November 8, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 31
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, and I'd like to move, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources, the following motion:
WHEREAS
in accordance with section 39 of the House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has recommended to this hon. House that
the Member for Terra Nova be reprimanded for violating Principles 2 and 11 of
the Members' Code of Conduct;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs with the findings
and recommendations of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and asks that
the Member for Terra Nova stand in his place in this House and apologize to this
Assembly for his failure and violation as cited by the report of the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
standing here today to speak to a motion that we don't often see in this House,
but we have seen it in the past. In doing so, I've drawn some wisdom actually
from the words from a former Government House Leader, who, when I spoke on the
other side, actually brought in a similar type motion, and I thought he did a
very good job, after reading the remarks. I thought it was a very plain, human
attempt at explaining the job that we all do here in this House and the
expectations that we're held to.
In many
cases, I will be referencing some of the words that he said because I look at it
today and I think that, basically, it worked for that situation and it will work
for this situation that we're dealing with here today. I certainly won't be
long. I know Members on the other side will also get an opportunity to speak to
this resolution. Again, this is all in reference to a report that was filed by
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Mr. Chaulk, on May 30, 2017 as it
relates to the Member for Terra Nova.
I think
that if anybody has not had an opportunity to review that report, they certainly
can do so. My understanding is that it is available online. It is a public
document, so people can read basically the genesis, the start, middle and end of
this situation, which I guess today is actually the end of this situation.
I think
also that, in doing so, this is a matter that has been dealt with very openly,
very transparently. It was dealt with not just by Members of this House, but
yesterday we were in this House dealing with a resolution as it related to an
independent statutory office of this House. Well, the matter we're dealing with
today comes from an independent statutory office of the House, that being the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
Without
rehashing everything, I think the report does a good job of laying out in great
detail the situation that we're dealing with, which is the conduct of the Member
for Terra Nova – who, I would note, and it is stated actually in the report,
that the Member has been quite responsive and quite co-operative in dealing with
this matter; was open to any discussion. I would also note it states very
clearly in there that the Member has mitigated the situation by very openly
apologizing publicly on a couple of occasions now.
Basically, what we're here for today is to talk about the fact that this motion
is in the House and that there's a duty to this House from the Members of this
House. I guess one of the things I'd like to say is that we all know that it's
sort of a balance here that, as Members, we are all held to a very high
standard, to a code. The fact is we are all human. We are human; we're not
different than the people that we represent, that give us the luxury, the
benefit, responsibility and the privilege of serving in this House.
So while
knowing that we are the same as those we represent, that we are basically the
representative of those people, at the same time once you take office, once you
take this seat, it carries with it a responsibility that does place you in a
different position than those that you represent. And it's a responsibility that
we all take very seriously.
I would
also note that I think that burden, that responsibility, may even be greater in
the fact – again, I have nothing to back this up than just my own belief. Given
that we have a province that's quite small, 500,000, the fact is we're a very
close-knit province. So, in fact, the role is maybe more elevated than in other
jurisdictions where there are so many more people. Really, we are a small
province. When something hits one of us, it hits all of us.
People
are well known in this province on every level. It doesn't matter if it's just
politics, if it's the arts or if its sports, we are a small, close-knit
community – 500,000 – but the fact is that we all do feel like family. I say
that because when it comes to Members of this House, when we talk about that
standard, the fact is that there's a higher visibility for Members of this House
of Assembly.
The
issue that we're talking about, there is a Code of Conduct that guides our
actions as Members. It's quite clearly stated in the report filed by Mr. Chaulk
that the Member for Terra Nova has violated those principles. The motion that we
are dealing with here today says quite clearly: (a) there is a violation of
Principles 2 and 11 and, therefore, the Member should be reprimanded.
What we
are moving today, we're moving a resolution that this House concur with the
findings of Mr. Chaulk, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, and that the
Member stand in the House and apologize to the Assembly for the violation as
cited by the Commissioner.
What I
can state is that all Members of government will be supporting this motion.
Again, the Member has taken the opportunity, I think, very publicly and
apologized for the actions. I'm hoping today that he will also take the
opportunity to stand today and apologize to this House and apologize to the
individual in question.
I'm
going to quote, or maybe paraphrase the former Government House Leader who,
again, I had an opportunity to review the words. One of the things that he says
here is that we all recognize the standards that we live by. We all recognize
the fact that there is close scrutiny on our actions, on what we do. We all
realize that we can very clearly make mistakes, but in being human, that's
normal. We know we will make mistakes, but the big thing is to acknowledge those
and to apologize, to put yourself – basically, to restore that faith. Doing that
very publicly I think is the way to do that.
What I
would also note, if you read the report, the Commissioner clearly states this is
something that all Members should think about. This is something that could
happen to any single Member at any single time. Basically, the report is very
specific, but at the same time serves as a cautionary tale to us all, to take
greater heed in how we exercise our judgment, especially as it relates to
something that the House is quite familiar with.
When we
talk about things like social media, when we talk about things like electronic
communications, it is very easy for context to be lost and for a message that we
thought we were conveying, to be lost in there. Either way, the main thing here,
even when it is a mistake, is to acknowledge our actions, to take that
responsibility.
Again,
going back to the former Government House Leader, who at the time, the same as I
do today, assumed the House would support the motion. He had hoped for three
things. First, the Member would stand in place, do as the motion asks, and
apologize and accept responsibility. I hoped for the same thing, Mr. Speaker.
Secondly, all of us in this House, aside from the Member for Terra Nova, but all
of us can look at the situation, to learn and to use this to guide us as we move
forward as elected representatives of the people of this province. And finally,
hopefully it serves as a recognition that even though we serve as politicians,
there is a greater expectation that we are all very human. I think sometimes we
need to get that message out that we are going to make mistakes. Certainly, I
can guarantee that I make them on a daily basis, but when you do, the job is to
recognize that and to apologize, to make amends for what you have done.
In
saying that, I think it is very important that we acknowledge the wrongdoing
that was done. I think that is being done. I think the apology will hopefully
speak to that.
I will
conclude my remarks at this time, and I will sit and listen to the Members for
the other side as we move forward in this resolution.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
thanks for the comments from the Government House Leader. A little bit later in
my commentary, I will respond to a couple of the comments he made. I appreciate
him standing here today and bringing forward this motion.
Mr.
Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly, we are governed by a Code of
Conduct. The Code of Conduct is a document that codifies and lays out principles
that ought to govern our actions as elected Members in this House of Assembly,
not only while we're in the House of Assembly, but at all times.
As the
Member opposite, the Government House Leader just mentioned, he used the words:
We are all human. We are all human, very human. None of us are perfect, but we
also have to abide by a standard that is acceptable to the people who we are
elected to serve. We can't simply allow being human to be an excuse to keep us
from respecting those standards of the offices we hold. In this particular case,
it is this process that holds us to this standard.
The
debate we're having today stems from an interaction between one of the Members
of our House, the Member for Terra Nova, and one of the Member's own
constituents. It didn't occur here in the House. I'm going to talk a little bit
about the House a little bit later as well, but it happened outside the House.
The Code of Conduct, as I mentioned, goes beyond the walls of the House of
Assembly, goes beyond the precinct of the House.
The
constituent here also happens to be an elected official – an elected official in
our province, the Mayor of St. Brendan's, Veronica Broomfield, a duly elected
mayor, elected to represent her own constituents, with a responsibility to her
own constituents, to people who elected her.
In a
letter to the three party leaders here in this House that was dated January 2,
2017, Mayor Broomfield alleged that she had been mistreated by her own MHA, the
Member for Terra Nova. In that letter she specifically stated, and I quote: I
can say with all confidence that I have never been treated with such disregard
and partisan intimidation. She alleged the Member for Terra Nova, rather than
stand with the mayor to advocate for certain public services for his own
constituents, instead reminded the mayor that she had not voted for him.
Mr.
Speaker, this was also addressed by the Commissioner, the office of Commissioner
for Legislative Standards, who independently reviewed this. The review was
initiated on January 12 when I, as leader of our party, as the Opposition
Leader, wrote the office of Commissioner for Legislative Standards and requested
he review the matter that had been brought forward by Mayor Broomfield as a
breach of the Code of Conduct by the Member, the same Code of Conduct that I
referred to earlier.
Mr.
Speaker, I did that because under current rules it is only a Member of the House
who can ask for that to happen. So we have a citizen of the province who's an
elected individual, officially elected to an official office in our province as
mayor, who had brought this to the attention of all three party leaders, asked
for assistance and direction and so on, and I felt it appropriate to send it on
because that's the process we have. A Member of the House has to make that
request to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
Mr.
Speaker, the issue at hand went beyond just simply saying that the mayor had not
voted for him, because he had also publicly denied and continued for some time
to deny that he had made the commentary. So it wasn't just a single lack of
judgement at a momentary moment in time, because that can happen. It can happen,
as the Government House Leader had said, where we are all human.
Sometimes here in the House under the heat of debate we say things that we
regret saying as soon as it rolls off our lips. Sometimes we do it when we are
standing in front of a camera or in front of a group of people or having a
conversation one on one. But in this case, the denial occurred following that
with some vigour.
The Code
of Conduct of Members of the House of Assembly states, and I quote: “Members of
this House of Assembly recognize that we are responsible to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and will responsibly execute our official duties in
order to promote the human, environmental and economic welfare of Newfoundland
and Labrador.”
The Code
states: “Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the institution
of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public trust placed
in us by performing our duties with accessibility, accountability, courtesy,
honesty and integrity.”
Principle 2 of the Code of Conduct, and there are 12 principles actually laid
out in the Code. Principle 2 states: “It is a fundamental objective of their
holding public office that Members serve their fellow citizens with integrity in
order to improve the economic and social conditions of the people of the
province.”
Principle 11 of the Code states: “Members should promote and support these
principles by leadership and example.”
Mr.
Speaker, in his report following his review of the matter, dated May 30, 2017,
regarding his investigation into the Member for Terra Nova, the Commissioner
concluded that the Member violated these two principles, Principle 2 and
Principle 11, of the Code of Conduct.
The
Commissioner's decision was based not just on the exchange with the mayor, but
also on the conversation between the Member for Terra Nova and VOCM
Backtalk radio host, Pete Soucy, on
December 13, 2016 where they discussed
the text message from the Member to the mayor.
This is
what the Commissioner described as what he found. He said when one examines the
conduct – and he named the Member, referring to the Member for Terra Nova. When
one examines the conduct of the Member in its entirety, it is clear that he
missed an opportunity to clarify the message exchanged between Mr. Soucy on VOCM
Backtalk. Rather than taking the
opportunity to be direct, forthright and to the point, his actions left the
impression that the message had not been sent.
In his
report, he actually has a transcript of some of that exchange. Mr. Soucy asked
the MHA for Terra Nova: Did you ever remind the Mayor of St. Brendan's, Veronica
Broomfield, that she did not vote for you? And the Member responded: No, I mean,
the mayor and I have constant communication even when I was seeking election.
Mr.
Soucy said: She said point blank that she asked you something and you reminded
her that she did not vote for you. And the Member responded: No, I can tell you
that we've had a tenuous relationship right from day one; you know, I've been in
office a year.
A little
bit later, Mr. Soucy said: But I wanted to know, and you're saying it never
happened. She said, you know, she was told or reminded that she hadn't voted for
you in the last election, whatever that would imply. And the Member said: Yeah.
So it
went beyond just that exchange on a text message where the Member, no doubt,
erred, human error, but went on to defend it and deny it beyond that.
While
it's acknowledged that the Member acted appropriately in issuing an apology to
his constituents and clarifying the matter on January 4, the distinct impression
that remained following the VOCM interview was the text message had not been
sent. That's the commentary from the Commissioner.
The
question was asked directly to the MHA, and he could have responded in the
affirmative and explained the entire context of the text conversation as he did
during submissions to the Commissioner. What the Commissioner is pointing out is
that when he came into the Commissioner, he said: Well, here's my explanation of
what happened. He had that opportunity to do that on public radio with Mr.
Soucy, but didn't do so. However, by choosing to respond in the manner in which
he did, he did cause unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, in another quote
from the Commissioner.
The
Commissioner referred to Principle 2. He said, “Principle 2 of the Code of
Conduct states that it is a fundamental objective of their holding public office
that Members serve their fellow citizens with integrity in order to improve the
economic and social conditions of the people of the province. Acting with
integrity requires individuals to be forthright, candid and honest in carrying
out their role as a member of the House of Assembly with honour and dignity.”
He went
on to say, and referred to the MHA: acted honourably in issuing an apology to
his constituents on January 4, 2017 – an apology on January 4, which actually
was an apology issued to his constituents; “… this was only necessary as a
result of the manner in which he had previously acted in sending the text
message and then failing to be absolutely candid and direct when the issue arose
during the radio broadcast.”
The
Commissioner also referenced in his conclusion, he said, and I quote: “It is my
conclusion that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that”–
and he names the MHA – “failed to act with integrity during the VOCM radio
interview by failing to clarify any misunderstanding regarding his sending of
the text message despite having the opportunity to do so throughout the
interview.”
My point
for bringing that up again, Mr. Speaker, is there were two issues here: one was
the commentary to the mayor that she hadn't voted for him; secondly, denying
that he had made those comments when he had the opportunity to clarify it on
public radio.
The
Commissioner continued on regarding Principle 11. He says, and again I quote:
“Principle 11 of the Code of Conduct states that 'Members should promote
and support these principles by leadership and example.' Having found that …” –
he names the MHA – “violated Principle 2, in my opinion …” – he names the MHA
again – “also violated Principle 11, by failing to lead by example. In failing
to appropriately address the text message exchange during the radio interview …”
– the MHA – “was acting less than forthright and candid and caused his integrity
to be called into question. In doing so he failed to support the principles in
the Code of Conduct by leadership and example.”
