. It makes a lot of sense, but the reason why you couldn't do it – at least why I was told and I'd like the minister to clarify – is they said it would come down to you could get human rights complaints. I said what do you mean by human rights complaints? Well, because you can afford to get aboard your car and drive down to the Burin Peninsula to get your CAT scan done, now someone who's on income support says, well, I want to get a CAT scan done, I want to get mine done on the Burin Peninsula because I don't want to wait two weeks either. Now the government has to pay. Are we going to pay a taxi to taxi someone down to the Burin Peninsula to get their CAT scan and taxi them back again?
So you'd be into this situation where people who – while it might seem simple to say I'm willing to absorb the cost, which I'm sure many people here would. If you need to see a specialist and they say, b'y, you could see a specialist in six months rather than two years, drive to Corner Brook. You pay for your own gas, you pay for your hotel yourself, but you get it done. Many people would jump on that. I would.
But if somebody doesn't have the means to do it, then the argument is I'm being discriminated against because I can't afford to drive to these places, now the government have to pay for me and if they don't, it's a human rights issue.
Now, that's what I was told a couple of times when I looked into it by people within the health authority in Eastern Health. I was told by the person that's why we can't explicitly give you the option to go wherever, because then you set up a situation of those who can afford to do it on their own dime, can avail of it and those who can't say, well, I'm being discriminated against.
So I don't know if that still would be an issue here or how the minister would see how that would work because he's the one who gave the example last night about the fact that if it was one health care authority and you need to see a specialist, I think was the example he said, that I could go to Corner Brook maybe and see a specialist in six months rather than wait two years to see one in St. John's.
I would like some clarification on how this sort of works with the whole concept of human rights and discrimination where people who can afford to drive places on their own dime versus people who can't. I don't know how we get around that or how that would work, but I would like some commentary on that.
Mr. Chair, I'm not going to get into all the issues with the Privacy Commissioner again. I've done that a number of times, as have others. We all know what those issues are.
One of the bigger issues for me, and this was the Member for Port au Port, I believe, raised it last night as well, it was the idea of this quality council. That really is still – and I'm not sure if that's being addressed. I don't think it's being addressed in the amendments either that the minister is making, the idea of the quality council.
Because the idea of the quality council based on what Health Accord NL – what they envisioned was an independent body even having the head of that office as an Officer of the House of Assembly. So they could be upfront and honest, tell it like it is and have the protection of the legal framework to protect them in doing their job. Because when you think about it, wouldn't the whole concept of this quality council, wouldn't you want it to be a total independent body that could say – and I just use long-term care as an example. I use this just as an example because it's a hot topic right now. It's been a hot topic way before now because we know all of the petitions that certainly I presented here and I was told by the former minister of Health that everything was fine in long-term care. Well, now we're starting to hear more horror stories. We were hearing them back then, too, but now we're acknowledging them.
But I look at long-term care, as an example. Wouldn't we want this quality council to be able to come forward and say, listen, tell the government, tell this House of Assembly, tell the public we have a major problem in long-term care? These are all the issues that are happening. We are hearing all of these horror stories. We don't have the staffing. There are seniors that are being tied down in chairs with Alzheimer's and dementia and they're being given all of these medications because there are not enough people to look after them. They're not being cared for properly. There's abuse happening. All of these issues.
Wouldn't we want to have a system whereby this independent body could report on that and let us all know so that the public are aware of what's going on, the House of Assembly is aware of what's going on so we can fix it?
Under what's being proposed here, as I understand it, the quality council would just simply take the report and give it to the minister. End of story.
AN HON. MEMBER: Keep reading.
P. LANE: I say to the minister, who I do have a lot of respect for over there, if I need to keep reading then you can stand up and read it. I say to the minister, you stand up and read it. You're in Cabinet you should have read it.
AN HON. MEMBER: I did.
P. LANE: Good. Well then tell us all. Tell us where we have gone wrong. You can tell us –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
P. LANE: No, you can stand up when it comes your turn and tell us where – as a matter of fact, stand up now. My time is up.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I will remind the hon. Member his speaking time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Chair. I was expecting someone else, but that's fine.
Chair, it's certainly an honour to get up and speak on this motion, on Bill 20 as well. I go back to when I started the other night and I had said that I was on council in Bay Bulls at one point and had to make a motion. In order to talk to a motion, you had to get a seconder. So I got a seconder and made the motion. I don't even know what the motion was now, but we sat there for, I'm going to say, a half hour to an hour. I listened to all the people that spoke, same as you do here, everybody gets a chance to get up and speak and put their opinion on it and where it's to.
After about an hour, it came back and I listened to what all sides had to say on it. When it came to vote on it, I voted against the motion that I made. Now, that is a bit strange to do that but – and that's what I'd like to see this House do sometimes. I'm not saying vote against your motion, but we've sat here and we've talked on all kinds of bills. Sometimes we make a good motion over here and we sit down and talk about it, it makes good sense, but we'll never go and vote for it. You'll make a motion, you make an amendment, you put it in and then you vote down the motion because you didn't come up with the motion or come up with the idea.
So I think that we have to be a little more co-operative in that – collaborative I think is the word when we first started here, everybody getting along and doing it. That would make sense to me. If we made a motion or you made a motion or come up with something, that we sit here, as 40 people, to try to make things better and we just don't want to see them ever break down and give in to it. It just gets annoying, at a point in time that it is embarrassing. Okay, I might make a motion and I vote against it. You vote against your own motion because you hear different and better ideas or something that can help, not make it all the better good but something that would help the bill along.
It don't ever happen in here, never. If you don't come up with it, it's not a good idea. We know we toe the party line, we vote and that is the way it goes every time. It has never gone any other way in three years that I have been here. So that, to me, is not co-operation and collaboration and working together.
I got a call today from a person in the Goulds. They had lost their family doctor. I think he was on Open Line this morning, but I didn't get to here it because I was in a meeting. They lost their family doctor. Their family doctor is wore out, he said. He is younger then he was, he was 45; he was younger than him and the doctor was wore out. So he said they got on – him and his wife – the phone and tried to find all the doctors they could see in the phone book that they could try. They couldn't get one family doctor; everybody was full.
So one of the points I make is that if a doctor has 1,000 patients, to me – now, somebody could tell me something different, I don't know the reason for it. They have 1,000 patients and are not taking any more. Why can't they have 1,500 or why can't they have 2,000? If I can't get in for three weeks, well that's not the doctor's problem. He has 2,000 patients so I'm going to have to wait three weeks or six weeks to get in but at least I'll get an opportunity to get in no matter how many patients he has.
But they seem to limit their number of patients, and there is probably a reason. I don't know the answer to that one, but I sit back and I think, well, what's the difference between 1,000 patients and 1,500 and 2,000, or whatever the number is, and why can't they just leave you on the list and if you phone in, they're going to tell you in a month's time you have an appointment, well, at least you got an appointment. For some reason, I can't understand how that don't work.
I had a gentleman the other night and he never went to a doctor in seven years, which is great, but he still had a family doctor. He goes in and they tell him he's not a part of having a family doctor anymore in there. They thought he went somewhere else, because he wasn't sick. He didn't do anything. They could have left him on the patient list but, no, he doesn't have a family doctor.
So I'd love for the minister to be able to – of course, that's probably the doctor's priority or prerogative to keep how many patients he wants, but it just doesn't make any sense that they do that.
All this Bill 20 that we're talking about, let's see what it's going to do to help improve health care right now. That's what we're looking for, the improvements to help people in this province right now, and that's where we're missing. This is probably going to help, no doubt, in the long run over a period of time, but we need help right now. That's where we need it.
Every MHA in here will deal with home care workers and people trying to get home care for their parents or some family member. What happens – I had one last year that their own family member was looking to take care of their mom who was 91. She didn't want anyone else coming in the house, and we all know we have people like that. You have family members that probably could go help look after – they're doing their own thing in their own life; they're retired. But if they had an opportunity, they're going over there to take care of their mom or dad – and we expect them, if there are three or four kids in the family, that they're going to take care of their parents. Well, sometimes that can't happen. Sometimes it can and they probably can be compensated for it, to be in there.
They're going to hire someone else that lives down the road to come up and take care of their mom, and their mom don't want help. They need help, but they don't want someone else coming in their household, and you can understand some people like that. But we can't sit here and try to look at some of the legislation that is there to help that, to make that better, because we had somebody that screwed the system along the way, and we can't let somebody in our own family try to go in and help them and take care of them. That's exactly what happened. The whole system is shut down because somebody else fooled it up. It's wrong in the wrongest kind of way.
We go back to this person that I spoke to today of the family doctor. They went to a walk-in clinic. So when they went to the walk-in clinic – which, when he called me, I thought it was so funny. They went to a walk-in clinic and they had to make an appointment. They went down and they told him he had to make an appointment. I don't know what the purpose of a walk-in clinic is when you have to go make an appointment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
L. O'DRISCOLL: We laughed together. We did laugh together. So here he is going down to a walk-in clinic and they told him he had to go back and make an appointment.
This is what we're talking about. How is all this stuff that we're trying to do in Bill 20 going to help this system? Can we go down and fix and say, okay, if you're going to take 30 people, they haul in the parking lot, they take a number, they're taking 30 and the rest can go home because they're not getting served – it's a walk-in clinic. But to go down there and tell them they have to go make an appointment to go into a walk-in clinic makes no sense whatsoever.
First, he tried to call doctors and he couldn't get any. Then he went to a walk-in clinic and they told him he'd have to make an appointment. We both sat there and laughed and his wife – they were on speakerphone and had me on speakerphone, and that's exactly what happened.
They're the kind of things, I think they're – I'm not going to say they're small things because they're not. But they're things that we can fix in the system to improve the system to make the system better so these calls can go away. Let's work on the small things and the little things that can make these problems – they end up being bigger problems, obviously – to make them go away. Again, we come in here and do legislation – that, to me, would be concrete legislation, to change something to make something better. Doesn't come up.
We made calls to the ministers, whatever minister it may be that we have an issue with, and they try to help as best they can, and then you get another call from another MHA that's trying to do the same thing. Well, you might sit back and go speak to the people that work in your departments to say, how can we make this system better – how can we make it?
The Minister of CSSD, the Minister of Health, minister of wherever, speak to the people in your system and say: What can we do to make your job easier and make some of this stuff go away? How can we do it? Because that's what we got to get to.
When I first came in here, COVID was on the go and we were talking about how we were going to work through it in the schools and all that, and we go back and everybody is trying to make rules. Ask the people that are in the schools. Same thing, we have the issue this year – and this is where I'm going to with Bill 20 is that it's up for discussion.
We ask questions this year on the substitute system. Who better to ask than the substitutes? Not a minister going in making rules who doesn't speak to anybody to get it done. It's not working properly. Everybody here – probably not everybody, but a good many here are getting calls from substitute teachers on the same thing. It's based on legislation, based on the rules that they have put in there to try to fix this. I think you call it SmartFind. I think it's 'DumbLost,' how it's working. It's unbelievable how it's working. It's just not working.
We have to get to the people who are using this system to try to make it better. Let's improve it. Talk to the people who are working in your departments to get and improve the systems to make these jobs easier and make these rules easier for people to do, to employ and just make life better for everybody. That's where I think we should be to. Improve the legislation and get it out here so we can discuss some important things.
I see my time has run out. I thank you so much, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the Committee rise and report progress.
CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report tremendous progress and ask leave to sit again.
SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him that they have made tremendous progress and ask leave to sit again.
When shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER: Now.
SPEAKER: Now.
When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?
S. CROCKER: Presently.
SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, November 8, 2022.
SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the House do now recess until 6 p.m.
SPEAKER: This House do stand recessed until 6 p.m.
November 8, 2022 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 15A
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20.
SPEAKER: It has been 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 the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr): Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 20, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.
A bill, “An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.” (Bill 20)
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
D. BRAZIL: Mr. Chair, I just want to take a few minutes to talk to Bill 20 here in support of finding a better way to provide and deliver health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, there's been a fair bit of debate over the last number of days regarding this bill here, and it's about finding the balance to ensuring that health care is offered and provided and implemented in the proper manner in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So when we look at clause 1, and it talks about the general concept of what's to be done in this bill, we have to look at ensuring that people are confident with what this act can ensure and provide when it comes to health care. There's a multifaceted approach to what has to be done here. It's a very encompassing piece of legislation, fairly longer than most because it takes in a lot of changes that need to be necessary to take four health authorities, roll them into one to ensure that quality health care is offered equally across this great province of ours from Nain, Labrador, to CBN in Conception Bay and all points in between.
To do that, there has to be a collaborative approach here of finding the balance on what works. I'm happy to say in discussions – and I give credit to the Opposition side here for bringing to the forefront certain concerns and challenges, and I give credit to the government for being open-minded enough to make amendments, to accept amendments, and to be open to say there are certain things here that immediately can be implemented to move this process forward, and there are certain things that need to be thought out so that people are confident in this province that the best approach is being used.
I'm happy to say, through dialogue and through the House of Assembly showing what it's here to do, it's here to best serve the people of the province in the best manner to provide the best services in the most equitable and affordable way. I think the discussions here have balanced that out. No doubt it got heated at times, and there was issues around what people felt was the best policy to implement and what people felt was their interpretation, or what people felt wasn't open and transparent. But I'm hopeful, I'm happy and I believe that we've moved beyond that now. We've come to a balance in making this piece of legislation work for the best interest of the people of this province.
So I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about it. It's my first opportunity back in this sitting of the House, and it may be my last depending on how the rest of the debate goes for the rest of the night here on this. But I do want to acknowledge if we are to serve the people of this province, we have to be more open, transparent and collaborative to make things work. We may have differing opinions on how to implement it, the time frames, what resources you have to put in play, but I think there's a happy medium.
If we listened to the people in this province, if we listen to the people who provide the services, we'll find the most adequate, equitable and beneficial way to implement any program and service. In Newfoundland and Labrador, health care by far is the primary one we need to address right now.
I'm happy to say and very pleased to see that the Opposition came together on this side and collectively came up with an approach to lobby the government – that's what it was, it was a lobby – to look at presenting this piece of legislation, which 95 per cent of it was great and was necessary and I give compliment to the department and the minister for putting this. But there were parts here that were felt by the Opposition from their dialogue with the general public and health professionals that would be a different approach or a more equitable approach and a more beneficial approach that could be in the best interest of providing health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm happy to say, hopefully, as we debate this with some other potential amendments that may happen here, we'll get the piece of legislation that really represents how we change our approach to health care and how we collaboratively ensure that all parts of this province receive quality health care.
I just wanted to take a few minutes, I didn't want to prolong putting together a good piece of legislation because we need to get it passed, we need to get it implemented so that we can start providing better health care for the people of this province.
I thank everybody in the House for their indulgence but, more importantly, for their co-operation to make this happen.
Thank you, Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Further speakers to clause 1?
If not, shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK (Barnes): Clause 2.
CHAIR: Clause 2.
The Chair is recognizing the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to amend clause 2 of the bill by deleting the paragraph 2(j).
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I think from our side we will actually table – we have a number of amendments this evening, so we're going to table all of our amendments at this time. I'm not sure if the Opposition has any amendments, or maybe they've already tabled theirs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
S. CROCKER: They're already done? Yeah.
So I think you'll find that all amendments will be tabled and the Table can have a look at the tabled amendments at one time.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the Minister of Health and Community Services to provide a list of the amendments.
T. OSBORNE: Yes, I am doing so right now, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: This House stands in recess. We'll have a look at the amendments to see if they're in order.
Recess
CHAIR: Are the House Leaders ready?
Order, please!
The amendments are in order. One amendment in particular, I understand, is at the will of the House. The Clerk will call the clauses of the bill and if you have an amendment, please stand and move it at the appropriate clause. The House will vote on the amendment and then the clause, as amended, if the amendment passes.
So we'll take our time and go through this. I'll ask the Clerk to call the first set of clauses.
CLERK: Clause 2.
CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: So, Mr. Chair, I guess we'll do it clause by clause, each amendment in order.
I am looking to amend clause 2 of the bill by deleting proposed paragraph 2(j).
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: I want to talk to clause 2, and I briefly want to just say I'm pleased with how this has all come about. It took us a while, going back and forth on this. Maybe we could have been out of here a little sooner than we are, but when I came into government, I must say this is how I envisioned government working. Again, maybe not as long, but we have made the effort, all parties here have looked at this and are in agreement to the recommendations of the clauses that we're bringing forward.
We may be over here saying we won, but at the end of the day, it's the people of the province who are winning here. That we're going to have a piece of legislation that's going to be the best we can bring forward, collectively. So I thank you for that.
So clause 2, I'm moving that the bill be amended at clause 2 by deleting the proposed paragraphs (o) and (p).
CHAIR: Any further speakers?
Shall the amendment carry as proposed?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am looking to amend clause 2 by deleting the proposed paragraph 2(s).
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.
CLERK: Clauses 3 to 18 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 18 inclusive carry?
The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Yes, Chair, thank you.
I won't belabour it too much, but there are just a few questions and comments. With regard to the minister's authority, we had a talk about that, a debate – gee, I don't know if it was yesterday or earlier today anymore now. I'll go back to a comment that the minister made about how the fact is that there are people, probably, on this side who come to him looking for him to exercise his authority. I will have to say that was a good point and I will agree with him on that because there are times – and I guess my concern with the ministerial authority is when it comes to – I guess there are guidelines or guardrails that I am looking for. Because I think there's a place for when the minister needs to be involved, but I also think there's a time when those powers must be curtailed. Part of that is coming back.