The Commissioner in the end made the following
recommendations. “In the particular circumstances of this case it is my
recommendation that the member be reprimanded pursuant to s. 39(1)(a) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act for violating
Principles 2 and 11 of the Code of Conduct. In addition, while it is recognized
that my jurisdiction to make recommendations is limited to the penalties
enumerated in s.39, some consideration should be given by MHA …” – and he names
him – “to making a formal apology to the Mayor of St. Brendan's in the
legislature.” I believe the reason why that's there is because that has not been
done, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the Commissioner's decision, we respect the
Commissioner's decision and his recommended course of action, but just a couple
of closing comments, if I may, because the reality is the actions of any Member
in this House of Assembly reflects on us all. That's the reality.
People
quite often do not draw partisan lines between who said what to whom and when
and how, but how every one of us acts in this House, in this Legislature, or how
we act in our own constituencies, or how we act throughout our province,
anywhere in our province, be it in or outside of our own constituencies or for
anywhere, reflects on each and every one of us, if it be in a formal setting, a
social setting or otherwise. We should always be considerate of that.
Mr.
Speaker, I fully agree that sometimes here in this House, and Question Period is
an example of it, speaker after speaker, and yourself included, Mr. Speaker,
have commented many, many times on decorum and conduct here in this House. We
know during Question Period it's very easy to get carried away when people start
finger pointing, you did this and you did that. It does happen on both sides of
the House, and it's not new to just this General Assembly. It has happened
before.
We have
to be cognizant as well of how cynical people quite often are. Looking at us in
a cynical way means quite often, and it's described and defined as, well,
they're only looking after themselves. They're only looking out for their own
self-interest. I think in this case, that's what happened. After the exchange
occurred, the MHA was looking after himself by saying no, it didn't happen;
until the text messages were produced.
Just
this week, Mr. Speaker, in this House we've had in two days of sitting – and we
know when the sitting starts, generally speaking, they're more cordial and
co-operative and so on. As time goes on and we sit here, sitting across the
aisle from each other, things get a little more stressed and testy and so on,
and that's the nature of the House of Assembly. That's the nature of where we
are, but in our first and second day of sitting in our fall session here, we've
had three different occurrences where comments were questioned by Members of the
House, or conduct had been questioned by Members of the House of other Members.
Three times in just two days commentary was being addressed or asked to be
addressed. Again, my belief is that reflects upon us all.
Mr.
Speaker, while the Commissioner is limited in his abilities, Members brought
forward the recommendation consistent with what the Commissioner has decided. As
I said, we respect the Commissioner's decision and his recommendation and course
of action, but I believe it's worthy for us all to consider the impact on all of
us over this matter.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a year later since this incident actually occurred. In a full
year, I've not heard the Member for Terra Nova issue an apology publicly or
directly to the mayor of Saint Brendan's, even though the report has been issued
since May and there have been lots of opportunity.
We saw
here the Members of the House in the last couple of days – we saw an incident
yesterday where a Member rose and very quickly realized the error and thanked
for it to be pointed out. I know very sincerely, stood very quickly and
apologized. Thanked for it to be pointed out, withdrew it and apologized very
sincerely.
I think
it speaks to how we should consider conducting ourselves. I appreciate what the
Member did yesterday when that occurred. That was it. It was over and moved on,
but here we are with this circumstance a year later.
Mr.
Speaker, I just make those closing comments because we're going to be sitting
here for the next several weeks. No doubt, the temperature is going to continue
to increase and you'll have to remind Members again and deal with those types of
activities, but I hope they're kept to a minimum by all Members, including
myself. I'm guilty of it as well as anybody of sometimes getting caught in the
heat of debate and so on.
On this
very matter that is here before us today, we're here because of a recommendation
by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards who has reviewed matters from
about a year ago now that took place between a Member of the House of Assembly
and a constituent. The Commissioner has made recommendations and we respect the
Commissioner's recommendations and the course of action recommended by him.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.
I don't
know if I should say I'm pleased to stand and speak today, but I'm glad to have
the opportunity to stand and speak to a serious motion that was put here on the
floor today. That motion, of course – and I'll just repeat it again – has to do
with a recommendation from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards regarding
the conduct of the Member for Terra Nova.
The
finding of the Commissioner is that two principles of the Code of Conduct of the
Members of the House of Assembly have been violated. Both the Government House
Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition have gone through, in detail,
about that; I'm not going to, once again, go through the whole series of events
that occurred.
The main
part of the report that has come from the Commissioner is the whole series of
things that happened, both things that happened in the public media that we are
used to, two things that happened in social media, et cetera. The events that
led up to where we are today are all spelled out very clearly in the
Commissioner's report. Anybody who has been listening to the last 10-15 minutes
has heard that gone through.
I think
it is really important that we have a process in our system that allows for an
external review of our behaviour as a Member of the House of Assembly. So that
what we're being asked to do here today is not to decide whether or not there
was a violation – and I think that would be something that would be a difficult
thing for Members of the House to do because we all would be in some kind of a
conflict of interest. What we're being asked to do today is to accept a
recommendation from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
I think
those of us who have been here in the House for as long as I have – there is
only one other who has been here longer than me. Whether you're new or if you've
been around for a long time, I think we all know that the position for the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards is a very serious one, and in my
experience we have always had people in that position who are ethical, objective
and who make ruling that are based on fact.
So what
we are being asked to do here today is to accept the recommendation from the
Commissioner. The recommendation is that the Member for Terra Nova stand in his
place in this House and apologize to this Assembly for his failure and violation
as cited by the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I would
say I think that is the least that should happen.
Why
stand here in this House? It has been pointed out that through social media, on
his Facebook, the Member for Terra Nova publicly apologized. I would like to
think that he did more than that on a personal level with Mayor Broomfield. Who
knows?
But why
here in this House? Because what we do, what I do, both in this House and
outside this House, affects every other Member. It affects the perception of who
we are as Members of the House of Assembly. It affects the perception of us as
politicians. So yes, everybody in this House is owed an apology when one of us
brings shame on all of us, because that's what happens.
I'm sure
I'm not the only one who has had insults thrown at them because they are a
politician. I have had that happen, and it's not very pleasant. I may have used
it as an example once before when we had a ruling like this in the House. I have
a feeling I did, but I'm going to do it again.
Standing
in line in the supermarket one evening, a very tall man in front of me, all of a
sudden he starts looking around and sniffing, sniffing, sniffing and looked down
at me and said oh, I thought I smelled a politician. Now, we can laugh at that,
but if that's the perception that people out there have of us as politicians,
how are they going to take seriously what we do here in this House? I think
that's what we have to be looking at as politicians; that's what we have to be
looking at as Members.
We call
it an hon. House. Well, then we have to look at what it means to be honourable.
Yes, I think it is absolutely right that the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards has said that the Member for Terra Nova has to apologize to this
House. I hope that we all, especially the Member himself, will recognize how
important that is.
It's not
pleasant what we've been through, but we did not have to make the judgment. I'm
so happy that it was the Commissioner that has made the ruling. It's the
Commissioner that went through all of the details, all of the information that
he has outlined in his report. It is the Commissioner who has determined, and
very fairly, that two of the codes have been violated, but two others have not
been violated.
I think
that's an important point to point out. I think it also speaks to how well the
Commissioner looked at the issues and how objectively he made his decision. He
says: “However, it is recognized that MHA Holloway issued an apology on his
Facebook page on January 4, 2017 in an effort to clarify the matter and to
reassure the residents of St. Brendan's that they will get the representation
they require and deserve…. In my opinion, such conduct is a mitigating factor
against the recommendation of a severe or harsh penalty in the circumstances of
this case.”
He goes
on: “I am not prepared to make a finding that MHA Holloway violated Principles 3
or 4 of the Code of Conduct. There is absolutely no evidence of political
corruption or illegality.”
So 2 and
11, yes, because there is absolutely no doubt in the Commissioner's mind, and
certainly no doubt in my mind, that the Member did go against the principles of
good conduct that we recognize here in this House.
I just
ask of the Member that when he stands to apologize – because I would imagine he
is going to do that – that he do it with the recognition of what he has done,
not just to his own reputation with his constituents in his district, but what
he has done for all of us by his behaviour because it does affect each and every
one of us.
So, yes,
I will be going along with the Commissioner's recommendation and I look forward
to a resolution.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly acknowledge the findings of the report of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards and I do stand in my place in this House and apologize to
every Member of this House, and also to Mayor Broomfield. It was an error in
judgement and it shall never happen again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 20.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the MHA for Stephenville – Port au Port, that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, 2009, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 20 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.”
(Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
I am pleased to stand today
to speak to the amendment to Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act,
2009.
Mr.
Speaker, before I speak to the amendment specifically, I would like to highlight
the importance of bringing issues like this to the forefront. It provides an
opportunity for many of us to learn about the struggles that the LGBTQ community
continues to face on a daily basis and challenges each of us to think of ways we
can contribute to the full acceptance of all persons in our society.
Here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, throughout Canada and around the world, the LGBTQ
community continues to face discrimination in many forms. This discrimination is
directed at members of the community for many reasons, one of which is gender
diversity.
Through
these experiences of discrimination and violence, this global community has come
to know adversity. While this adversity can sometimes feel overwhelming, the
community has also gained remarkable strength and courage. Despite the unkind
and sometimes violent experiences individuals are often subject to, the LGBTQ
community's main message continues to be those of love and acceptance.
If we
are to move forward as a society, it is important that we all recognize that
tolerance alone is not enough. Everyone in our society deserves full acceptance
regardless of sexual orientation, gender diversity, race, colour or religion. No
one should ever have to worry about being judged or harassed because they
identify somewhere on the gender spectrum other than exclusively male or female.
Mr.
Speaker, our government believes in equality for everyone and we respect the
diversity of all individuals. It is important that we remain progressive and
continue to empower people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities
and gender expressions. That is why in September of this year we adopted the
policy to allow for a change of sex designation on a birth certificate from
female or male to non-binary.
While
the change in policy permitted individuals to choose an X on their birth
certificate, the requirement to submit a statement from a medical professional
prior to a change in sex designation for those 16 years of age and older
remained in place. I committed at that time to introduce legislation during this
sitting of the House of Assembly to amend the
Vital Statistics Act to have this requirement removed. Our
government has honoured this commitment and today we have the opportunity to
debate this amendment to the act.
Children
aged 12 to 15 will still require a parent to apply on their behalf and consent
of the child is also required, along with a letter from a health professional.
For children under 12, a parent can apply, along with a notarized application
and two notes from health professionals. The amendment only applies to those
aged 16 and older.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important to highlight the fact that information pertaining to
the sex of individuals will continue to be collected at birth. This will allow
us to maintain vital data that is valuable for a population. Statistics Canada
collects demographic information annually from provincial and territorial vital
statistic agencies on all live births in Canada. This is collected through the
birth registration process.
Birth
information from the agencies is stored in the Canadian Vital Statistics birth
database and includes such information as the date, the place of birth, the
child's sex, the birth weight, the gestational age, the parent's ages, the
marital status and the birth place, and whether the birth is a single or
multiple birth.
There
are important differences between the biology and the health of the male and
female sex. As a result, sex – a biological characteristic – is a key variable
that is used by Statistics Canada for a variety of purposes. For example, when
producing statistical information, Statistics Canada routinely breaks down
statistics based on sex. Gender, however, is not recorded in the birth database.
If a
provincial or territorial Vital Statistics agency stopped the process of
collecting infant sex data, it would prevent Statistics Canada from producing a
range of key statistics and indicators based on sex, which are needed to inform
public policies and programs and evidence-based decision making. The information
gathered by Statistics Canada is used to generate population estimates and
projections, confirm census data, and monitor any health inequalities which
exist between the sexes and confirm data obtained from other sources.
We can
clearly see how important this information is for decisions such as those around
medication or treatments that may differ for each sex, how we are doing in terms
of gender equity across the country, as well as informing government policies
and programs.
Mr.
Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't speak to the tremendous effort of
activist of Gemma Hickey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Gemma brought this issue
forward. Gemma filed an application in Supreme Court in June 2017 which
challenged the Vital Statistics Act
under the Canadian Human Rights Act
and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
As I
said earlier, it is very important that we remain progressive as a government
and continue to recognize individuals with diverse sexual orientations, gender
identities and expressions. We are happy to address this matter through a change
in policy. Today, we are further addressing the matter with this amendment by
removing the requirement for a note from a medical professional for those 16
years of age and older.
Mr.
Speaker, when this amendment to the legislation is made, the process for issuing
gender-neutral birth certificates for those 16 and over will still require the
applicant to fill out an application, have it notarized by a Notary Public and
pay the $35 fee, or $30 if you do it online. However, as I stated earlier, the
requirement for a note from a medical professional will be removed.
In
October, Mr. Speaker, we also introduced new, more secure driver's licences for
our province. Individuals who qualify for a gender-neutral birth certificate in
our province can also avail of a gender-neutral driver's licence, one of the
many improvements under our new driver's licence being rolled out this fall.
Mr.
Speaker, as you can see, bringing this amendment forward is part of our
government's continuing efforts to embrace and celebrate the diversity of all
people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador will now join
others to allow for the option of a gender-neutral birth certificate. Alberta,
Yukon and Northwest Territories recently passed legislation to provide
non-binary birth certificates. The Yukon does not require a supporting letter
from a designated professional. This is a positive and progressive step forward,
and we expect the other provinces and territories will move in this direction in
the near future.
As I
have stated previously in this hon. House, it is important that we constantly
review and amend all legislation to ensure it is meeting the needs of the people
of our province. I am pleased that we are here today to debate this amendment to
the Vital Statistics Act.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to stand here today as a representative from the Opposition
Party, and I have to congratulate the minister and I will congratulate
government, because this is a proud day for all legislators in this House of
Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's people like Gemma Hickey
that we need in our society. It's people that will speak for others and go the
extra mile to make sure we're all treated fairly and equally. I'm sure that
everybody in this House of Assembly will applaud Gemma's great advocacy for
people with gender equality.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to reiterate most of the stuff the minister said and the
procedure that was done. Gemma took this to the Supreme Court under the Charter
of Rights and the Canadian human rights and fought it vigorously. The government
listened, and I applaud the government for doing that.