But I will have to agree with the minister on that. It made me think about what I wanted. It's not even that I want no ministerial authority, but I want some limits on it to make sure that – let's say a Provincial Health Authority makes a decision on good grounds and they push this forward, then the minister wouldn't necessarily have that opportunity to override it because of some sort of political interference or influence. But I think there are times when, definitely, the minister needs to back off or any MHA really, and I'll give an example.
I don't think it would be within my right to say, you know, who should be lobbying a regional health authority as to who should get this surgery, a limited surgery first over the other but I do believe if a health authority is making a decision because they don't have the funding, then I think that's where the minister could step in.
So I will say, not that I'm ambivalent towards it, but I think there are two sides, there's a need for it but also constraints. My concern always with this was if we're moving to this new system, as envisioned in the Health Accord, then I think we have to make sure that it has that decentralized control and that was basically a lot of my concerns around the RHCs as well. But, certainly, I do want to acknowledge that the minister did make a good point. I will acknowledge that publicly and it did make me rethink what I was after. It's not that to challenge him totally or to constrain him totally, but also recognize that there is a time and a place as well.
I still have that concern, but I think regardless of who's in that position that there has be some grassroots approach up and there has to be some decision-making there.
I do have a couple of questions in terms of just with that section. I'll ask them in sequence if I can and the minister can respond. In terms of providing directions to the authority of the board, how would this work? Does the wording mean that the minister can override the board and give binding directions or orders to any employee of the Provincial Health Authority?
Then along those lines, establishing and adopting guidelines in section 5(1)(b), do the guidelines refer to bylaws? And in section 5(1)(d) provide directions to the authority or the board for any other purposes the minister considers necessary. The question is: This seems to be pretty strong sweeping powers, why was this considered necessary?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Just asking the Member is that under – I'm just looking for the part of the act.
J. DINN: That's under section 5(1).
T. OSBORNE: Okay.
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong section of the act.
In terms of, I guess, that delegation, I don't think any Member of the Legislature or any public servant for that matter would try to have somebody put on a list over somebody else. Because while you may be making one person happy, everybody else on the list is not and I think if word of that got out, for example, it would be very troublesome to any individual.
I think the ability for that direction has to be there for a number of reasons. Like I said, every Member of the Legislature advocating on behalf of constituents living in their area that may feel that they didn't get the appropriate service, then a minister could have direction. I mean, there are times, for example, just this week, one example of somebody not getting what they would feel is appropriate coverage under MTAP.
So in that regard, a minister could go in and if there's black areas and white areas or grey areas, a minister can put a little bit of pressure on to look at the grey area. Obviously, if it's black and white, you can't. But if there are areas that there is some discretion on, that's where the minister can perhaps provide some level of persuasion to look at grey areas. That would be my role in representing not only my constituents, but I represent every Member of this Legislature who represents their constituents when I'm speaking to a health authority or to officials within the department. My role is to advocate on behalf of you, who is advocating on behalf of your constituent, if that makes sense.
CHAIR: Any further speakers?
The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple of questions there. In section 3, it says: “The minister may establish objectives and priorities for the provision of health and community services and information systems in the province or in areas of the province.”
So in establishing the priorities, is there a defiant process by which the minister currently does this and with the reorganization of the health care system, will there be any significant changes by which the minister sets out objectives and priorities? With the disbanding of the Newfoundland and Labrador CHI, what processes will the minister follow in determining the objectives and priorities for the information system?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: So this section is substantially the same as the Health Authorities Act. It's now becoming the Provincial Health Authority Act. So it is substantially the same. The minister would have the ability to provide objectives or establish objectives and priorities. One of those is one that you just mentioned, the health information system.
So government made a decision that we were going to put out an RFP for a health information system that would integrate the entire province. For example, Western Memorial is the example I used the other day, Western Memorial cannot communicate with the Health Sciences complex through their information system. So a file would have to be transferred.
We would determine priorities and objectives, for example, a provincial health information system where the minister directed the department to develop an RFP. The RFP is put out. Proposals come in. The department will evaluate the proposals and then once a successful proponent is determined, that proponent will work with the Provincial Health Authority or currently the health authorities to develop a provincial information system.
So that's an example of an objective or priority. Again, I mean, it's the job of each Member in this Legislature to bring ideas or it would be the job of regional health council to bring recommendations and ideas. The minister would have the authority to say, I think a provincial health information system is a good idea where whether you're in Lab West or Marystown or Carbonear, all hospitals should be able to communicate and as one provincial health authority every individual in this province belongs to one authority. So whether you're in Goose Bay or whether you're in Gander, you should be able to go into a hospital and the health professional can log in to the health information system and see your records. Currently, that's not the case.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a couple of questions.
Minister, as it relates to the new Health Authority and we'll be giving, I guess, approval to proceed, hopefully tonight with the new health care authority, are you able to provide the House, if it even exists at this point, like a flowchart of what the new health care authority would look like, like in terms of the structure, the number of VPs, what they are, or the regions or whatever else might exist? Some explanation as to the rationale for that, for coming up with that model, because I haven't seen it. I don't know if anyone else has seen that actual model, but if we're going to change the whole system, we're going to vote to change the whole system, it would be nice to know what the structure is actually going to look like.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: So currently the interim CEO, Dave Diamond, is putting that structure together. We do know that there are going to be regional health councils, for example, representing each region of the province. I know that one of the things we're doing tonight is pulling the quality council out so that an all-party Committee can look at what that should look like and then we'll come back to the Legislature on the quality council, which is an extra layer of oversight which currently doesn't exist.
So the quality council is an extra layer of oversight to ensure that every hospital in every region of the province is providing the quality of care which they should be providing. They are operating efficiently – so the quality council will oversee the performance and functioning of the health care system province wide. Right now, there isn't a quality council, so that's an extra layer that is added in.
The regional health councils will have the responsibility of providing advice and recommendations to the board of trustees. Each regional health council will have a member on the board of trustees. So they will communicate with stakeholders in their own communities. They will communicate with Indigenous communities, with health stakeholders, with regional councils or community councils or city councils. For example, any stakeholder in the region, they are the conduit between stakeholders and the health system, the board of trustees and the Provincial Health Authority.
It is envisioned that the health regions will be very similar to what the health authorities are today; there may be some adjustments but the health regions would be similar to the boundaries of the health authorities today, by and large, with the exception of eastern which will be eastern rural and eastern urban because it is so large. Other than that, the regions will be much the same as what the regions are today. Every region will have senior management, senior executive of the Provincial Health Authority.
So it is envisioned that regardless of where you live, you belong to one Health Authority. Once we get the Health Authority up and running, once we get the health information system up and running, an individual will have a greater ability to be involved in their own health care journey. I gave an example of that yesterday. For example, if you're living in St. John's and a wait time is six months for a particular procedure, once you're scheduled, an individual can log in and see their own health records and, based on being scheduled for a particular procedure, may determine that they're okay travelling to Gander, Carbonear or Marystown if they can get that procedure sooner. Currently, you can't do that.
So it is envisioned that every individual throughout the province belongs to one Health Authority, not segregated into separate health authorities.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you, Minister.
That was a much more in-depth explanation, which I appreciate, than I had asked for. When I said about the structure, I was wondering about right now in Eastern Health, for example, you have – well, it's not Mr. Diamond. It's someone replacing him now; I forget his name. But there's a CEO of Eastern Health and then there's like a VP of surgery, a VP of medicine and a VP of something else, whatever. So I'm just wondering, under the provincial structure, what that would look like in terms of the VPs and what are they for. I guess there's one for every region and then there are probably others as well.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: So that flowchart is still being developed. Many of the same people that are in senior management positions today will be the same people in senior management positions. We don't anticipate saying to somebody, because they're a vice-president in Western, you have to pull up stakes and move to St. John's. There will be senor management throughout the province.
So in terms of the staffing that is in place today, we don't see huge changes in how that's laid out in Western, in Central or in Labrador, but they will be part of one Health Authority and will be part of the management team of one Health Authority.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just wondering, from the perspective of the employees, and I'm not sure – it might have got brought up. I don't know if it was answers given. I know, Minister, you said pretty much positions that exist today will exist tomorrow in terms of nurses and X-ray techs and doctors and wherever. They'll just all be under one board. But I'm just wondering has there been discussions with the unions about – I'm just wondering, for example, how seniority might work and how bumping would work and all that kind of stuff. Because right now you're in different – I'm assuming someone in Eastern Health can't go today and bump somebody in Central Health, but if they're all under the one board, I'm assuming that all that kicks in. So I'm just wondering, has all this stuff been fleshed out with the unions?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Coming together as one, it is status quo in terms of union representation or what bargaining unit you are a member of. In terms of an individual's ability – I gave an example of a doctor who was in Labrador who wanted to locum in Bonavista and couldn't because it was a different health authority, unless they filled out a plethora of paperwork. It made it complicated.
There will be a greater ability for staff to, say, if they're working in St. John's, if they're on vacation in Western or going to visit parents in the Western region and they want to pick up a couple of shifts, they'll have a greater ability to do that now than they did before. So the mobility of staff will be improved, but in terms of bargaining units and what bargaining units you belong to or what union you belong to, none of that is going to change.
CHAIR: The Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Just to pick up on that as well, I was going to bring up this when I talked about regional health councils, but to amalgamation and having been – and I'll compare this to even the educational school boards. When I first started teaching, my second year was with the RC school board for Ferryland District, 100 teachers up and down the shore.
I guess a concern, when you amalgamate and you become larger, is the lack of responsiveness sometimes to people and to the employees. That's certainly been my experience. That with a smaller board, you had fewer resources in some ways, but you were able to be more responsive. The people who work at the district level at the district office were first amongst equals. You could walk into the bungalow down in Mobile and they're all there. You can see who they are and they visited the school on a regular basis.
As the school districts merged into the Avalon East, then the Eastern School District, then the NLESD, it became more corporate and less responsive to the teachers and it became a we versus they in many ways. So there is a concern with that and I don't know how we're going to address that, but that is, I think, a major pitfall. The large part, I guess the benefit, certainly there's a certain economy of scale, the availability of resources but there is a significant loss here.
The other part – and it picks up on the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands – has to do with staffing. What we did know happened, and this is a valid point, I think, in terms of jobs. I think, for the most part, a lot of teachers I found in – and I'll use Ferryland as an example. I spent half of my career there and it was its own little board and without going into the details I ended up in St. John's, not necessarily by my own choice. But what starts to happen after a while is that people move out to the outlying areas because they get a chance to come in and it becomes an even more difficult challenge in trying to staff the areas. That's the concern here, once you move to that province-wide authority and especially with hiring, that is a concern. I guess it comes down to the incentive.
I can tell you that in small boards or small bargaining units, I can think of the Whitbourne youth centre. They were their own little separate bargaining unit. They had protection from people moving in, but if they lost their job that's it, there's nowhere for them to go.
I guess my concern with the amalgamation process is that we don't lose, I guess, the commitment of staff and the resources and the responsiveness of a smaller board that's more in tune with its needs and that we're aware that there could very well be staffing challenges as well.
That would be my only concern with this. I have seen it happen in the education system. No doubt benefits, but there are pitfalls that we need to be aware of and deal with, especially in a province, I would argue – and I would assume it's the same in Health as it is in Education, the needs of St. John's and the Northeast Avalon are far different than those on the West Coast or in Labrador. I think it was the former minister of Health who would say that it's very much like a territory in many ways outside the Avalon and to a large extent if you go down to the Southern part of the Avalon you will probably find the same.
So that's my only concern with that and we need to be aware of that.
Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: No, I will agree with the Member. I mean, we had seen some of those challenges in Education. I think to some degree it was how the collective agreements were written. I'm not sure if we would have the same challenges as we did with teachers because there was that clause in the collective agreement with the NLTA that I think created some challenges in terms of somebody having to substitute or I guess gained their seniority in a rural area before they could get it in an urban area.
There are a large number of health employees in the province. There will be, undoubtedly, benefits. There will be some challenges with anything you do. No matter how good a policy or a change is, no matter how good an initiative is there will always be benefits and challenges. I think learning from what happened in the amalgamation of the school districts and the school boards and the initial amalgamation down to four health authorities, hopefully we've learned from that and can overcome some of those challenges.
But I do understand the point the Member is making and I recognize the validity of the point for sure.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.
Just looking at clause 4, now, the Powers of the minister, 4(1)(c). Could you briefly summarize the process for setting up and re-evaluating the standards for the development, operation and management of the information system?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: That's what is currently under the RFP, a provincial health information system. That RFP is now being reviewed and I guess the submissions – and I don't know how many submissions there are to be quite honest with you, but I know that the submissions are currently under review and a recommendation will come from staff on who the proponent is.
The details of that health information system, what we're looking for were put out in an RFP. Once that RFP is awarded, we'll build on that from there. But what I outlined earlier in terms of the targets and what we hope to accomplish from the health information system would stand here.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you.
One last question, Chair.
Could this section also give the minister and the Provincial Health Authority the authority to determine standards and oversee the information systems in the offices of private health physicians or other private health professionals, especially given the broad nature of the definition of information systems?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: No, so that is not the intent. The intent is that in a private office, the provincial health information system would come under this act, but an accounting system or a software system or a computer system of a private physician, a fee-for-service physician, would not.
But it is anticipated that physicians, for example, will be able to write a prescription that goes electronically to a pharmacist of choice. There is less risk that there is a mistake because every physician writes differently so there is less risk that there would be a mistake in determining what was on the prescription pad and less risk of fraud on the prescription pad, somebody writing something else on the prescription pad and seeing a pharmacist.
So it is anticipated that pharmacists, physicians, specialists, hospitals will be part of the health information system. That is what is intended to be managed here, not the private operations or the private systems or accounting systems or software systems of the private fee-for-service physician, only the provincial health information system.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you.
I just had a follow-up from my last question and I got one other one.
Again on the unions, Minister, I'm just looking for some clarification. I know you gave some examples about doctors being able to move around and a nurse finding it easier to get a shift in a different part of the province, which is all good stuff, but I am wondering more about bargaining units' workers. So I'll just give an example and maybe you can answer it and that will sort of satisfy the question.
So let's say for arguments sake that I am a temporary employee in Central and a permanent job comes up in St. John's. I am willing to move to St. John's so I apply for the job. How will that work in terms of seniority if somebody in St. John's applies for the job but they have less seniority. Will I still get the job or would you say, well, you're out in Central so the person in St. John's gets the preference. How would that work under the new …?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: I'll refer you to section 8(4): “Service of an employee referred to subsection (1) ….” So you go back to subsection (1) which says: “The employment of an employee of a regional health authority or the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information continues with the authority.” We go back: “Service of an employee referred to in subsection (1) with a regional health authority or the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information is deemed to be service with the authority” – meaning the Provincial Health Authority – “for the purpose of determining probationary periods, benefits or any other employment-related entitlements under any Act, at common law or under any applicable contract of employment or collective agreement.”
So every employee in the province, regardless of what health authority they are, or NLCHI, will be employees of the one Provincial Health Authority. That brings with them their seniority. It brings with them their benefits. It brings with them their contract benefits or contract obligations.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Okay, I thank the minister for that.
So what that basically means – and I'm not arguing against it; I'm just clarifying – is that we're all under one authority now. Everyone keeps their seniority, but at the end of the day if there was someone living out in, say, Central or Western, whatever, and they wanted to apply for a job in St. John's, for argument's sake, that even though the person who might have been working in that office in St. John's might have been there however long, the person out in Central, they might have more seniority and that carries over in terms of that, and jobs in terms of bumping as well, I would assume, bumping rights. That is basically it?
T. OSBORNE: Everybody is part of one Health Authority.
P. LANE: Perfect, okay. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Minister.
So the final question I have, and you've mentioned it a couple of times there yesterday. You mentioned it again tonight. I think it's a good thing, but I brought this up earlier and I think you had stepped out so you missed it, so you didn't answer. If I needed to get a CAT scan done – I don't want to be too repetitive for people who already heard all this, but I've had people in the past, for example, in Eastern Health, and someone needed a CAT scan done. You say, okay, if I want to get a CAT scan done in St. John's, it's going to take two weeks; but if you're willing to drive out to the Burin Peninsula or Carbonear, you can get it done in a week, or you can get it done tomorrow for that matter. I had one person who they just drove out there on their own dime, got their CAT scan or X-ray, whatever it was, the very next day. They didn't have to wait. Perfect for that person.
So I had asked the Eastern Health at the time, why wouldn't you have all this on a computer so that if I went in, I'm given an option because right now, all that person was told is yeah, you want a CAT scan, Health Science, two weeks. No one gave him the option to go to Carbonear or to go to Marystown or Burin and get it done faster. I said, why wouldn't you give him the option? Why wouldn't you let him know? Only for the fact he came to me and I knew to make a call and check it out, we took care of it. But the average person wouldn't know. Why wouldn't you tell them?
The answer I got at the time – and maybe it's changed, I don't know – was that we can't tell them because if we actually tell them and offer them an opportunity to get something done faster on their own dime, then we run into the issue of someone saying well, I'm on income support, I can't afford to drive to Burin, so it's an unequal playing field. I'm being discriminated against, so now the government's going to have to pay a taxi for me to go and get this CAT scan done and if you don't do it, then you're discriminating against me because I don't have the means to do it.
Now, that's what I was told at the time, Minister. We are going two or three years back now. Maybe things have changed, I don't know, but I'm wondering, are you aware of that scenario, if it ever was an issue, if it's still an issue and how that might work. Because now we're talking on a much larger scale. We're saying I can't see a specialist in St. John's for two years from now but if I want to get aboard my car and drive to Corner Brook and pay for the gas and pay for the hotel and everything else, which I would gladly do and would be able to do, then that option isn't available for someone who doesn't have a car and they can't afford to do it.