On
September 17, Service NL issued a release saying the provincial government would
bring in legislation this fall, and they have, to change sexual designation on
birth certificates from female or male to non-binary. That's so important. We
all agree in this House that it's important.
Again,
the Vital Statistics Act that
we're at here today, I'm sure everybody in this House of Assembly will agree
with what's being done here today. It's a great move. Just looking at the
legislation itself, Bill 20, the Vital
Statistics Act, will remove – and what it does is removes the medical
professionals prior to a change of designation for persons 16 years and over.
Children at the age from 12 to 15 will still require
parents to apply on their behalf and the consent of the child also; but,
according to the department, information pertaining to sex of individuals will
continue to be collected at birth and under the act.
Just to say that the Official Opposition supports this 100
per cent. Again, we want to thank Gemma Hickey for advocating.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. LETTO: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, equality and respect for the diversity of all
individuals are important values for the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is why it is an honour to stand here in the House of Assembly
today to speak to such an important piece of legislation.
I guess what I'm about to say has probably been said by the
minister and the Member for Cape St. Francis, but I just want to add my voice to
this very important piece of legislation because this is groundbreaking. We're
leading the country in being proactive and being forward looking in what society
is today and what it needs to be today.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments for the
Vital Statistics Act, 2009, allow for a change of sex designation on
a birth certificate from
female or male to non-binary for those 16 years of age or older without a note
from a medical professional. In terms of children 12 to 15, the changes to the
act will still require a parent to apply on their behalf and consent of the
child is also required.
Mr.
Speaker, I, too, join the minister and the Member for Cape St. Francis in
thanking activist Gemma Hickey for the work they have done to move this piece of
legislation forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
I'm so proud, Mr. Speaker, I
will speak from a personal note. One of the people who helped Gemma on their way
to this is a relative of mine. I won't name names, but she knows who she is and
Gemma knows who she is. I'm very proud here today to stand and to know that
people are starting to see the real world, what society is today and, like I
said, what it needs to be. To be with Gemma on their journey certainly makes me
proud as a relative of that family member.
Our
government recently introduced a new, more secure driver's licence for residents
of our province. Individuals who qualify for a gender-neutral birth certificate
may also avail of a gender-neutral driver's licence. As the previous members
have said, in September 2017, the change in policy permitted individuals to
choose an X on their birth certificate; however, the requirement to submit a
statement from a medical professional prior to a change in sex designation for
those 16 years of age and older remain in place.
Information pertaining to the sex of an individual will continue to be collected
at birth after amendments to the act have been made, in an effort to maintain
data that is valuable for our population.
Personal
health service decisions and gender-aggregated data is important for informing
government policy and programs such as that related to medications or treatments
that differ for each sex. When appearances don't match images displayed on an
identification card, people do endure insults and psychological trauma that
could be easily averted if provided with an option that does not contradict who
they are. You hear stories of people being harassed and even insulted after
presenting IDs that do not meet the gender identified on that ID.
What
this amendment does, Mr. Speaker, is remove some of the democratic red tape
involved in this process allowing individuals to simply identify in the way they
want to be identified. This is another positive step that we, as a government,
are taking to ensure inclusion for everyone. Today, Mr. Speaker, being an
inclusive society is something we should all thrive and aspire to accomplish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
I am very proud to see our
government showing leadership and I'm very proud of the minister for putting
this forward, and certainly I know she does it with all sincerity. We, as a
government – and I'm glad to see the Opposition as well – are 100 per cent
behind her in this initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Identity is a very personal
thing for individuals and it is important that they choose for themselves how
they want to be identified. Not by somebody else, but by themselves. And I
think, Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are putting forward today achieves
that goal.
The
minister alluded to some of it, and I'll just be a couple of more minutes, but I
just want to say that of all the provinces and territories which had a
requirement for sex reassignment surgery and replaced it with a requirement for
a supporting letter from a designated professional, Newfoundland and Labrador
will be the first province in this country to eliminate the requirement for a
supporting letter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
And I am very proud of that,
Mr. Speaker.
Now,
three jurisdictions have recently passed legislation, and the minister alluded
to that. Alberta passed Bill 29 in December 2016 to provide for non-binary birth
certificates and maintained the requirement for a supporting letter from a
health professional.
The
Yukon passed Bill 5 in June 2017, which is not yet proclaimed, to provide for
gender-neutral birth certificates. The Yukon does not have a requirement for a
supporting letter from a designated professional, but that has not yet been
proclaimed.
The
Northwest Territories passed Bill 5 in November 2016, which is not yet
proclaimed, to provide for gender-neutral birth certificates and requirements
for a supporting letter from a designated professional as outlined in the
legislation.
So, Mr.
Speaker, again we are a forward-looking government. We realize what is required
in today's society and we are very proud as a government to be leading the way
in such an important piece of legislation that gives people in our society who
wish to do so to identify for themselves how they want to be identified.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, I thank the Opposition for their support and
I certainly thank Gemma Hickey and all the people who have worked with them to
make this possible. It is dedication and, I guess, compassion for people like
that which make things like this happen and that we become certainly a much more
inclusive society.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to this bill today. It's a time that we can all be very
proud. As you know, within the LGBTQ community and the two-spirited community,
we use the word “pride” as a way to designate the incredible work that we have
all done together. I would also like to extend that to our House here today that
we can all be proud of this legislation that is being presented before us.
There
was a time when women were not considered persons. That didn't change just
because legislators decided that should change; that changed because of the hard
work of women all across the country who pushed, who lobbied, who advocated, who
made speeches and who had rallies. It was hard work.
Then,
within our own lifetime – those of us here in the House of Assembly, most of us
within our own lifetime – there was a time when women were not protected in our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We had to work so hard to get clause 29 included
in our Charter that would protect women.
Human
rights do not come easily. They are not given to us; they are hard won. Our
human rights legislation is a living entity. Our
Human Rights Act must be a living document that reflects the
progress that we make as a society together. It is our responsibility here in
this House to ensure that all legislation aligns with our
Human Rights Act.
We often
do not initiate this work. This work is often initiated by activists, by people
who have a vested interest, by people who often make supreme personal sacrifice
to move our legislative agenda forward. People who have bared their souls
publicly, people who have bared their lives publicly, people who have put
themselves up for ridicule, people who have lost jobs, people who have lost
family members because of their commitment to justice and equality for all.
It is on
this basis that legislation like this is presented to the House. I think that
today we can celebrate the years of activism of those who were courageous to say
this must change. What we do here today is not only important for those who step
forward – and I would also like to commend Gemma Hickey for being passionate,
compassionate, dogged in their determination to push us to do the right thing in
this House because that's what it takes –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
It is so often not us as
legislators who are the leaders in making these kinds of changes. It is the
activists who push us to do this. Then it's even more sweet when we can actually
work together to make our legislation the best that it possibly can be for every
person in Newfoundland and Labrador, where no one is left behind.
It is a
good day here in our Legislature. There are a number of victories that have led
us to this moment. Our Human Rights Act
did not have protection for the LGBTQ community, and human rights activists put
themselves on the line. Teachers who, at the time, because of the way our
legislation was and particularly with our educational legislation, teachers who
could be fired because they were gay or lesbian put themselves on the line to
push to have our Human Rights Act
changed to include protection for lesbian and gay individuals, for lesbians and
gays.
It
didn't come easy. It took us years to get to that point. Then there was an issue
of same-sex marriage, and I'm very proud of how quickly our province responded
to that issue. Gemma Hickey was very much involved and very much a leader in
pushing for equality in marriage here in our province. I became a marriage
commissioner and this summer – and I remember it – after becoming a marriage
commissioner, as soon as the law changed, the first couple that I married were
two men: Wally, who had been waiting – he was in his 60s – for over 30 years to
marry his partner. I remember how special that wedding was.
I never
got married. I always said I wasn't the marrying kind; I was just the kind
'marrier.' But this summer, after a very brief courtship of 25 years, I married
my partner, Peg Norman, in a huge community celebration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
It is just, it is fairness
and it is equality.
I can
remember how hard – for years and years and years – for over 30 years we fought
and we worked for marriage equality. There was a threat that this would
dismantle the tradition of marriage. I am sure that the many gays and lesbians
who got married didn't cause the foundation of marriage to crumble. As a matter
of fact, we simply have more people married. Perhaps that's a good thing.
There
was a time when our Human Rights Act
did not include protection for gender identity and gender expression as it
related particularly for trans folks who are still the target of ridicule, still
the target of violence. We worked hard. Activists all over the province and all
over the country worked hard to include gender identity and gender expression in
our human rights legislation.
That,
too, is a good thing and we can be proud of that. We were one of the provinces
who were leaders in that area. I'm very proud of the work that we did here.
It was a
private Member's motion that I introduced. Is that important? I believe it is
because I am the first out politician elected to our House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
Perhaps not the only member
from the LGBTQ community, but the first out. I spoke, often publicly, about the
fact that I am a proud and happy lesbian who has been an activist for LGBTQ and
two-spirited folks.
Why is
that important? It is important for our youth. It is important for those who
have experienced ridicule, who have been rejected by their families, who have
been rejected by their churches that preach love and acceptance, who are still
rejected by their churches. It is important for those of us who are from that
community to be able to stand up, to identify ourselves and to strongly advocate
for the rights of all LGBTQ and two-spirited people. How important it is for our
allies to also do that because there is still work to be done.
Then, Ky
Rees, a young trans woman, took us to court as well for the right to change her
birth certificate. She had to go through the court procedure and that's tough.
She put herself out there publicly and on the line. Many trans folks go through
the transitioning period and want to live simply as who they are and continue on
in their private life, but Ky put herself forward publicly.
Thankfully, we changed that before it had to go to court. That's a good thing,
but we sure had to be pushed. Then, to have the bill that is before us today,
again because of the many non-binary folks who are saying: This is how I
identify myself. They have pushed us and Gemma has pushed us to this point and
it is a good thing.
The
wonderful thing about this is, because of all the victories that have come
before, the animosity is no longer there. Governments and political parties are
more willing and more open to work with activists to do the right thing.
There is
still more work to be done. There is a lot of work to be done in our educational
system because there is very little about the accomplishments of folks from the
LGBTQ and two-spirited community in any of our history books, in any of our
literature. There may be contributors who are from that community, but they're
not identified.
It's so
important. It's so incredibly important. There's still bullying going on in our
schools, but we can take pride in the work that is being done in our schools to
do a safe and caring school policy. I've had the privilege of speaking at a
number of gay-straight alliances in schools all over the province. How important
that is for our young people.
There
was a time when gays and lesbians were lobotomized. That's how society dealt
with gays and lesbians. There are still countries where gays and lesbians can be
executed or imprisoned, so we still have a lot of work to do to instill a spirit
of pride in our young people.
This
kind of legislation is so very important. Again, these protections do not come
easily. Laws don't necessarily change hearts, but at least what they do is they
give protection. That's what we are doing here.
There
are many, many victories for the LGBTQ and two-spirited community, but those
victories are also for all people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all benefit
to have a more inclusive community, to have legislation that is inclusive to all
people in the province. It's a victory for all people in the province.
I, of
course, and my colleague from St. John's East – Quidi Vidi will be voting in
support of this legislation. We want to acknowledge, again, the hard work by
activists throughout the ages, many who have put themselves on the line and many
who have sacrificed in order to bring us to this point.
I am
very happy, also, about some of the particular amendments, policies and
regulations that will follow through on this. Gemma Hickey said so very clearly
around choosing the designation on their birth certificate: I am 40 years old
and I don't need a doctor to tell me who I am. I am sure that every person here
in this House of Assembly can understand what that means.
I would
also like to point out it was announced yesterday that Danica Roem, a trans
woman, just won an election and is elected to the Virginia legislature, and
Virginia not necessarily known as very progressive.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. ROGERS:
New Zealand very proudly had
the first trans politician elected and her name was Georgie. New Zealand was
very proud of Georgie. She was Georgie girl. Perhaps one day we, too, will have
the privilege of having a trans person sitting here in this House of Assembly
and that we, too, will have a person who designates as non-binary here in this
House of Assembly.
Again,
thank you to my colleagues, the government, who has worked hard and with
openness and with the true sense of protection of human rights on this
legislation. Thank you for moving quickly on this; be proud. And I'd like to
thank all those within the departments who are responsible for working on this
bill, for the great work that is being done, and I am sure there'll be much
celebrating today in the LGBTQ two-spirited community.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have
to say, I stand here in this hon. House today with great pride for the bill that
we are about to bring forward, for the bill we are now debating certainly.
It was
very heartwarming to listen to my colleague from St. John's Centre and to hear
her stories of the significant strides that have been made by the LGBT community
and how we need to be ever vigilant that there's still much more work to be
done. Today is a significant step forward and one that I'm very proud to be a
part of the House of Assembly and standing to vote in support of as we go
through the various stages of this bill.
Many
people have referred to Gemma in their speeches as they got up to speak today. I
was first selected back in 2007, so like my colleague from what used to be
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. PERRY:
– St. John's East has stated,
I'm getting a bit long in the tooth probably in terms of my tenure here in the
House of Assembly, but Gemma was one of the very first people I met when I came
to St. John's in politics. They have always inspired me. They continue to
inspire me today and they give me great courage. I think because of their
leadership – Gemma is a real trailblazer – we as a Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador are now leading – because of Gemma's leadership, we are now leading the
way across the entire country.
My
colleague from St. John's Centre said she hopes that one day we will see a
person of transgender sitting here in the House, and I truly hope we see that in
the very near future. In fact, I'd love to see Gemma Hickey run. I think they'd
be a great asset to this House, and there are a lot of issues we have to take
on.
My
colleague also referred to bullying. That's a huge issue, I do believe, that we
have yet to tackle, both here in this House of Assembly and throughout the
province as a whole. I look forward to continuing to be trailblazers in these
kinds of initiatives.
I'm
going to talk a little bit now in terms of an overview of amendments that this
Bill 20 will bring forward. Bill 20 amends the
Vital Statistics Act to remove
the requirement to submit a statement from a medical professional prior to a
change in sex designation for those 16 years of age and older. Children aged 12
to 15 still require a parent to apply on their behalf, and consent of the child
is also required.
According to the department, information pertaining to the
sex of an individual will continue to be collected at birth after the amendments
of the act have been made in an effort to maintain vital data that is valuable
for our population. Personal health service decisions and gender-aggregated data
is important for informing government policy and programs such as those related
to medications or treatments that differ for each sex.
That's basically an overview of the amendments we're going
to see brought forward in Bill 20. Like I said when I stood up to speak, I am so
very proud to be a part of the Legislature that is bringing this bill forward,
the first of its kind in the country. I'm not going to speak very long to the
bill except to say: Kudos! Bravo!
My colleague for St. John's Centre, I'll borrow her term
for a second: Bravo to all of you. Congratulations to all of you. It's been a
long, hard-fought battle. Keep up the great work.
We look forward to seeing more initiatives come forward
that are trail-blazing. I'm very pleased to stand in support of this bill.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm certainly pleased to stand here today and speak in
favour of the amendments to the Vital
Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 20. Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to
recognizing individuals with diverse sexual orientation, gender identities and
gender expressions. Non-binary birth certificates are an important part of our
government's effort.
Mr. Speaker, equality and respect for diversity of all
individuals are important values for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
and for all residents in this province.
In specific terms, the amendments proposed today are
twofold. In the first instance, it allows for the change of sex designation on a
birth certificate from female or male to non-binary for those individuals who
are 16 years of age and older without the requirement of a note from a medical
professional. Secondly, the amendments proposed today also
includes that in terms of
children between the ages of 12 and 15 years, there will be a requirement by a
parent to apply on behalf of the child and to have the consent of the child for
the designation change.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is progressive in its thinking. Throughout our vision
document, The Way Forward, we have
committed to continuously engage with our stakeholders and to make the programs
and services we provide to the people of this province to be reflective and
innovative.
Like
others in this hon. House today, I want to commend Gemma for being such a strong
activist and a voice that allows us to do the kind of work that we do here in
this House to make change that is progressive, that it's reflective of things
that are going on in the communities in which we serve. Today's amendments are
an example of our efforts, and it is a follow-up of a change in policy in
September of this year which will now permit an individual to choose an X on
their birth certificate.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an important advancement in the right direction. We are too
familiar with the impacts bullying and negative stereotypes can have on an
individual. The Member for St. John's Centre referenced bullying that goes on in
our schools. I'd like to speak a little bit to that. Far too often we hear of
stories in our schools and in our communities where someone is being bullied or
intimidated because the person thinks differently, acts differently or looks
differently from others.
Recently, just last week, I attended the Canadian Council of Ministers of
Environment in Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, we had a very productive two days of
meetings where issues of climate change, clean growth, community resilience and
collaboration with our indigenous communities were openly discussed.
At the
end of those meetings, during the press conference as I stood next to the
federal Minister of Environment, I envied as she confronted a reporter who had
been bullying her in making personal remarks about her appearance. While I was
unaware that this exchange was about to unfold, as I stood there and I listened,
I was proud to show my support for an individual, a leader in our country for
standing up for herself and standing up to those who use derogatory remarks
about someone's appearance as a form of intimidation.
Mr.
Speaker, when appearances don't match the images displayed on an identification
card, people do endure insults and psychological trauma that could be easily
averted if we provided them with the option that does not contradict who they
are.
The
amendments to the Vital Statistics Act,
2009 being proposed here today will likely reduce the prevalence of bullying
involving insults lending to mental health issues for individuals who chose to
have a change in sex designation on their birth certificate.
Recently, I looked at a 2016 study on bullying in schools in the US. The report
indicated that one out of every five students is bullied. Furthermore, 64 per
cent of students who are bullied never report it. The report goes on to state
that the most common reason for being bullied were looks, body shape and race.
In
another 2013 study on bullying of those who identify, who are perceived as
LGBTQ, 74 per cent were verbally bullied because of sexual orientation and 55.2
per cent were bullied because of their gender expression. Mr. Speaker, the
issues of sex designation are not urban issues alone. These issues impact
individuals in all communities across this province.
Recently, the parents of a young constituent of mine came into my office seeking
assistance regarding the individual's struggles with gender transformation.
These issues are further complicated by intellectual disability, socialization
and coping. So while we are taking steps today to make significant strides, many
of the things that go on in a young person's life are complicated. There are
many challenges confronting our young people, Mr. Speaker. Today, it is our hope
that by taking these bold steps, we are helping to lessen some of these
challenges.
Our
government has been supportive of the LGBTQ community in this province. In our
schools we have partnered with Planned Parenthood Newfoundland and Labrador to
offer things like Making Queerness Visible Workshops, Camp Eclipse leadership
retreats, Supportive Counselling and Peer Support programs.
In my
own District of Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker, like many districts, provincial
government departments are working with community-based organizations and
advocates like Gemma to advance the vision, the mission and the mandate of the
Violence Prevention Initiative.
I, too,
before being elected into public office, was a member of the Violence Prevention
Initiative in my community. So I know full well the positive strides and the
impacts we can make by working together. The Violence Prevention Initiative, or
VPI, envisions that women, children and youth, Aboriginal women, children and
youth, persons with disabilities and others who are victims of violence because
of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or economic status will face less
violence and live and work in communities where violence is considered
unacceptable.
When we
consider the mission of the VPI, we must measure our success by looking at:
evidence of enhanced leadership, which through the debate we're having today is
a testament to that; coordination of resources and programs that we offer to the
people of this province; increase awareness in the community; greater
accountability; and improve legislation like we are doing to the amendments to
the Vital Statistics Act, 2009.
To this
end, Mr. Speaker, we are removing some of the democratic red tape involved in
the process of making an application to change a person's sex designation on a
birth certificate. If the individual is over the age of 16, there will no longer
be a requirement to have a note from a medical professional.
I said
earlier that our government is progressive in its thinking. Since assuming
office in November 2015, we have worked tirelessly to demonstrate leadership
around identity and inclusion. In March of this year, working in tandem with all
parties in this hon. House, our government released the report
Towards Recovery: A Vision for a Renewed
Mental Health and Addictions System. This report is the culmination of the
work of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, which contains
54 recommendations that support six primary areas of focus.
I
mention these, Mr. Speaker, because it's another example of why we are standing
here today in support of this legislation. It talks about access to services;
policy and programing; community supports; quality of care; promotion,
prevention and early intervention; and accountability and performance
monitoring.
Today
we're being accountable on all sides of this House. In releasing the report, the
Minister of Health and Community Services said – and I'll paraphrase –
Towards Recovery will guide us and it
will begin to change the system to achieve a healthier population. I think with
the amendments we're talking about today, we are moving again forward with
helping to create a healthier population in this province.
As I
conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Minister of Service NL for bringing
forward these legislative changes. We are progressive as a government. We
continue to invite others to hold our feet to the fire, to keep us informed, so
that we can do the very good work that we do here.
Identity
is a very personal thing for an individual and it is always important to provide
mechanisms, including legislative and policy changes that provide options for
choosing how an individual wishes to be identified.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand here today and to speak in
favour of this very important legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
certainly a pleasure to lend my voice to today's debate as we discuss amendments
to the Vital Statistics Act, 2009,
known as Bill 20. It is certainly great to see Gemma Hickey here today. I have
not yet had the opportunity to meet you, Gemma; however, I know that they have
been very vocal in the media, certainly someone I've followed and watched, and
very instrumental and a leader in addressing the issues of LGBTQ community.
How we
got here today, Mr. Speaker, is a result of a bill that we passed in 2016. At
that time then Bill 7 was An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act. Under then
minister of Service NL, which was then the Member for Bay of Islands, we removed
the requirement that a person undergo trans-sexual surgery in order to change
their sex designation on the birth registration.
So we're
here today to make a further amendment to that. While we were very proud to make
that change at the time, we've then seen some positive changes, and thank you to
Gemma for bringing them forward, and understanding that not all individuals
should have to require medical documentation to make this change.
That's
something that was going to hinder anyone's ability to make the specific change.
It would certainly tie up resources, could be seen as discriminatory and, in
fact, certainly was. So it's with great pleasure that we're able to stand here
today to announce this very progressive change, and I believe as the Member for
Labrador West alluded to, certainly being the first province in the country to
eliminate that requirement. We're following suit here with other jurisdictions
and provinces as well. The Member for Lab West certainly did mention that, but I
think this is more than just a Canadian movement.
When we
were looking at some of the research across other jurisdictions and
understanding the good work of the folks in Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories, one thing that was also noted was some of the work that was done
across the world. Australia was the leader on this, Mr. Speaker. They've had
this opportunity for non-binary, to choose X as a sex designation, since 2003.
Since January of 2003, Australia has provided this opportunity to their
citizens.
In April
of 2014, the Supreme Court of India also recognized this as a progressive step
forward. This was also taken care of in Nepal in 2007, New Zealand in 2012 and
further amendments in New Zealand in 2015. In 2017, in the United States, Oregon
became the first state to recognize and allow non-binary and marking of X as a
gender marker on IDs and driver's licences.
With the
United States having one state doing so, with some progressive work done in
countries such as India, Australia and New Zealand, we see the movement here in
Canada. Again, I'm very proud to see what the Legislature has done in Alberta,
the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It is with extreme pleasure that we can
be a leader. So often we find ourselves catching up with other jurisdictions and
making changes to various pieces of legislation. There are often times we are
very proud to be a leader.
I
believe, as the Member for Terra Nova alluded to, some of the great work that
the Minister of Health has done with his team and staff on the mental health
report Towards Recovery, that report
has now solidified us as a leader in the field of mental health. So why can't we
be the leader in other areas, Mr. Speaker? That's why it's extremely important
that we take this step forward today.
I've had
the great opportunity in my district – not in my district, rather, the district
I'm so fortunate to represent. Some of the great work that's being done there
with the Southwestern Coalition to End Violence, some of the initiatives they're
doing in our school systems. The Community Youth Network in my region has been a
strong leader in this field. The Bay St. George Status of Women has made some
great work and inroads as well.
The
Western Pride committee has continued to grow in my region as well, Mr. Speaker.
It was a pleasure to stand with the folks from the Western Pride committee in
the Town of Stephenville and raise their flag. Various jurisdictions, various
towns have different weeks they'll choose to celebrate and acknowledge, and the
Town of Stephenville, this just happened a few short weeks ago.
In rural
areas, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the limelight is a lot less than in our urban
centres and we often look for leadership from our LGBTQ2S community. When we
have folks like Gemma who are so vocal and prominent in the media to bring this
up, it's folks in rural areas such as Stephenville – Port au Port that can look
and turn on CBC News, we can turn on NTV News in the evening and we can see that
there is a leader in this field and there is somebody who is willing to stand up
for the rights of individuals, as identity is so very important.
Mr.
Speaker, I won't belabour it much further, but I certainly wanted to add my
voice to it. As I mentioned, I'm so proud that we can take this positive step
forward and become the first province to remove the requirement for a medical
documentation. Why would we have that extra red tape? Why would we require
medical documentation? Individuals 16 years and older certainly know their
identity. They certainly have challenges in transition and we need to remove
these barriers. It is our right to do so; it is our job as legislators to do so.
In
addition to the birth certificates, as the Minister of Service NL mentioned,
also the opportunity with respect to our driver's licence. We are certainly
seeing some positive changes there.
We are
actually looking forward to some changes on the federal level as well. There has
been some temporary changes brought in now with respect to passports and how
passports will now have the opportunity to mark an X non-binary, and there are
some further changes coming from the federal level as well.
So it is
certainly our hope that when the federal government recognizes some changes,
when you have two territories and the Province of Alberta and now the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador making changes, we'll certainly be proud as other
jurisdictions across the country recognize our efforts, and recognize our
efforts in recognizing our leaders, such as Gemma, and listening to folks in our
community so we can make positive, real, tangible changes.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting Bill 20 and I certainly look
forward to further discussion on this subject.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm so excited
to be standing here today. I just came from a Remembrance Day service in my
district at one of my schools. It's quite fitting that I get the opportunity to
speak on a bill that combats what started World War I, which was intolerance,
bigotry and things like that. It's very important that we stand here as a
government united with our colleagues, on both sides of the House, to support
tolerance.
I'm
pleased to stand here to speak about Bill 20 along with my other colleagues that
have spoken in the House today. Since becoming parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Service NL, I've come to realize how important Service NL – and I'm
sure Mr. Speaker will understand that as well – to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
One of
the examples is our Vital Statistics department, which we're talking about here
today. They're responsible for registering and certifying all births, deaths and
marriages in our province. It also registers adoptions, legal name changes and
certifies clergy and civil authorities for marriage ceremonies – all very
important things.
The
division of Service NL is what holds us accountable to the people. All life
changes have to go through Service NL. We have to register someone that is born,
someone that passes away or someone that is adopted. We know how important all
these matters are throughout our lives and we now have the right to choose what
gender, if any, we identify with.
It is so
important to have the ability to be honest with your government, the ability to
walk in and change your birth certificate to who you identify as and not feel as
though you are living a lie. This is the first step in creating a safer, more
inclusive society for all people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Service NL said earlier, no one should ever have to
worry about being judged or harassed because they identify somewhere on a gender
spectrum other than exclusively male or female. We are learning more and more
that gender can be and is usually fluid. Similarly, our LGBTQ youth shouldn't be
experiencing suicide rates that are four times higher than those of their
heterosexual peers.