So does that run the risk then of human rights complaints or whatever? Has that been thought out? Can you comment?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you.
So again, I mean it's going to take some time before the health information system is up and running. This will start the process of allowing four health authorities to merge into one. Until that happens, until we are one Health Authority, it's status quo with employees in Western. Until there's one Health Authority, there's status quo. But even with the health information system, for example, it will probably be a year or 18 months or two years, I'm not sure, until we get through the RFP process and we get somebody put in place to develop that. That gives individuals options. Right now, you have the option to go to Toronto, that doesn't mean that it's a two-tiered system because you can afford to go to Toronto and somebody else can't.
You could, if you wanted to go. The thing is MCP doesn't pay for Toronto, or you could go to New York, or as we know from a previous Member of this Legislature who went to the states for cardiac surgery. That is an individual's choice. But this will create options and if the wait-list is levelled out, so to speak, throughout the province, the person in an area with a higher wait-list automatically benefits, because people are choosing to go somewhere where there is a shorter wait-list. Does that make sense?
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Minister, it makes 100 per cent sense to me. I'm not arguing against it. I think it's a good thing personally. All I'm communicating to you, and it's perhaps something you just might want to check, is that what I was told at the time is that –
T. OSBORNE: I'm not aware of that.
P. LANE: Yeah, that if somebody chooses. Like if I take the initiative myself and call down to Burin or whatever and say can I get a CAT scan done, they can say yes, b'y, come on down tomorrow. Not an issue. But the minute that the hospital or the Health Authority recommends it or gives that direction to do it, then you open up yourself for this whole two-tier thing. That's what I was told at the time, so I don't know. I'm only going by what I was told. I'm just throwing it out there to you. If you're not aware of it, fine. Maybe you just might want to check, that's all.
But the concept to me, if I want to get aboard my car and drive to whatever to get something done faster, I'm all for it. And you're right, it frees up time at the other places. If I'm out here now, that's one less on the wait-list here. So I agree with all that. I'm just telling you that this is what I came across and it's something you may just want to ask your officials about.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: A question and a comment – actually maybe two questions. What are government's plans for the employee representation and their rights as workers to choose their own representatives? This comes from CUPE who, I think, some of them are listening to the debate.
So that's a question: What are the government's plans for employee representation and their rights as workers to choose their own representatives?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: I don't think we would interfere in – I mean, if somebody chooses they want to be with a bargaining unit, that's up to an employee. I don't think that's government's place to interfere in that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
I have here the Health Reform Observer regarding Amalgamating Provincial Health Authorities: Assessing the Experience of Nova Scotia, September 25. I just want to read a comment from that, if I may, Chair, and then ask for a response.
“… the Nova Scotia government consolidated its nine Distinct Health Authorities into the single Nova Scotia Health Authority as of 1 April 2015.” This is what the abstract goes on to say, “Five years on, however, the expected cost savings have not materialized …. Problems with amalgamating health authorities include opportunity costs incurred by thoroughgoing reform, ambiguous and diminished accountability, administrative bottlenecks, decreased responsiveness, and poor working relationships with health care professionals leading to issues of access to health care services.”
There was the rhetoric to moving health dollars to the front line and that really didn't allow for that. So here is the question. We have Nova Scotia's experience to draw on. There are two parts to the question: Why are we proceeding knowing this? And I understand this is basically what's recommended in the Health Accord, but what measures are we going to put in place to avoid those pitfalls and maybe come out with the efficiencies and the money invested in the front-line workers and in the people? So that is where I am going with this one.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Now, the Member raises a good point and I think that is not the only example of – we've seen in this province, for example, the school districts amalgamated into an English and French from many school districts. So he raises a good point, but I think it is incumbent upon the interim CEO of the Provincial Health Authority to learn from those examples. It is incumbent upon government to learn from those examples.
But the other aspect of this, I don't know if Nova Scotia went through a very extensive process of a Health Accord like we did. I know the amalgamation of school districts, we didn't have a very extensive process of an education accord. We do have an extensive piece of work and a road map that was designed with a great deal of consultation, a great deal of input and effort that should be a guide for us in doing this better than we've seen it done in other areas with other amalgamations so to speak.
So the Health Accord was the start of this process. This stemmed from the Health Accord, but the Health Accord is a 10-year plan. Some of the initiatives will be done this year, some next year, some the year after, but it was the road map to helping to develop a Provincial Health Authority.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 18 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 3 to 18 inclusive carried.
CLERK: Clause 19.
CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amending the clause 19(2) by deleting the proposed paragraph 19(2)(l).
CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Those against?
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amending clause 19 by deleting the proposed paragraph 19(2)(m).
CHAIR: Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Those against?
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry as amended?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Those against?
Carried.
On motion, clause 19, as amended, carried.
CLERK: Clauses 20 to 33 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 20 through to 33 inclusive carry?
The Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, (inaudible).
I'm just looking at clause 20 and, in particular, subsection (a)(i), it's speaking to developing and managing and operating a comprehensive, aligned information system. I think the minister may have touched on some of this in answering earlier questions. So I have three questions related to that but I'm going to put them all together because I think the answer could take it all in.
So the three questions I have are: What is the status of the current information systems and their alignment across the health authorities? What is the cost to align these facilities? What are the timelines? So what's the current status, cost and timelines?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you.
I guess that goes back to a question the Member for Labrador West asked. I think it was Labrador West, or it might have been Torngat, I'm not sure. One of the Members of the Third Party. There's an RFP out right now that's under evaluation so I won't know the cost until a successful proponent is established. The objective is to have all health components in the province have access to the health information service, to answer that part of your question.
It reminds me of a question once – just to put a little bit of levity into the debate. The Member – not the current Member for Bonavista who I don't even see here right now, anyway I'm not allowed to say that. The Member for Bonavista, that was back in the 90s, had asked the Minister of Fisheries who was the Member for Port de Grave at the time. Minister, I have a question and he said the question is: question A, question B and question C. The Minister of Fisheries said: The answers are yes, no and yes but I can't remember the order of the questions so I can't verify the order of the answers.
In any event, so I think the third question was what's the current status of the health information system? Right now, there isn't a provincial health information system. We have four health authorities. The four health authorities have varying degrees of health information systems but one region of the province can't speak to another region of the province. A physician can't speak to a pharmacist. If you are transferred from one region in, they have got to print your file off and fax it in or sent it in in the ambulance or whatever the case may be.
So we really need a comprehensive, coordinated provincial health information system where everybody is connected. Part of the philosophy of that is every person deserves the same level of health care regardless of where you live, everybody is part of the same health authority regardless of where you live and regardless of where you live, if you're in Labrador and your physician refers you to a specialist in Corner Brook or St. John's, they have access, through the health information system, to your files and the referring physician.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you.
I thank the minister for his bit of levity. It reminds me of Question Period sometimes, ask A, B and C and get answers C, A, B.
Just looking at clause 21 and this is the last question I've got on this section. It talks to the authorities powers and clause 21, I think section 5, it talks about health, innovation and economic development. What are we envisioning there when we talk about, especially from health care, economic development?
T. OSBORNE: What clause?
P. DINN: Clause 21(5). I'll make sure I've got it right there. Yes, we're talking about engaging in health innovation and economic development. I'm just curious as to what's envisioned when we talk about health authorities dealing with economic development.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: That was in the previous bill, but not as clearly defined. It's more defined in this particular bill. I know Dave Diamond – for example, there are other provinces that are much better engaged in health innovation. However, I do know from Eastern Health, for example, I think Eastern Health had the first hospital in all of Canada to have a mechanical heart. I would say that was health innovation. But I don't know if they were involved in the development of the mechanical heart, which is probably some of the areas they want to get involved in.
It wasn't as clearly defined. This is an attempt to more clearly define that.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
Just to make sure, I can speak to 30 as well?
CHAIR: Yes.
J. DINN: Okay, just wanted to make sure before I launch into something and be hauled back.
With regard to the regional health councils, no doubt about it that it's in the Health Accord that regional health councils for each health region was to provide advice and recommendations to the Provincial Health Authority. That was asked for by the Health Accord to give voice and engagement to the people of the regions which are quite diverse. That seems to be done.
However, with regard to this section we're dealing with, 31 and 32 –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
J. DINN: Oh, sorry. Part II, Regional Health Councils, page 20, clauses 30, 31 and 32 – my apologies.
The Health Accord asked for a greater authority for the regional health councils and authority here in this bill, really, when you look at it, it barely goes a little past one page. It's pretty sparse compared to what's envisioned if you look at the legislation around the Provincial Health Authorities.
Their authority seems limited to providing advice and recommendations to the Provincial Health Authority, collaborate with Indigenous communities, other health and social networks. It's going to be interesting, I guess, to see how this works, given that they do not seem to have any responsibility for the direct delivery of health services in their region.