Instead
of being afraid of human diversity, we need to embrace it. As a government, we
take a firm stance against all forms of discrimination and violence. This
includes violence towards the LGBTQ persons.
Currently, three other jurisdictions – Alberta, Yukon and Northwest Territories
– have passed legislation regarding gender-neutral birth certificates, with the
majority of jurisdictions looking into these changes as we speak. Newfoundland
and Labrador is proud to be at the forefront of equality for this legislation.
Of all
the provinces and territories which removed the requirements for sex
reassignment surgery for the change in designation on a birth certificate,
Newfoundland and Labrador will be within the first five to make the necessary
changes.
Outside
of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador is also a trailblazer, with Oregon – as the
Member behind me from Stephenville – Port au Port mentioned – and the District
of Columbia making non-binary available on driver's licences and
identifications. California and New York are considering a similar change.
Non-binary birth certificates are also reflective of a close relationship our
government shares with our federal government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has
pledged to make government-issued documents more gender inclusive – and for
that, we're all very happy – and to make our passports eligible for the X option
for gender and a third gender option for social insurance numbers representing
non-declared. We are so happy to make these changes in line with our federal
counterparts and other countries such as Germany, India, Pakistan, Nepal,
Australia, New Zealand and I hope many, many more to come.
The
Violence Prevention Initiative also reflects the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador's ongoing commitment to addressing violence in our province. The
initiative is a multi-departmental government community partnership focused on
addressing the problems of violence against those populations most at risk.
Expressions of sexism, ageism, racism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and
other biased attitudes reinforce violence.
When we
stand like we are doing here today to amend the
Vital Statistics Act to recognize diversity, it is our opportunity
to highlight the gains that have been made. I join the Minister of Service NL
and the whole government in applauding Gemma Hickey, their tireless efforts to
allow for changes to sex designation on birth certificates from female or male
to non-binary.
I'm
quite happy because I met Gemma in university so many, many years ago. I don't
want to say how many because I don't want to date myself, but they're a shining
light for this province. They represent what can happen if you stand up for what
you believe in.
Gemma
Hickey founded the Pathways Foundation which, inspired by the tragedies that
happened at the Mount Cashel orphanage, provided a service to the gaps in our
service for men and women who have experienced abuse within religious
institutions. In order to raise awareness, Gemma walked across the Newfoundland
portion of Newfoundland and Labrador in the summer of 2015. I had the pleasure
of being there at the old site of Mount Cashel where they ended their walk. It's
so important that we move on additions like this. It's an amazing
accomplishment. Gemma is to be commended for that.
Gemma no
longer allows for the negative to get them down. They're also not bothered by
any negative online comments, having once said: “Nothing can hurt me. I'll never
be bullied into silence as long as there are youth suffering.” No truer words
can ever be spoken for sure. “It's taken me a long time to get where I am today,
and I feel like I'm home.” I'm glad you're home.
As for
the first applicant for the non-binary birth certificate, they have taken steps
that more people wouldn't be brave enough to take, such as aligning the
provision of the act respecting changes to sex designation are discriminatory
under the Canadian rights act as well as the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Taking steps like this are
brave, trail-blazing steps that are needed to make real change.
Gemma is
a wonderful example of the quote by Margaret Mead that says: “Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's
the only thing that ever has.”
So thank
you, Gemma, for putting this change in the corner of the world. Equality and
respect for diversity of all individuals are important values for the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to have. While the changes in policy already permit
gender-neutral birth certificates to be issued, amending the legislation to
remove the requirement for a note from a medical professional from those 16 and
older certainly reinforces the commitment to this matter.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For our
listeners who may just be joining us, I'll remind them that we're dealing with a
bill, An Act to Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 and this will amend the
Vital Statistics Act, 2009 to remove
the requirement to include a statement from a designated professional with an
application for a change of sex designation for a person who has reached the age
of 16 years.
It's a
proud day, Mr. Speaker; it's a very, very proud day. It's a proud day for all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and especially for members of the LGBTQ, and I
think a very, very proud day for Gemma Hickey. Gemma has been instrumental in
making us aware of this issue, making the changes. I often remember a quote from
John Kennedy, and he said: The rights of every person are diminished when the
rights of one person are threatened.
Mr.
Speaker, I have great pride today in my friend Gemma Hickey. I don't want to say
this, Mr. Speaker, to be too personal at this moment, but I think that when I
reflect back on the documentary that was aired on CBC,
Just Be Gemma, many of us – it's Nine Island Communications and if
you haven't seen it, please look it up. It is an important documentary, I
believe, because it really does focus you on the issue. When I heard the name,
the title of the documentary, Just Be
Gemma, it reminded me of something that I learned from Gemma Hickey's
grandmother.
Now,
she's no longer with us, and that's why I think it might be a bit emotional to
say this in the House, but she's no longer with us. I remember at one point a
note that I think Gemma shared publicly, and their grandmother wrote: Just be
Gemma.
We want
everyone – everyone – to remember, to value that advice because
Just Be Gemma really speaks, I think,
to what John Kennedy was speaking about in the early 1960s when, again, he said:
The rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person are
threatened.
Mr.
Speaker, today is a proud day for Newfoundland and Labrador. We join few of our
colleagues and I mention a few of our colleagues in provinces across this
country in ensuring the rights of all individuals. I recognize the department
and the ministers, both present today, and our previous minister in bringing
this recommendation forward.
I think
it is a very, very proud day for Gemma Hickey. They are entitled to their
rights; they are entitled to their respect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
They are entitled to their humanity, to their human rights and to be recognized
as such. I am proud that Newfoundland and Labrador is so doing today. More work
needs to be done, much more work needs to be done in this area, but I think that
we're taking small steps.
I
remember the debate and the discussions during the 2000s at the federal level
when we talked about marriage between two individuals. I hearken back to the
former prime minister of many, many years ago when he talked about the rights of
individuals and the requirements of the state not to be involved in certain
aspects of people's lives.
Mr.
Speaker, this is very, very important to our humanity, to our human rights. It
reflects on same. I think Newfoundland and Labrador is doing the right thing.
The
current amendment will eliminate the requirement to submit a statement from a
designated professional for those 16 years of age and older. As Gemma Hickey has
said in previous times, being of a certain age means you make your decisions.
You don't need to go to a family doctor for them to identify your gender; you
can identify that yourself.
I'm
proud to stand here today because I think this is a very important point and one
of a series. It is, again, reminding us of human rights. It is, again, reminding
us of the importance of listening to all of us, not just some of us. It is again
reminding us of the importance of a shared humanity and a shared goal of doing
the best that we can with the life that we've been given, and making sure
equality is for all of us, not just for some of us.
Mr.
Speaker, when I think of Gemma Hickey I think of Gandhi. Gandhi said: Be the
change you want to see in this world. Gemma set forth to make the changes that
they wanted to see in this world and we're all the better for it – we are all
the better for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
I recognize them for that, I
thank them for that and I encourage that in all of us. Be the change we want to
see in this world. Take Gandhi's words, take Gemma Hickey's actions and apply it
to all of us. We would have a better society, a better community and a better
life if we all did that.
I thank
and I recognize Gemma Hickey. I thank and I recognize all of those people who
stand to ensure our human rights, who stand to ensure our equality, who stand to
ensure that we share an equal value.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to support this bill. I thank
the House for recognizing the importance of this change in legislation. I thank
Newfoundland and Labrador for being a leader on the issue.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I just
want to take a couple of minutes to join other speakers here this morning. It is
certainly one of these times in the House of Assembly where we all agree very
much and very strongly in what this bill represents, what this change represents
and what this change will create for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The hon.
minister, my colleague across the House, just talked about small steps. I fully
agree with that. Effecting change, driving change and leading change can be one
of the most challenging things to do, especially when done in the public when a
person believes strongly, as Gemma Hickey has, in a need for change, a need for
direction change when the masses of the population don't necessarily follow you.
I can
only imagine how challenging that would be for any individual, in this case for
Gemma Hickey. It's not just a movement or an initiative or a request; it's about
Gemma Hickey's life and it's about Gemma Hickey standing up for what Gemma
Hickey believes in.
I wanted
to join others just briefly in this. I know a lot of the points have been made
and some have been repeated. I certainly don't want to do all of that again, Mr.
Speaker, but I want to personally extend my congratulations to Gemma and the
work, perseverance that's been demonstrated over the years. It's been a long
course and it's been a step-by-step progress. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that
I also look forward to see what's next, because pushing and moving those
traditional beliefs that some people hang on to is sometimes very slow coming.
I know
it was referenced earlier here in debate about history being made yesterday in
the United States. It's very relevant to this particular bill because it was not
that long ago – someone will probably conclude, that will never happen. We'll
never see that happen. It happened yesterday in the United States, and change is
happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
congratulate Members of the House. I thank them for commenting. I extend my
congratulations to Gemma once again and thank Gemma for all that's taken place
and the change that's been driven through a very difficult and challenging
process. It arrived here at the House of Assembly today to pass this into law,
and I can tell you I look forward to voting on it as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take too long or repeat everything that's been said, but just for the
record, I will be supporting this bill. For me, at least – I'm sure others feel
the same; I think everybody has said it in one way or another – it really comes
down to equality for all of the citizens of our province, treating everybody
with respect. That's really what this is about.
I don't
think it's up to me or anybody else to tell somebody who they are, who they feel
they are, who they know they are. I think it's their right to do that. I think
it's their right to identify whichever way they want to identify. Really, that's
what this bill is all about. It's just adding to other work that has been done
and I'm sure more work that will be done in the future.
There
will be those in our society who will applaud this move and I'm sure there will
be some people in our society for personal beliefs, religious beliefs, whatever,
who may not, but the beauty of living in a democracy is that we all have the
right to live the way we want to live, to have our own beliefs and to express
ourselves and our own beliefs. That's why we're so lucky to live in a place that
we do. This is just enforcing that concept of the right to choose, the right to
be equal amongst all of our citizens. Certainly, for that reason, I support the
bill 100 per cent.
I, too,
want to congratulate Gemma Hickey who's been a real trailblazer when it comes to
not just this issue, but other issues as well. Some of them have been mentioned
earlier. They certainly have made an impact, made a difference in our province.
They are certainly to be commended for that. As I said, they have been a driving
force obviously behind this particular change today and I'm sure they are very
proud of what they've accomplished. I know many people in our province,
including everyone in this House of Assembly I'm sure, are very proud of what
they have done and that's why we will all, I'm sure, be supporting this 100 per
cent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Service NL speaks now she will close the debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, it's a historic
day in Newfoundland and Labrador, a day that effects positive change, and I am
proud to be one of the politicians that contributed to this change.
I would
like to thank the staff at Service NL for all their work, and once again, thank
you Gemma Hickey for bringing this to our attention.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 20 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day I would suggest with leave that we recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with
provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b) the House is in recess until 2 o'clock.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Before
we start, I would like to introduce our newest Page. This is Ms. Frankie Leonard
from Happy Valley-Goose Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also, as per some events that
took place yesterday, I'd like to speak to a point of order that was raised by
the Member for Mount Scio. Please bear with me.
I'd like
to speak to this point of order that was raised yesterday by the Member for
Mount Scio. The point of order was with respect to a petition that was presented
on November 6, 2017 to this House by the Member for St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi.
In
raising the point of order, the Member for Mount Scio referred to a ruling by
former Speaker Wiseman in June 2012 that a Member is not permitted to submit a
petition in a piecemeal fashion. The issue at the time was that petitions
certified by the Clerk's Office were being subdivided, after certification,
before being presented in this House.
Speaker
Wiseman went on to elaborate that the process would be followed requiring that
all petitions be certified by the Clerk or Clerk Assistant prior to being
presented in the House. Petitions presented in the House must be consistent with
those certified.
The
right of the citizen to petition Parliament for a redress of grievance is based
on centuries-old tradition and established precedent. It is recognized and it is
our experience that during a sitting, petitions of the same subject matter may
be presented on different days, as it is understood that they may be received by
Members piecemeal. It is appropriate that petitions be brought forward to the
House when received, even if petitions on the same subject have been previously
presented.
The
petitions presented by the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi were
consistent with the certification requirements; therefore, with respect to the
point of order raised by the Member for Mount Scio, I conclude that there is no
point of order.
However,
I want to refer to Hansard and the
opening comments by the Member when she indicated that: “I'm very pleased to
stand today and present the petition that has been provided me by members of the
deaf and hard of hearing community and by the Churchill family. The petitions,
Mr. Speaker, have been signed by thousands of people.”
Standing
Order 92 indicates that “Every Member offering a petition to the House shall
confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes,
the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it
contains.”
Consequently, a Member's remarks regarding the number of signatories must be
consistent with the number of signatures on the petition being tabled at the
time or, if the petition being tabled is of the same subject matter tabled
previously, the cumulative signatures presented to date.
The
Speaker has had an opportunity to review
Hansard and to look at the petition in question. Clearly, the petition that
is entered has fewer names than the thousands referenced in
Hansard. In this case, the introductory remarks of the Member for
St. John's East – Quidi Vidi that “the petitions, Mr. Speaker, have been signed
by thousands of people” are inconsistent with the number of signatories of the
individual petitions of that subject matter certified to date by the Clerk's
Office.
I remind
Members that whether it is in reference to petitions or reference to anything
else in this House in debate, Members in this House have an obligation to make
statements that are accurate and factually correct. Members of the House
generally accept the comments by other hon. Members as being statements of fact
and seldom challenge their accuracy unless there is, obviously, some clear
documentation that suggests to the contrary.