The Health Accord had hoped that they would be more directly involved in health care delivery in their regions and given greater voice and influence to the people of the region. If you look at the Health Accord – I hesitate to go on to the blueprints. If you look at the description of the regional health council, it's in fact quite robust. For example, the RHCs assume the responsibility for the direct provision of health services at the regional level. They develop policies, strategic plans. The PHA, Provincial Health Authority, gives final approval to that plan and the RHCs work jointly with the provincial CEO and to appoint regional administrators.
If you go through this, even in terms of developing a formal collaboration process with Indigenous partners, focus on inclusion and public engagement, it's quite robust. Whereas if you look at the legislation, it seems to have reduced them to more of an advisory role. I go back to the comments then – and this is a problem, I guess, that I would have with this section in terms of how you compare it to the legislation versus the Health Accord.
This is going to cost a significant amount of money. No problem with that, but if you look at the Nova Scotia experience, it didn't result in the cost savings. I take it at heart that, yes, they didn't have the investment in a Health Accord plan. But if we're going to go this route, if we simply reduce the regional health councils to an advisory role, are we just making then a more bureaucratic and less effective system?
I understand that the quality control councils are going to have an influence there, but I'm trying to figure out then why in this legislation we didn't give the health councils the robust decision-making and the authority that was envisioned in the Health Accord itself. An awful lot of Health Accords and health authorities going on around here. I'm starting to get confused myself.
But basically, it seems this legislation has reduced the role of the regional health councils to an advisory role; whereas what they were envisioned in the Health Accord was a lot more robust and a lot more involved with – how does it go – the delivery of health in the region. I guess I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it, because this is, I think, a significant piece of the Health Accord and one of the major stumbling blocks I have with this part of the legislation.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: A couple of things that I could say to the Member there. In addition to advice, the regional health councils will provide recommendations to the authority on the delivery of health and community services within that region. They would engage with stakeholders, governments, Indigenous governments and groups to develop its annual plan. They will have an annual plan, they will provide advice and they will provide recommendations.
But more importantly than that, each regional health council will have a member on the board of trustees. We've gone a little bit further than what was even in the Health Accord, because we guaranteed that each regional health council has a vote at the table. They will have a member on the board of trustees who make decisions and provide direction to the Health Authority itself.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Just a quick question there that I missed the opportunity to ask in section 2; I was a bit too slow there. Are we into the 40s yet?
J. DINN: No.
L. EVANS: No, okay. I'm going to sit down, sorry.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Okay, so that's fair enough, the minister's response. But I'm just wondering then, one of the recommendations was that the RHCs would assume the responsibility for direct provision of health services at the region level. Is that the case with this, and if not, why not?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: I think the board would have direct responsibility for that. Each of the health councils will be part of the board of trustees. So in consultation with Dr. Parfrey and Mr. Diamond, in looking at the organization and how the organization would most efficiently function, we determined that having the regional health councils as a member of the board, as opposed to having two layers or three layers, we have a health council that provides advice, recommendations, does its annual plan for the hospitals and the region within the region that they're operating. They're also a member of the board of trustees, which will have that direct oversight over the Provincial Health Authority.
In addition to that, the piece that we're all working on as an all-party Committee, the quality council will oversee the performance and the efficiencies and the operation as well. There are three layers here now, where there was one layer before. So the strongest layer in terms of the direction to the Provincial Health Authority will be the board of trustees. Above that will be the oversight of the quality council.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J. DINN: Final comment on it – and I certainly understand where the minister is coming from. My concern, I guess, still is that if it's an advisory role, the council doesn't have the responsibility for the direct provision and that seems to me – I guess when I was looking at this, the Health Accord seems to envision, sort of, decentralized centralization, if you want. Again, small boards, when I first started teaching, had the ability to respond quickly to the needs without having to run it up the chain – very efficient. But, of course, a larger bureaucracy has the advantage, I guess. There are more resources behind it, but it also allows for more reflective considerations.
I am just concerned here that in some ways if it's an advisory role, the ability to respond to regional health needs is going to be that much slower. That's my concern with this. I'm not expecting a comment, but that's my concern here is that if they got there first, here's the advice, you've got to wait for the Provincial Health Authority trustees to meet – what are we going to do? It's those layers and I guess I was assuming that the regional health councils would have some ability to make decisions at the local level a little bit more efficiently, but still have that overall connection to the larger council. They would be setting the guidelines and they would operate in that.
I will say, I am hoping at some point – I understand other amendments are coming – that maybe we can also look at this down the road and reconsider that or to look further at it as well. But my main concern is just the level of bureaucracy and the efficiency in trying to respond to local needs.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: I think the intent of Dr. Parfrey and Mr. Diamond in this was to lower the level of bureaucracy but have the regional health councils as part of the board of trustees. So while the Health Accord didn't call for the regional health councils to be members of the board of trustees, that's where they have the oversight. Instead of having three levels of bureaucracy, it is lowering the bureaucracy.
Still, the health councils can provide advice, make recommendations and provide an annual plan. The member of the health council that is on the board of trustees will have a greater ability in enforce that but the quality council would also see the recommendations that are provided by the regional health councils and the direction by the board of trustees.
So there is that oversight as well, but I think it was an attempt to lower the bureaucracy and achieve the same outcome.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 20 through 33 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 20 through 33 carried.
CLERK: Clause 34.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
I'm glad to speak on this clause – actually clauses 34 to 40 – because this was an area of contention when we were speaking throughout the last couple of days and it speaks to the quality council. We spoke back and forth and I guess it was a good debate; it was well debated on the Health Accord and its desire or recommendation to have such a council at arm's length and we went back and forth on that.
So, with that in mind, thinking that the quality council needs a little bit more time to look at, Chair, I move that Bill 20 be amended by deleting the heading “Part III, Quality Council” and by deleting clauses 34 through 40 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CLERK: Clause 41.
CHAIR: Shall clause 41 carry?
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
I guess this is in relation to the amendment we just passed. I propose this amendment, that the bill be amended at clause 41 by deleting the words “or a member the quality council.”
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 41, as amended, carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 41, as amended, carried.
CLERK: Clause 42.
CHAIR: Shall clause 42 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 42 carried.
CLERK: Clause 43
CHAIR: Shall clause 43 carry?
The Chair recognizes the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P. DINN: Thank you, Chair.
Again, this follows along with previous amendments. I move that clause 43 of the bill be amended by deleting the proposed paragraphs 43(m), (n), (o), (p) and (q).
CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR: The Chair is recognizing the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.
Just looking at section 43, Regulations. It says: “The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations … (b) defining 'health service provider' for the purposes of paragraph 2(g) ….”
So just looking at that, I ask would this definition currently apply to health care providers who work outside the Provincial Health Authority, and could this definition be open to the ability of the government in a way to privatize health care?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's certainly not the intent, I would say to the Member. I think 2(g), which I will go back to: “'health service provider' means health service provider as defined in the regulations ….” So this, for example, we just announced that we were looking at the physician assistants, which are currently in place in other provinces.
Physician assistant, currently, is not a recognized profession in this province, while it is in other provinces. I think that most people would agree, a physician assistant in other provinces, and the intention in this province, would be that they would carry out and do much of the paperwork of the physician who was carrying out surgeries or even in a family practice, allowing the physician more time to see more patients, or do more surgeries because the physician assistant is doing much of the work that bogs the physician down in time-consuming paperwork, for example. So this is intended to define service providers.
There was a time when we didn't have nurse practitioners in the province. That allows us to define a nurse practitioner. If there are other health professionals – we just, for example, in consultation with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, allowed two new classes of licensure under the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
There may be, looking globally or at other provinces, other classes of nurses that we could define. So that's the intent of this particular section.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
L. EVANS: Thank you, Chair.
So just to clarify my two questions, it would only apply to health care service providers who work within the provincial authority and it would not be open up to the ability for government in any way to privatize health care. That's what I'm hearing in your answer, correct?
T. OSBORNE: Yeah, that's not the intent.
L. EVANS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Shall clause 43 carry, as amended?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 43, as amended, carried.
CLERK: Clauses 44 to 86 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 44 to 86 inclusive carry?
The Chair is recognizing the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This will be my final thing I have to say tonight. I just want to take a second just to say that I think what we've seen here tonight is democracy in action. It's really what it's all supposed to be about. I think that's what Members on this side of the House, for sure, I know I have said many times. You come into this House to represent people who duly elected you and we want to work together. The people have told us they want us to work together. We believe, certainly, I believe, I want to work with all Members of this House to get things done and to get things done right.
Unfortunately, quite often what we see with bills coming in the House is they're just rammed through, no amendments are ever accepted; quite often it's sort of this whole attitude of: we're the government, we'll do what we want. In this particular case here, we have a significant piece of legislation here in this bill that's going to change how we deliver health care in many ways for years to come. The most significant bill that we've passed in this House in a long, long time and what we saw happen here is – it took us a while to get there, no doubt. It took us a while to get there, but I will give credit to the minister and the government. They took the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner seriously, once he had the opportunity to see it, and have hauled a few things out of here to go back to make the appropriate changes.