Therefore, I ask that the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi withdraw that
statement.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I will withdraw the
statement, but may I just put one point of clarification that explains? But I
will – I'm not questioning, I just want to make a clarification.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Not in order.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll leave it to the Speaker
to decide what's in order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Proceed with your point of
order.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
The
papers, the ones that I presented – physically presented – were ones that I had
received prior to that day. They're the ones I got signed and they're the ones I
presented. At the same time this petition is ongoing, and at 1 o'clock that day
I had received over 2,000. They have not yet been sent in, because they got
received too late for me to put them in here in the House on that same day.
I will
withdraw my statement.
MR. SPEAKER:
I can speak to that point.
The fact
of the matter is that what is presented in the House are the facts, and whether
you – when you are making your comments, you need to reference exactly what is
presented. That's all we are aware of and that's what we're dealing with.
Your
statement suggested there were thousands of signatories. The petition suggested
otherwise; therefore, I would ask you to withdraw your remark.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have withdrawn that
statement, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of
Exploits, Torngat Mountains, Stephenville – Port au Port, Baie Verte – Green
Bay, Terra Nova and Ferryland.
The hon.
the Member for Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to congratulate the Abundant Life Pentecostal
Tabernacle of Leading Tickles on their celebration this year of 50 years of good
works in the community and surrounding area.
I had
the pleasure of celebrating this significant milestone with the congregation on
June 3 of this year. The assembly featured an evening of song, prayer and great
food, with representation from the town leadership, as well as friends from far
and near.
Pentecostalism has long been a pillar of community support and fellowship in our
province. They have been exemplary in bringing the teachings of Christ to our
people and in providing earthly and spiritual help and hope to all God's
children.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Abundant Life Pentecostal
Tabernacle for 50 years of faithful service to the community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on
National Aboriginal Veterans Day, to pay tribute to those indigenous soldiers
who have proudly fought and died for our freedom.
Although
people of Aboriginal ancestry from Newfoundland and Labrador fought and
sometimes died during the First World War, their histories remain largely
unknown. Few documents and little research exist to describe their wartime
experiences. And recruiting was difficult in communities such as Nain to
Rigolet, as news was slow to reach these areas and many residents did not know
that their country had gone to war.
Historians estimate, however, that at least 15 men of Inuit descent joined the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment. Most served as infantry units and drew upon their
hunting, trapping and other traditional skills to become expert snipers and
scouts.
Lance
Corporal John Shiwak is well-known for his shooting skills during the First
World War. Soldiers like Fred Freida and Douglas White were active during the
Second World War. I would also like to honour my friend, Henry Gear from
Postville, who participated in the United Nations conflicts in Sarajevo.
Today,
there are approximately 2,300 Aboriginal members currently serving in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
I thank
all our soldiers who have served and continue to serve our country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
to pay tribute to the late Danny McCann of Port au Port West who passed away two
months ago today at the age of 65. Although confined to a wheelchair since the
age of 19, nothing prevented Danny from living an extraordinary life of
dedication to his community, his church, his wife Mary and his family.
Danny
was an entrepreneur who owned and operated a small business for 21 years.
Further, he worked for 33 years as the town clerk with the Town of Port au Port
West-Agauthuna-Felix Cove. Outside of his professional career, Danny was a
dedicated community volunteer for which no cause was unworthy of his assistance.
As the founder of the renowned Gravels Walking Trail and Development Group,
Danny raised money for the restoration of Our Lady of Mercy Church for countless
years.
He took
great pride in hosting and organizing the annual Grand Ole Opry, the annual
Christmas concert as well as the annual Port au Port Agricultural Fall Fair.
While he
never sought accolades, he and his wife Mary were truly humbled when they
received the Canada 150 Sesquicentennial Pin from MP Hutchings this past summer.
I ask
all Members to join me in recognizing and remembering Mr. Danny McCann.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If you
only watched Herb Pike during a Remembrance Day ceremony, you will witness the
wave of emotion a veteran experiences.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this week of remembrance to honour Mr. Herb Pike of
Springdale, a 94-year-old Second World War veteran. Although he had enlisted
intending to be gunner, Mr. Pike ended up getting his stripes as a sergeant and,
as a result of a shortage, had become a flyer with the Royal Air Force 102
bomber squad. He would later climb the rank of warrant office. Herb was known as
a keen and hard-working officer of superior ability.
He has
been revered as the first pilot taking out Adolf Hitler's ammunition stockpile.
He clearly remembers how at 3:30 a.m. on June 6, 1944 on the beaches of
Normandy, he was ordered to fly over an area where it was discovered the Germans
had taken over an old automobile storage factory. After returning, it was
determined that the bombing mission was successful.
Today,
Herb resides at the Valley Vista Senior Citizen's Home in Springdale.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing a true Newfoundland and Labrador hero
and a friend to all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to acknowledge the outstanding accomplishments of a young lady from
my district.
Melissa
Smith, originally from Elliot's Cove, completed high school at Random Island
Academy and attended the College of the North Atlantic in St. John's and Happy
Valley-Goose Bay.
In 2007,
after learning about Canada's war efforts abroad, Melissa joined the military
where she trained as a field medic. In 2010, Melissa was deployed for a
seven-month tour in Afghanistan with the 3rd Battalion of The Royal Canadian
Regiment.
She was
released from active duty in 2015 after being diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder. Melissa says: Anything is possible with the right attitude.
She
applied to participate in the 2017 Invictus Games, an international adaptive
multi-sport event, created by Prince Harry in support of wounded or sick armed
services personnel.
Last
month, Melissa competed in Toronto and won a silver medal in the recurve bow
novice category. Melissa also placed 11th in the women's mid-weight powerlifting
division. Melissa says her long-term goal is to be on Canada's Olympic team.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Melissa Smith for her service, her
courage and her determination.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of Captain William
Jackman and his heroic efforts of October 9, 1867.
Captain
Jackman anchored in Spotted Island harbour in Labrador. With a storm raging, he
saw a small fishing schooner being battered along the reef, about 600 feet from
shore. He battled the rough sea to swim to the boat and made 27 trips to the
shore and back, each time with a man or woman on his back. The last person he
rescued was a dying woman he refused to leave to a watery grave.
In 1868,
the British Royal Humane Society awarded Captain Jackman a silver medal for his
heroic efforts. Captain Jackman's heroism was honoured by the Minister of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation in October 2010 under the Provincial Historic
Commemorations Program.
The
Captain William Jackman story is an event that is both a provincial and national
historic event, deserving national attention, commemorative recognition and
should be honoured as such an event.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in honouring and remembering
Captain William Jackman of Renews for his acts of bravery and heroism on October
9, 1867.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, from November 1
to 4, I had the privilege to lead the Canadian delegation at the Education
Commission of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable
Development in Paris, where hundreds of delegates from countries all over the
world participated.
UNESCO
is responsible for coordinating international co-operation in education,
science, culture and communication. It strengthens the ties between nations and
societies, and mobilizes the wider public so that each child and citizen has
access to quality education.
Newfoundland and Labrador has a long history of engagement with the Council of
Ministers of Education, Canada, and I was happy to represent the council as head
of our Canadian delegation. I had the unique opportunity to present at a
luncheon, alongside representatives from the Republic of Korea, to a large
international group that included 41 Education Ministers from around the world.
The
conference focused on our shared commitments towards ensuring every person in
our world has access to inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong
learning. We discussed the importance of multilateralism and nation-to-nation
co-operation in our changing global environment as well as opportunities for
internationalization.
Mr.
Speaker, I attended and presented during the plenary debates of the Education
Commission, and I also held bilateral discussions with delegations from a number
of countries, including China, the Republic of Korea, Finland and Norway. I was
pleased to represent Canada's Education Ministers at special events hosted by
ambassadors from India, Japan and Nigeria.
It was
an opportunity for our government to be recognized as leaders in education on an
international scale. Consistent with our commitment in
The Way Forward to increase revenue to the province through
international education, it was also an excellent opportunity to have
discussions with officials from other countries regarding the establishment of
Newfoundland and Labrador-administered schools abroad and licensing the use of
our K-12 education curriculum to other jurisdictions around the world.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. The quality of education
provided to our children and youth is a key indicator of how developed and
progressive we are as a society. The UNESCO World Conference on education is
vitally important at this point in time where facets of education models are
causing major concerns.
Now, the
Liberal minister just stated in this House that his trip to Paris was an
opportunity for the Liberal government to be recognized as leaders in education
on an international scale. This is what he actually said. The same Liberal
minister who tried to close down half of the libraries in the province, the same
Liberal government that made Newfoundland and Labrador the only province to tax
books, the same Liberal minister who had a total lack of respect for school
volunteers and told teachers to scrounge for supplies, the same minister who has
done nothing for inclusive education.
This was
the minister representing the province at an international education conference.
The irony is astounding, Mr. Speaker. At best, I hope the minister was able to
become educated on the issues facing students, parents and teachers. At worst, I
hope he was an example to the entire delegation of what not to do as an
Education Minister.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I guess I say
congratulations to him, being the lead of the Canadian delegation.
I remind
the minister, Canada has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, which fully protects the right of children with disabilities to a
full quality education. Therefore, I am more than surprised – I'm shocked – to
hear the minister speak of this province being recognized as world leaders in
education, when despite so much proof to the contrary, he refuses to recognize
the needs of deaf and hard of hearing students in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to
join Premier Ball today to have formally launched the province's new Business
Innovation Agenda.
The
Business Innovation Agenda reflects input from the drivers of the provincial
economy: innovative firms, industry leaders, academic institutions and members
of the broader research community. The goal of this new Business Innovation
Agenda is to expand the pool and capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador's
innovation and growth-focused businesses.
There
will be four priority areas of focus: product development and commercialization,
productivity, growth and internationalization, and workforce skills and talent.
Mr.
Speaker, through the engagement process, industry across our province identified
a need for more guidance, as well as a one-stop point of entry for financial and
non-financial supports.
I am
pleased to say in response to this, the provincial government created
InnovateNL, a single window for a more efficient delivery of provincial
innovation programs and services. Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Innovation Council will work with the provincial government and its partners on
the implementation of the Business Innovation Agenda.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to embarking on this new path towards innovation in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr.
Speaker, we agree that a concrete and detailed plan for innovation is needed for
our province; but, sadly, this Liberal innovation agenda lacks in substance and
details. While we agree that this province must stimulate diversification,
innovation and exports, the document released today has no details, no
milestones and no concrete actions. As we've come to expect from this Liberal
government, the agenda is full of broad feel-good statements and short on
measurable targets.
Mr.
Speaker, we discovered yesterday in Question Period the minister isn't fully
aware of the consequence of shutting down the Research & Development
Corporation. He still doesn't know how many projects are impacted.
Mr.
Speaker, our economy is in desperate need. We need action, and we need action
now. We can only hope that these promises will be backed up with action.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I thank all those
fantastic companies and individuals who are involved in moving this forward,
especially the Innovation Council chaired by Mark Dobbin. We know it is the
creativity, expertise and courage of our people that will help create a more
sustainable future for the province.
I ask
the minister: What about social enterprise? Where does that fit in his plan? It
remains to be seen whether InnovateNL will actually be a more efficient delivery
of provincial innovation programs. Will it? Let's hope so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Here's
something I'm sure we can all rally behind.
Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today and inform this House about
important and historic changes to the provincial
Wild Life Act and its regulations that provide more Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians with the opportunity to share in our outdoor heritage and in
the experience and benefits of hunting.
These
changes, which support inclusion, improve access and encourage participation in
hunting, were implemented after extensive consultation with provincial hunting
and trapping organizations and participants and advocates in the Program for
Hunters and Anglers with a Disability.
Mr.
Speaker, the minimum hunting age has been lowered from 16 to 12 for small game –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
– and from 18 to 16 for big
game, which align our age requirements with other jurisdictions in North
America. In recognition of the priority we place on hunter safety and public
safety, a youth must complete the firearms training, be tested in its completion
and is only permitted to hunt under the direct supervision of a qualified adult.
These
amendments, Mr. Speaker, are providing opportunities to mentor young hunters and
trappers, giving them the essential skills and knowledge to foster a hunting
culture where safe firearm use is the top priority. Mr. Speaker, safety must
always be paramount. Proper, responsible and effective firearms training among
our youth results in safe firearms practices that continues for a lifetime.
Improvements to the Program for Hunters and Anglers with a Disability now permit
a designated hunter to remain within 800 metres or line of sight, whichever is
greater, of the hunter with a disability. In addition, persons with disabilities
now have priority access to big game as a result of changes to the Problem Moose
Policy.
Mr.
Speaker, government has also taken action to enhance the hunting experience for
all hunters in the province by establishing earlier application dates for the
2018-19 big game draw, and we'll continue that in the future.
I'm very
confident these transformative changes will be extremely well received, as they
have been already, by hunters throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and help us
to achieve our goal of encouraging greater participation in cultural and
recreational activities that we can pass along to our children and to our
grandchildren.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, these
changes will indeed provide the opportunity for more residents of our province
to participate in the hunting experience. I, myself, enjoy moose hunting. I am
not very successful sometimes, but I do enjoy it – a chance that it gives me to
enjoy the beautiful outdoors we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope
these changes will give others the same opportunity that we have to enjoy this
experience.
Mr.
Speaker, as always, safety must come first and foremost, and I hope there will
be increased education and training to go along with these changes to ensure the
well-being of all individuals.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to see the
improvements to the Program for Hunters and Anglers with a Disability. They are
important for persons with disabilities who want to pursue these activities, and
I'm pleased to hear the minister talk about the safety measures that have been
put in place.
But
regarding the lowering of the minimum hunting age, I'm sure the minister is
aware of public concerns which have been raised. So I ask him: What is in place
to ensure that children as young as 12 are adequately supervised when carrying
firearms when hunting small game? How do we know they are going to have adults
with them?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this week there are questions surrounding the integrity of transmission
structures related to the Muskrat Falls Project. So in an attempt to clear them
up, I ask the minister if she can confirm that there are no defects on power
lines, guidewires, towers or any associated aspects of those structures related
to the transmission assets of the Muskrat Falls Project.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity to speak to this.