Certainly, when you listen to Members on this side of the House, as it pertains to concerns that we had and other sections of the bill have been hauled out and we're going to get together as a Committee, as a group, and try to work through those issues so that when we come back to this House of Assembly, we will have some more changes. We will be able to reinsert some of these sections into the bill and make it a better bill for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's really what it's all about.
So a big shout out to all my colleagues, my colleague here from Humber - Bay of Islands, along with the Third Party and the Official Opposition. When we all came in here I think we were all pretty unanimous that we had concerns and we weren't going to let it go. I want to acknowledge, certainly, the government and the minister, in particular, for taking our concerns very seriously and having the ability to step back, be flexible and say, do you know what? This is too important not to get done right. When this bill goes through, something that's going to affect people throughout this province for years to come, we want to be able to say that it was unanimously supported by this House of Assembly. A bill like this should be unanimously supported by the House of Assembly.
So thank you, Minister, for listening and doing the right thing. At the end of the day, I'm sure once this bill is finally completed that we will have a great piece of legislation and we can all get together on fixing our health care system.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I'm just going to spend a minute on this. I concur with what my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands said. Just to let you know, we all can get along in this House to help out, Opposition, Third Party, government and also the two independent Members.
I'm just going to have one last pitch. I brought it up and I'm very passionate and I just want to bring it to the minister because I won't have time to bring it up any more until March, is cataracts, those 800 seniors in Corner Brook. I'm asking the minister, please take a second look at that on behalf of the residents. Please take a second look. I'm dead serious on that. This is not politics. This is people who need their quality of life back. I know it can be done. I know the facts are there. I know sometimes I'm a bit hard on the issue; it's because I'm passionate about it.
So I'm asking the minister, while I'm looking at your now, please take a second look at that and give those 800 people back their quality of life so we can say that we can bring issues up here, we can have our disagreements, but we are going to make life better for people. I ask the minister to please do that and please God that will done in the very near future.
Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Shall clauses 44 to 86 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 44 through 86 carried.
CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK: An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority.
CHAIR: Shall the tile carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill with amendments?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 20 as amended.
CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 20 as amended.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
B. WARR: Mr. Speaker, after tremendous progress, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 20 with amendments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to the referred and have carried Bill 20 with amendments.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.
SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?
S. CROCKER: Now.
SPEAKER: Now.
When shall the bill be read a third time?
S. CROCKER: Now.
SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order number 3, third reading of Bill 20.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services that Bill 20, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority, Bill 20, be now read a third time.
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?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting the Delivery of Health and Community Services and the Establishment of a Provincial Health Authority,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think, as tradition, we'll just do some closing remarks.
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
D. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we end this session of the House of Assembly – a very short one for me, but not so for my colleagues here – I do want to acknowledge all the people who made this happen and the valued work that was done over the last five weeks here. While it was only one day, I am very pleased to be back with my colleagues in the House of Assembly doing the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: I won't take a lot of time because I know my colleagues in this House, on both sides, have been here for a number of days and late nights and I know the diligent work you did to serve the people of the province and making good progress here to ensure people have access to proper health care and to all of the other services that government provides.
But I want to acknowledge you, Mr. Speaker, our Table Officers, our Pages, our Sergeant-at-Arms, our Commissionaires, our security and every civil servant who does due diligence every day to ensure that the House of Assembly runs smoothly, and we ensure that programs and services are delivered to the people all across this great province of ours.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my own staff in the Opposition office: our chief of staff and all the staff here, who, over the last number of months, prepared for the House to open, looked at legislation to make sure it was in line with what the people have said to us and gave the will.
But I want to particularly and personally acknowledge my Government House Leader here, all of our caucus on this side, for picking up where I wasn't here to do my part. Not only did they take on their own roles, but they took on other roles here and did it very professionally and with the intent of serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So a sincere thank you to my House Leader and all the other people here who took it on as part of our caucus. Thank you for that. And to our staff who ensured that caucus here was prepared.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
D. BRAZIL: I want to acknowledge all Members of the House of Assembly on the Opposition side and on the government side for being prepared to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know we constantly have to sacrifice being away from our families, travel, situations. We know we are not always seen in the best light by the general public because people are frustrated with various things in their lives that are not going exactly the way they would hope, not realizing that we can't always change things in a moment's notice.
But I'm confident that everybody in this House has one intent, and that's to improve the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We may have different approaches, we may have different timelines, we may even have different priorities, but I know everybody here and everybody who puts their name forward to be elected has that as their primary objective here.
I do want to also acknowledge our families who constantly sacrifice for us, but do acknowledge what we put our names forward to do and what we committed to and they support us in that. Everybody has a shelf life in politics. You figure out when you're ready to leave, when you've done what you thought was in the best interest of the people. So one day we'll all make those decisions. We came in with our heads held high; I know we'll all leave with our heads held high too. I look forward to that day when everybody here I will still consider a friend and a colleague in the House of Assembly.
I do also want to acknowledge the Premier. We may banter sometimes, but we do have collaborative discussions here around how we solve the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to acknowledge that here. This is about partisan, only when it doesn't serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we can show collaboration. It's been acknowledged here by all sides of the House of Assembly that there is common ground and sometimes we put politics aside to do what's right. I want to acknowledge that.
So I just want to end by, as we get closer to the Christmas season, wanting to wish everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador a very merry Christmas, a safe holiday season. I do also want to acknowledge people. There are some challenges in Newfoundland and Labrador but we have proven time and time again as we've seen what happened on the Southwest Coast how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians banded together to stand on guard. We're resilient people, we've been that for over 500 years and we'll continue to do that. As long as we stand together and support each other, Newfoundland and Labrador will flourish. We will be what we set out to be, not only part of this Confederation but the key leaders in this Confederation.
On that note, I thank everybody, I wish everybody well, I hope to see everybody in the near future and hopefully we'll make a better approach to ensuring that people in Newfoundland and Labrador are better off in the future. So enjoy your holiday season. I know it is not a holiday where people would think in the general public here, but you get an opportunity to be part of your district. I want to acknowledge the people of my district who – and I'll say this with pure respect – have left me alone during my health crisis because they knew I could be better help to them if I'm healthy.
I am glad to say I am healthy and I am back, so I will be back more ready to go to do what needs to be done in my district in the near future. I look forward to, as the Leader of the Official Opposition, serving the people of this province.
Enjoy the season coming up and to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, be safe and be cognizant of your health.
Thank you everyone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.
As my colleague was saying, are you one of those people who has to write things down and not look at it? Sort of. I guess from 32 years of teaching and that, you'd have to come up with a plan A, B and C.
First of all, I'll join the Leader of the Official Opposition to say thank you to everyone here. Thank you, certainly, to the Speaker because, at times, I'm looking at you up there and I'm starting to have flashbacks to being a teacher and trying to control an unruly classroom. That includes me too, don't worry.
Thank you to the staff of the House of Assembly, to the Clerks, to the Table Officers, to the people who keep us safe, to the Sergeant-at-Arms with his particular style and flourish in bringing the mace up and down –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. DINN: – and for commanding us to stand. He is a good Holy Cross Crusader, so I can't be too hard on him.
Certainly to our staffs – the staff we have behind the scenes because in many ways, I guess, we are sort of like the front people. We get up and speak, but most of the times we're speaking on subjects that we may not be totally familiar with and we've had to learn our bit. Education I can speak to, salmon fishing maybe, but I tell you on complicated pieces of legislation like health, it's good to have multiple people behind here, behind the scenes who can do the research and walk you through it.
Also, I think within each party there's a multitude of diversity of experiences that we can bring that to it. It's important to the discussion. It's important to have people on the government side who assume multiple roles so even there you can learn something every now and again. But certainly thank you to the – especially tonight – Table Officers for walking us through the amendments and getting out of here alive.
But our staff, I'll tell you and I'll talk about my constituency assistant, I've got to say this, when the House is open it's a special time of your life as an MHA because you really come in in the morning, you have your briefing, you figure out what you're going to do, what questions you're going to ask. I'm assuming ministers are going through their briefing as to what questions might be asked, how are they going to respond, but in all that time it's the constituency assistants who are left to carry the load, a heavier load than normal. They are the ones who, even when the House is not open, but when the House is open they are the ones who really have to take a lot more initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. DINN: To our new chief of staff, as well, who took the reigns a few weeks ago and is whipping us in shape, but I'll say the chief of staff in any organization is probably the one that, like I said, is behind the scenes.
I will speak to family because I can tell you I know that behind everyone of us there's a family. We have our –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
J. DINN: Mom was always afraid, the fact that we were on both sides, are we going to get along. People will say dinners must be fun at the Dinn residence and family gatherings. I said I don't think we every talk about politics. Usually it's about, like I said, who gets to hold my grandchildren – me.