I have
spoken to Nalcor about this very issue. I've been assured that the engineer of
record, as well as the independent inspection agency, they have done their
inspections. They have done their work. There is a report, not quite in its
final form yet, but I understand a final report is coming.
I
understand that there are no structural integrity issues. I understand that
there are no safety issues. I understand that there are no cost implications nor
schedule implications, and that they've been through all the data of the field
inspections and it is as I've just indicated.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the answer from the minister. I just have some questions related to
that.
I ask
the Minister of Natural Resources: Is she trusting her discussions, because she
said she's spoken to Nalcor – is it strictly trusting the discussions or have
you read the inspection reports or reports from Nalcor yourself?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
just indicated, the report is not yet in its final form, so I have not had the
opportunity to review it because it's not in its final form. I understand that
the engineer responsible for this project, the engineer of record, Quanta, has
been through this. I understand that the inspection agency, the independent
inspection agency, has been through this work. They've reviewed all the field
data and there are no structural integrity issues. Mr. Speaker, I can only say
again that they have advised there are no structural integrity issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding is, while there may not be structural integrity issues or safety
concerns, there have been numerous defects that have been identified. As a
matter of fact, it's been indicated that there have been hundreds.
I ask
the minister: Can you confirm or deny if there have been hundreds of defects
identified through this inspection process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I
did question about this very issue, I have been advised in a normal process that
there are some deficiencies that are being worked through, but none that have
any impact on the structural integrity, no impact on safety. So in a normal
circumstance, the inspection agency, as well as the engineer responsible, does
the walk-on. Mr. Speaker, they have found deficiencies, but they are not of
structural integrity. They have no cost implications, no timeline implications.
There are no safety implications.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd ask
the minister: Can you confirm or deny if some of those deficiencies relate to
welding?
There
have been suggestions that the deficiencies could amount into the hundreds; 400
was one number that I heard.
Can you
confirm or deny if that is the magnitude of the deficiencies? Do any of those
deficiencies deal with welding?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot
speak to the absolute number of the deficiencies. I did not ask about the
absolute number of deficiencies. Again, the report is not in its final form, so
I have not seen the report at this point.
I have
been advised that there are no structural impacts here. The engineer of record
has no major concerns; the inspection agency has no major concerns. The
deficiencies are being dealt with. There are no major impacts, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
thank the minister for her answer today.
She
mentioned the final inspection reports have been completed.
I ask
the minister: Once received, will she make those inspection reports public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will be made public when they're in their final form.
They absolutely will be.
I will
refer the Member opposite to Nalcor's website. They do have information on the
website in response to this issue that talks about the welds. They do indicate
that the welding work has been validated and verified and that things are in
order, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
will repeat, there are no structural integrity issues, no cost implications, no
safety implications and no schedule implications on this project.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in response to the AG's outlook for the province, the Minister of
Finance said one way they would address the provincial deficit was through
immigration.
I ask
the minister: Will your government meet their own immigration promises they made
in The Way Forward document?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the question. Of course, immigration for us as a province, and for us as
a country, is very important. As we know, we looked at some of the aging
demographics and looking at the workforce in the province, certainly it's an
area that we have concentrated on as a government, and we are very excited about
the initiatives we are taking.
As a
matter of fact, we have an immigration action plan in place where we have
identified 39 actions over the next period of time. As a matter of fact, 26 of
them will be implemented this year. So we are effectively looking at
opportunities whereby we can have immigrants coming to this province because we
think it's very, very important to have that, to make sure there is a skilled
labour force and that we have workers in place for that. We will continue to
work on that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to documents that we uncovered from an access to information request,
do you know how many times the current and former minister had correspondence
regarding immigration targets? Zero – not once.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Why are the provincial nominee applications for
immigrants 50 per cent less now than they were in 2015?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
I can assure the Member
opposite, Mr. Speaker, that we are actively engaged with our federal partners.
As a matter of fact, I've had several conversations with Minister Hussen and we
will continue to do that.
As a
matter of fact, I would like to remind the Member opposite that although he
wasn't part of that particular government at the time, there was some federal
funding available that they failed to even sign as we have with the
infrastructure as well. As a matter of fact, it was July of 2016 that my
predecessor, the minister sitting here, signed in July 2016, funding that would
provide an impetuous for us to have immigrants within this province to add to
our workforce, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister, the numbers don't lie; and ATIPP will show you zero
correspondence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, can the minister
provide to this House a breakdown of the $800,000 spent by the Liberals to
improve and fast-track immigration in Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
I'm sure glad the Member
opposite brought that up because, Mr. Speaker, the $800,000 that he is talking
about would never have happened if the previous administration had been there.
Because this minister, there were two years that they did not even sign the
agreement. Then all of a sudden the minister that preceded me signed the
agreement in July of 2016.
As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are actively looking at immigration. It is
important for us within this province. We have added two extra people, staffing,
to address these. While some of the numbers in isolation that he's using might
seem to be impressive, he needs to look at the fact that over the next year and
two years we are looking at aggressively having immigration as important as we
move forward to 2022 where we will have 1,700 per year.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
we live in hope and die in despair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
More money hasn't resulted in
better numbers, I remind the minister.
The
minister promised the Liberals would use $800,000 to shorten wait times. In two
years, only half the number of immigrants even applies to come to Newfoundland
compared to two years ago. The wait time for express entry has gone from two
days to almost six weeks under the Liberals.
Why is
this program such a failure, Minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to remind the Member opposite as well that in addition to the provincial
nominee program where we have a thousand people who are allocated to this
province, because obviously we work closely with the federal government, we are
also looking at the Atlantic immigration program where we have an extra 442
people that would be addressing.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, while I understand the minister is talking about some of the lag time
that is there, that is a concern we have and that is why we actually looked at
extra staff to expedite the application process. We are also looking more at a
design, at online computer applications, which will speed up the process as
well.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we're not just sitting back and taking the easy – we're looking at
immigration as being very important to this province. We will continue to do
that, and we will have results.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, two years and we still have no results, so I guess we'll stay tuned.
I remind
the minister that it was the actions taken by your Liberal government that
plunged Newfoundland and Labrador into a recession and smothered the economy.
How can
the Minister of Finance state that immigration will be the solution to the
province's problems when Newfoundland has the lowest number of immigrants in all
of Atlantic Canada?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Tell the Member opposite, Mr.
Speaker, to stay tuned, because we are actually being aggressive with our
immigration policy, with our action plans. He should look at
The Way Forward. As I said, we have
identified within that plan 39 different actions that we are going to be
actively engaged in over the next period of time; 26 of them will be implemented
this year as part of our action plan.
Mr.
Speaker, while we look at the economy and look at within the province, we also
have to be careful and understand the fact that there's an aging demographic,
and that's why we are getting aggressive with our immigration plan. We are
looking at that.
The
other point, Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite should realize that part of the
plan is it is federal regulations and we also have to abide by those regulations
to have skilled labour.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the minister: How much did it cost to move the Crown Lands office to Corner
Brook?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The cost
of moving personnel was approximately $200,000, which was all funded from within
existing departmental budgets. In fact, we saved a significant, larger pot of
money as a result of reducing our leased space. For example, in Corner Brook
alone we've been able to reduce our leased space by $26,000 annually. In fact,
across the entire province the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources were
able to save on an annual basis $200,000 by reducing our footprint, reducing our
lease requirements.
The
consolidation of the Crown Lands offices, the headquarters in Corner Brook,
really, really suits well with our emphasis on agriculture, on protected spaces
and areas and as well on our forestry activities. This was the right move and it
did not cost very much money.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, definitely an
interesting answer when I ask him the next couple of questions.
Minister, you're keeping a regional Crown Lands office in Corner Brook as well
as the Crown Lands headquarters, and we've been told there's a third office
being leased. Can the minister confirm this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, there are leases
that are in the Riverside Drive area; there are leases in the Fortis Tower.
There was a lease at the Millbrook Mall, within the department, but we abandoned
that lease. We were able to consolidate staff into our existing spaces.
We have
reduced the total square footage in Corner Brook by 3,000 square feet. We have
saved $26,000. Is there another question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, there are lots
of other questions; just ask the general public and ask the 30 employees that
worked here in the office. They have lots of questions, I remind the minister.
Minister, the Lands Act requires the
Lands Branch to maintain a registry of documents. The current public registry is
located in a fireproof vault in the government-owned Howley Building.
What's
your plan for the Howley Building?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
With
regard to the Howley Building and any other government-owned properties here in
the city, we always look for opportunities to find leases that are expiring in
any region of the province and move them into government-owned space.
I think
it's AES that have moved into the Howley Building. As other leases expire in the
city, we will be taking advantage of the government-owned space.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister explain how, even with your regressive cuts to services, health care
costs have continued to explode?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
quite sure what explosion the Member opposite refers to. If you look at the last
three years, our expenditure in health was $2.9 billion, $2.9 billion and $3
billion.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Well, again, you mustn't be
listening to the Auditor General or to the media: a 3.9 per cent increase,
that's with cutting things like diabetic strips, drugs that are accessible for
people, dentures. That, to me, equates to less service, more money being spent.
Maybe you need to do the math later on.
Will the
minister now agree that the ill-informed cuts that the Liberal government has
made to vital health care services since coming to power in 2015 have not had
the intended impact on cost savings or quality of health care?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Over the
last 12 years of the previous mandate, health care costs in this province went
through the roof. Over that period of time, there was no corresponding increase
in outcomes for the patients in this province. We have kept costs static from
the public purse and, over that period, we have seen no deterioration in
outcomes, contrary to the assertions of the Member opposite. Indeed, we are
getting data that shows our outcomes are actually improving, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I look
forward to seeing that data.
I also
ask the minister: Can you explain to this House how we compare in the additional
cost to health care in other provinces in Atlantic Canada? Are we in line with
the outcomes when it comes to providing the proper services for health care in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, we are
unfortunately one of the most expensive provinces per capital in health care in
this country. The challenge there is to deal with that by not throwing more
money at the problem, but by extracting better value from the dollars that we do
spend. That has been the focus of every action that this government has taken
under The Way Forward, under the
mental health implementation plan.
The
gentleman opposite points out that we are in the midst of Atlantic Canada as far
as outcomes are concerned. We lag in some; we lead in others.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Well, I can guarantee you
we're dramatically higher in the amount of money that we spent in the last two
years, with less outcomes than the other sister provinces in Atlantic Canada. So
obviously that says something about The
Way Forward plan that is not working for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I ask
the minister: With the new health agreement with the federal government, what
will be the percentage for Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the demographic
arrangement about allocation of funds under the Health Accord was dealt with in
a different process by the previous Conservative government at the federal
level. It was an arbitrary dictate that simply decided on a per capita formula.
We, in
our negotiations with the federal minister of Health – with whom I could talk
without any difficulty and had no difficulty with access – have had a
demographic adjustment in our figures. That will yield an extra $14 million to
this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, my understanding
is the present minister had been working with the federal government and his
counterparts to negotiate a new deal. As part of that deal, according to the
recent media stories, the provincial government said that Newfoundland and
Labrador is guaranteed to see its share of the Canada Health Transfer growth of
3.5 per cent in the first two years of a 10-year pact.
So 3.5
per cent over two years is a far cry from the 3.9 per cent additional money
we're spending every year. How are you going to make up that shortfall to
provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need proper
health care?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite unfortunately is conflating two percentages. One is actually
derived from a negotiated agreement which we have signed. The other is based on
a financial model that is actually a projection and not a documented set of
numbers.
Our
health care expenditure in this province over the last three years has remained
essentially static at $3 billion. Over that period, inflation in this province
has run anywhere between 2 and 3 per cent. We have bent the cost curve, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all
of that we're still falling behind in our quality of health care and we're
spending more money than anybody else in Atlantic Canada and the rest of the
country.
Minister, in a recently released email concerning the Mobile school extension to
school trustees, you stated your patience with this is running thin.
Minister, exactly who are you growing impatient with: the affected children, the
concerned parents or the volunteer school trustees?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The line
of questioning from this Member would certainly try anybody's patience, I would
say, Mr. Speaker, because it makes so little sense so often.
Mr.
Speaker, the school in question is having an extension added to it, a number of
additional rooms to accommodate the growing student population. The previous
administration failed to act to ensure there was sufficient capacity in the
Mobile-Witless Bay school system. We are now acting to resolve that and maybe we
will hear from the Minister of Transportation and Works. The second tender is
out there and will likely be awarded before Christmas.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Minister, the question was that you stated your patience is running thin.
Imagine how the hundreds of overcrowded students and parents are concerned in
the Southern Shore area.
Premier,
do you really think comments like this are becoming of a Minister of the Crown?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
finally get a chance to actually stand and answer some questions.
I have
to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely bizarre. Make no wonder
there had to be a wharf built for the ferry in Conception Bay East to go to Bell
Island – make no wonder.
They
were talking about assumptions a few minutes ago when it came to health care.
They made lots of assumptions. Number one was the price of oil would never go
below $100 a barrel for 50 years. What did we get back for that? We got back a
Muskrat Falls Project which makes it very difficult to make the kinds of
infrastructure investments that the Members opposite are talking about
Mr.
Speaker, we're getting the tale of two cities over here. We've seen it all week.
Just a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition was saying cut health care, cut
education; a few seconds ago they're talking about spend more money on
education, spend more money on health care.
Who is
the real leader over there, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to agree with the Premier on one point: it is bizarre. It's very bizarre that a
Minister of the Crown would write an email basically saying his patience is
running thin with volunteers and people who want to improve the education system
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Premier,
you gave the minister a mandate letter. Will you ask him to live up to that
letter which was based on improving education for people, including those in the
Mobile area and Mobile high school?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the minister is
doing the job that he's been asked to do. Unfortunately, what we're seeing as a
province right now, we've had to make the decisions that we've had to make.