But anyway, I will speak to my wife Michelle. I can tell you I don't know if I'd be doing this, even as NLTA president, teacher and everything else, she carried the load. I can tell you that I would not be as colour coordinated without her. Being colour-blind myself, I can tell you that I don't usually get out the door without the final inspection.
AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you wore your yellow suit today.
J. DINN: I'm glad I wore a yellow suit, too.
To my children, of course, and all of our children who make our lives worthwhile. I know that for some people in this House, Speaker, they have younger families than I do. My children are grown up, I'm at the stage where I've got grandchildren, but I'll tell you this is especially trying on anyone. I know Members on this side and the other side have young families, it's an especial challenge and I commend them and I sympathize then with those challenges.
I thank my constituents, whether they voted for me or not, and to all the people who come to me, I would say come to you with either words of praise or words of criticism. Because I think, if nothing else, at the very elemental root of democracy is that ability to speak directly to your Member and let them know what they think about your performance, about the comments you made and so on and so forth.
This will be the last time we're meeting, I guess, until March. Remember that as of December 21, the days do start getting longer. That's the day that I start looking forward to.
In the meantime, Merry Christmas in advance, happy holidays, a happy new year, the best to everyone and their families. I hope that we see everyone back here in the new year.
I look forward to continue the debate, I think, March 13, if I understand, we're going to be sitting late again. Thanks for that present, House Leader; I appreciate it very much.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
A. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the interest of time, I'll divorce myself from my notes, but I want to say thank you to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Table Officers, to the security, to the Sergeant-at-Arms and to echo the comments of the Members opposite and extend our sincere gratitude on behalf of the government for everything that you've done to make this a productive session.
I think this is an historic session, one that started in the Colonial Building. I think if we take a moment to reflect on that and the significance of that and the responsibility that's been handed to us to sit in this Legislature and be able to tackle the problems that face Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, it's truly an historic moment for all of us.
While we can be caught in debate, while we can be caught in rancour, we can be caught in, oftentimes perhaps, too raucous of a debate, I want to make sure that everyone understands that it's done with the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We sit in these seats in a very temporary fashion, Mr. Speaker, as it should be. I think that everybody understands the weight of the responsibility of the seats that they sit in and understand what they bring to this Legislature in representing the people of the province and their constituency. That is democracy on full display, Mr. Speaker, and I couldn't be more proud to lead the government and to thank the Members behind me for their support during this session.
I do want to say a special welcome back to the Leader of the Opposition. I know that this job can be stressful on families; it can be stressful on individuals. As we sit here today discussing the future of health care in the province, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to take a moment to reflect on our own personal, physical and mental health because in order for us to serve the people of the province, we have to be healthy as well.
So welcome back, I wish you the best of recovery, Sir. To anyone else during this break session, please take that moment to check on yourself as well. You never know what silent medical issues are lurking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
A. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do want to wish everyone a happy holidays, but before proceeding to the holidays, of course, I think we need to reflect on Remembrance Day. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to all of those who have served. Some of whom sit in this House today and will continue to serve the province (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
A. FUREY: I've said this before and I don't mind sharing it with everybody in the House, I had the opportunity to visit Gallipoli this past September. We are about to sing the Ode and standing in Gallipoli as we cut the ribbon on the new caribou was a special moment for me as Premier. I think it was a special moment for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. But to hear the Ode sang in Gallipoli was truly something remarkable.
To hear the words: where once they stood we stand in that moment has been something that has lasted with me. As I've reflected on those lyrics, it's something that I take into this House every day, that we are only fleeting in this House. It's incumbent upon all of us to bring the best of Newfoundland and Labrador to the floor of this House every time we stand and every time we debate, to do so in a respectful fashion, to do so in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so future generations can look back and say where once they stood we stand.
This is a hallowed place and we're all lucky to serve. I'm particularly grateful to the people of Humber - Gros Morne for electing me, as I'm sure all of you are for the constituency that you represent.
I think I'll end there, Mr. Speaker, in a thanks to all of our staff who support us along the way. Obviously, this is beyond a team effort, this is a provincial effort and that extends to the Big Land, to the southern tip and beyond.
Thank you to all of the staff and I wish everybody a safe and happy, happy Christmas.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: I'm just going to take a few minutes also and I will stick more to my notes, as I don't want to forget anybody in our very valuable team.
First of all, as we finish up the fall sitting, it's a great pleasure to acknowledge all the people that help to make this Legislature run so smoothly.
First, I'd like to say a big thank you to the House of Assembly staff behind the scenes: the Corporate and Members' Services group, the Legislative Library and our Information Management team, Hansard and, of course, our Broadcast team.
I'd like to acknowledge the great work of Transportation and Infrastructure that has also supported this Legislature, especially during our COVID years. These desks have been moved around I'd say in the last two years more than they have in the last 50 years before that. Any time we needed help or assistance moving things around, they've been more than happy to co-operate in that. Again, that was echoed when we did our legislative week down in the Colonial Building.
I'd like to say a big thank you to Sabrina Barnes, who is our newest staff member out in the Clerk's Office. She helps out with the day-to-day operations.
In our Chamber, I'd like to thank Robert, our Sergeant-at-Arms, who has often said best job he ever had. So, Robert, we thank you for all the great work you do each and every day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: To our Pages, only one here tonight but there are five or six there that have been helping us throughout this session. It's good to have them back by our sides. It's a great learning experience for each and every one of them. So thank you.
To our Commissionaires, who are sitting up in the gallery right now and some outside, thank you for your valuable service that you provide each and every day.
To my Deputy Speaker, Brian, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, he really had to pick her up this year. Like I said, there have been lots of times that we've –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: – spent a lot of hours in Committee. When Committee is in then I obviously step away. There has been some very heated debate and I thank him for his professionalism and how he handled everything.
Also to the Deputy Chair of Committees, who's not with us tonight, he's not feeling the best.
To my Executive Assistance, Kala Noel, I think everyone would agree that she has been fantastic to work with and make sure things run smoothly, especially with our Members' statements, Ministerial Statements and those things. Kala is there, I think she's outside watching, so thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: And to my small but mighty team, my Table Officers, nobody here knows how much work that's done behind the scenes to keep this running smoothly. We have had some very challenging times over the last year and they stayed strong through it all, stayed very professional and kept me in line. So I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and dedication to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Obviously, our Clerk is Sandra Barnes, who celebrated her birthday yesterday; our Law Clerk Kim Hawley George; as well as Bobbi Russell; Kim Hammond; Mark Jerrett, who is sitting with us tonight; and Evan Beasley, they've helped us greatly throughout the year.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Members, first of all the House Leaders for your co-operation throughout this session. As I said, things do get challenging at times and many times we're rolling with the punches, I guess, not sure what's happening, when it's going to happen, but it all comes together in the end and we all work together for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, before everybody starts to drive back to their districts over the next few days, I just want to wish everyone safe travels. I'm sure everybody will be out participating in the Remembrance Day ceremonies, so take time to spend some time in your districts now and get to meet the people that have elected you and the ones that you serve.
Also, I'd like to wish everyone – as we get into the holiday season – a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I look forward to seeing everyone back again in March.
As per tradition, which I started back when I first got elected Speaker, I said we would end our sessions with the “Ode to Newfoundland” but last week we did make a motion asking Memorial University to add the “Ode to Labrador” to their ceremonies. So I think it's only very fitting that we also set an example and do it ourselves.
I'm going to ask our hon. Member for Labrador West to lead us first in the “Ode to Labrador” and I ask all Members to rise.
J. BROWN: Dear land of mountains, woods and snow,
Labrador, our Labrador.
God's noble gift to us below,
Labrador, our Labrador.
Thy proud resources waiting still,
Their splendid task will soon fulfill,
Obedient to thy Maker's will,
Labrador, our Labrador.
We love to climb thy mountains steep,
Labrador, our Labrador.
And paddle on thy waters deep,
Labrador, our Labrador.
Our snowshoes scar thy trackless plains,
We seek no city streets nor lanes,
We are thy sons while life remains,
Labrador, our Labrador.
SPEAKER: I'm now going to ask the hon. the Member for Ferryland to have some of the last words of this session.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SPEAKER: I will ask him to lead us in the “Ode to Newfoundland,” Sir.
L. O'DRISCOLL: Come on Joedy, start her up.
When sun rays crown thy pine clad hills,
And summer spreads her hand,
When silvern voices tune thy rills,
We love thee, smiling land.
We love thee, we love thee,
We love thee, smiling land.
As loved our fathers, so we love,
Where once they stood, we stand;
Their prayer we raise to Heaven above,
God guard thee, God guard thee,
God guard thee, God guard thee,
God guard thee, Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
S. CROCKER: Thank you very much, Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Premier, that this House do now adjourn until the call of the Chair.
SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'
Motion carried.
This House do stand adjourned until the call of the Chair
On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.