There's been a lot of work that went into what wasn't an election campaign
promise.
Keep in
mind the Member that represented that district for many, many years decided,
with the leader of the current Opposition – made a decision at the last minute.
He spent years in the Cabinet and couldn't deliver the very project that he's
asking for here today. What is going on with this Opposition?
Mr.
Speaker, the Member is doing the job that he's been asked to do. He's making the
best value based on the evidence that he has available to him. I have confidence
in this minister to work with the people in this province to provide the best
affordable education to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
Quick
question, no preamble, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
What I understand is here you
only get proper education if you happen to be on the government side –
MR. SPEAKER:
Question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
– and you happen to be a
minister. That's how you make your decisions. Not acceptable.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
Quick
answer, please.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, when that
previous administration fired all of the school trustees in this province and
appointed the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador to run the school system, we objected. We returned the
school trustee system to a system of democratic governance that people deserve
and we won't make any apologies for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Today,
the Registered Nurses' Union stated that nurse staffing has not kept up with our
aging population and high chronic disease rates. Research is now linking
inadequate nurse staffing levels to more falls, more infections and longer
hospital stays, all of which increase health care costs.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will he do as the nurses ask and
conduct a review of nurse staffing in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This
province is blessed with an excellent RN workforce. We actually have more of
them per capita than any other jurisdiction in the country.
We sat
down as recently as two weeks ago with the RNU to talk about a workforce
resource management system between the two of us that would look at acuity on
the floor and staffing to those levels. I'd be happy to report back as progress
is made with those discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The RNU
spoke out yesterday and I think they're looking for more than what they're
getting. Mr. Speaker, our public health care system will be seriously challenged
in the near future because of our financial system and government's
ill-thought-out ways of dealing with it, such as their P3 approach.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has proposed a review of our
public health care delivery in order to continue to provide quality
patient-based care.
I ask
the minister: Why has his government not even bothered to sit down with the NLMA
to discuss their proposal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a timely question given the PMR to follow this afternoon. I would like to
correct a little bit of misinformation there. We have sat down with the NLMA on
frequent occasions. Among other topics, the topic of a review has come up. We
value their view from the physician perspective. We'll continue to work with
them, as we do with the RNU, to deal with their issues to improve the system,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all
know our health care system has challenges. We also all know it can and must be
better. Because of the enormity and urgency of the complex problems facing us,
it is essential that we work together to develop the solutions we need to evolve
and improve our public health care system so it is the best it can be for us,
our children and our grandchildren.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will he strike a select parliamentary committee that
will use the strengths and expertise of all parties and facilitate co-operation
and collaboration to enable us all to work effectively together to strengthen
and protect our public health care system? The people of the province deserve
nothing less.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
It might
at first glance seem that would not be an unreasonable suggestion; however,
everybody in the field of health care and the public has seen this problem
analyzed every which way to Sunday. It's the time to stop analyzing and start
acting, and we've done that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
We have our primary health
care initiative. We have the mental health implementation plan. We have our home
support review. We have our personal care support program and committee. We're
revising our standards in long-term care. We have the eHealth initiative. We
have shared services coming out. We have payroll and a whole variety of
initiatives.
We know
what to do; now's the time to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister is right, there has been study after study after study and that has
been going on too long.
I ask
the minister: What possible reason could he give for not using every measure
possible to this House to address this growing challenge? Again, the people of
the province deserve nothing less.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services for a quick response, please.
MR. HAGGIE:
I would suggest that the
response we have is entirely just that. We do not need any more analysis. The
problems are clearly defined, the solutions are clearly defined, and we are
moving ahead with those solutions, Mr. Speaker. That's the answer to that
question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
table a list of all the approved RDC contracted projects by fiscal year. This
includes projects where the contract and the agreed upon statement of work have
been signed by both parties and includes all projects up to date, including
those that were approved after the creation of InnovateNL.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act And The Portability Of
Pensions Act. (Bill 21)
Further,
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, Status of the Artist Act.
(Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions for
which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
As it is Wednesday afternoon,
the procedures governed by Standing Order 63, the speaker calling the private
Member's motion as announced at an earlier sitting of the House, please proceed.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy this afternoon to make the following motion:
WHEREAS
the province's serious financial situation has caused government to predict a
decline in program expenses of 0.85 per cent per annum or $376 million over the
next six years, which could result in tens of millions of dollars cut from
health care each year; and
WHEREAS
people are worried their health care system won't be there for them when they
need it; and
WHEREAS
this level of cost reduction should not proceed without a comprehensive health
sector review, and a plan that will avoid arbitrary, harmful cuts in services;
and
WHEREAS
the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has called for an independent,
expert review of the province's public health care facilities and services based
on wide consultation in the health sector; and
WHEREAS
the NLMA says the review should be tasked with telling government how to
reconfigure the health care system to be smarter, less costly, high quality and
focused on patient care and prevention; and
WHEREAS
the people of the province expect the House of Assembly to work together on this
issue;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that government undertake an independent, external
review of health care, to be conducted by an eminent expert recognized in the
field of health care delivery, with the goal of maintaining quality health care
into the future.
And this
motion is seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a serious situation in this province and I think we all know
it. First of all, we are blessed in this country and in this province to have a
public health care system, a system that has been based on taking care of
patients, a system that has been based on having excellent workers, medical
professionals and workers within our system, workers who are unionized, workers
who are trained, who are educated and who care for people.
We have
a system in this country which people look to and wish they had. We know we have
a long way to go. There are others who also have that system and who do it
better than we do in Canada. We have to look at that and we have to move
forward.
What's
happening in this province, Mr. Speaker, which is very, very disturbing is that,
yes, we do have a situation where our fiscal situation is in dire straits. We
know that, but we have a government that, without any sense of analysis – we
just heard the Minister of Health say he doesn't need to do any more analysis.
Well, I'm afraid they need to do a lot of analysis because they haven't shown us
that they're doing analysis.
All
they're doing is cutting, cutting and cutting. The concern that we have is the
cuts relate to both services, as well as to workers. What we have is what the
Nurses' Union has been pointing out. We have a system where, because we do not
have adequate staffing in the way that our staffing is needed, patients are
ending up being longer in hospital than they need to be.
One of
the areas – and I know the minister knows about this and I keep getting stories
brought to me about it – people getting infections in hospital. Those infections
are very often tied to the fact that there's inadequate staffing in terms of
numbers. Not inadequate in terms of the quality of the workers, but inadequate
in terms of the numbers and patients not having adequate care, getting
infections and ending up being in hospital sometimes days, sometimes weeks and
I've even heard of sometimes months, because of the infections. We can't have a
government that, because of the fiscal reality, is just going to continue
cutting without looking at what really needs to happen.
I know
we have a bad situation; I know what the Auditor General has said. That's what
concerns me because this government just does knee-jerk reactions to the
terrible straits that we are in. The Auditor General has warned that since 43
per cent of program expense dollars go to health care, a 5.1 per cent decline
over six years, a decline in expenditure over six years, could really be
significant for health care.
Health
care gets almost half of the program spending. If this government thinks only
about cutting, if this government thinks only about trying to get rid of
workers, if this government doesn't do an analysis of how health care can be
done better than we're doing it with our workers who are there and a
patient-based model of health care, then if we don't have that, we're going to
be in terrible straits in five or six years' time.
This is
why I'm so concerned. We can go on talking about all the stats with regard to
how bad the fiscal situation is, but the bottom line is we just can't have a
government that's doing slash and burn to our health care system. If we're going
to keep our public health care system, which this government is now already
starting to attack by putting in a P3 hospital in Corner Brook – if we're going
to start attacking our public health care system, then we're going to end up in
a sorry state. So that's why we brought this motion to the floor.
I want
to talk about the kind of review that we want. We're not talking about review,
paying consultants like EY to come in with the mandate to find ways to cut.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a review that looks at
our public health care system and says: How can we make it better; how can we
make it more patient-oriented; how can we make sure that the money we're
spending is getting the best possible result for the patients and for our
workers? That's what this review is about.
We're
not talking about hiring a company out there and say, yeah, you go do it. You go
do it and see what you come up with. No, we're talking about a process that
would include having somebody or somebodies who are eminent people in the health
care system in this country, who understand our public health care system, who
know how to work with people, who know how to work with medical professionals.
Whether
it's doctors, nurses, the staff who work in hospitals, all of whom are involved
in delivering our health care system; a person who knows how to sit and bring
people together and say let's solve our problem, not let's cut, but how do we
make sure that the money that we are spending is really giving the care that we
need? This is what we have to do.
The
NLMA, the Medical Association, last year carried on some consultations. In
October last year, they had a full-day session down at the Convention Centre. I
know I was at it. Others here in the House were at it. My colleague was at it.
That day was very interesting. The thing I found most interesting was that they
brought models from other parts of the world of how this kind of review can be
done.
The
model that really got all of our imaginations, I think, was a model that was
done in Tasmania, in Australia. I think it's very significant and it was very
relevant to have the people from Tasmania here telling us about what they did,
because Australia has states in the way that we have provinces. Tasmania is a
state of Australia, so you have a state government and you have a federal
government; so a very similar situation as to ours.
We're
not comparing a province to a country. We are –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I
have a hearing problem.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
I don't
know how often I have to say in this House that I have a hearing problem. I wear
hearing aids and interference like that is really difficult.
Thank
you, really and truly.
I'm
talking about Tasmania and how comparing ourselves to Tasmania is not like
comparing ourselves to another country. I don't want to compare, for example,
Newfoundland and Labrador to Denmark or to Switzerland because that would be a
province and a country.
What I
want to do is to talk about what they did in Tasmania. It was a model for
reviewing and reorganizing facilities and services. Not to cut money, but to
reorganize facilities and services in a patient-based way.
The
Australian island state, because it is an island – it's very interesting how
much we're like Tasmania. They have a population of 500,000 people. We have just
over 500,000. They have suffered from and they were suffering desperately from
fiscal policies and poor population health. The similarity was striking last
year when I heard the presentation.
The
model they use focused on a review and reorganization of their health care
delivery of a public health care system – not getting rid of the public health
care system. It was led by health professionals consulting with other health
professionals and the community. The government was totally behind it.
It
wasn't a process that was led by an accounting firm; it was a process led by
professionals. The model included a role delineation framework. What that means:
It described the capacity of any facility to provide different services and the
minimum volumes to ensure safety, quality and efficiency.
I think
what's really important is that in the work that was done in Tasmania, they made
big changes to their system based on primary health care, based on patient care,
without cutting jobs. That wasn't the goal. Cutting jobs was not the goal; it
was how to make sure that those who were working in the system had everything
they needed to make sure their public health care system was quality care.
In the
review they did, each clinical service is described in terms of complexity, as
well as the support services, staffing and other requirements needed at each
site. This is the thing: the site – this happened in Manitoba, too. What
happened was that, yes, you have your hospitals for the acute care needs, they
have to happen, but the primary health care in community-based clinics,
community-based health care, is the basis of their public system.
For
example, take the flu shot. If we had community health clinics with a full team
of all the needs that the community needs in primary health care, then we
wouldn't have the mess that we had this year with regard to the flu shots, and
it's still going on. We would have permanent community-based primary care where
you would have doctors working side by side with nurse practitioners, working
side by side with all the other levels of health care, with psychologists, with
psychiatrists, with physiotherapy all in your community health-based centre as
part of the public health care system.
This is
what they moved towards in Tasmania. What they found was that they created a
system that really worked for people and worked for the workers as well.
Obviously, in that system – and we have it to a small degree in this province.
We have some places where we do have community-based care and it's working well.
If people can get care on a daily basis, if they can get care that's needed,
they understand if something comes up for something very serious and they have
to move out to another place.
For
example, you're on the Northern Peninsula, but you may have to go Corner Brook
for particular care. The same way, you're in Central and you may have to come
into St. John's for particular care. People don't find that a difficult thing if
they actually have a primary health care team structure in their community
because they understand that you can't have everywhere in the community,
everywhere in this province, we can't have all of the specialized care. People
should be able to have a centre in their communities, within a reasonable
distance, where they can get the daily kind of health care that they need.
Now, the
same thing was done in Manitoba under the NDP government. The person there who
worked on it was Dr. Peachey. Dr. Peachey also spoke last year at the event we
went to that the NLMA had and it was absolutely excellent.
There,
in Manitoba, they were able to have the doctors, the registered nurses' union
and all those involved in the health care system work together. They moved
towards a community-based primary health care system.
Unfortunately, the government that's there now is starting to undo what was done
under Dr. Peachey. Guess what they're doing? They're ordering their own review
by consultants and the process is secret.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member her speaking time has expired.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much.
I rise
to speak against this resolution from the get-go, upfront, so everybody knows
where I'm coming from. This is, however, not an arbitrary decision. Now is the
time to act, not analyze anymore. I'm going to use my time to explain the logic
behind that because it is based on reason, logic and evidence, not simply a whim
or a point-scoring exercise.
Over the
last several years, the department has consulted widely on a whole variety of
priority areas, including primary care, mental health and addictions, long-term
care and community supports. We, in the department, have used the proposals from
the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and their forum, which they
held last fall, as a guide to plan our health facilities and health services
across the province.
We've
undertaken several external reviews in priority areas. We've had three reports
at the provincial level on road ambulances and one specific in addition to the
Avalon area. We've looked at home support, we looked at sharing of services and
we've acted on these.
We are
reforming the delivery of health care services based on these consultations.
We've also shared our experiences and learnings across Canada. We're not unique.
We're not unique in our need to achieve sustainability and to manage the impacts
of aging and an increase in chronic disease.
We don't
believe another review is necessary because the time, really, for studies is
over and the time for action is now. These studies go back 15 years. No one's
done anything with them, until now. We have a vision, we have a plan and we're
moving on it. It is not simply a strategy of strategies.
The
vision is one that's been adopted around the world and it's called the Triple
Aim. It's three elements; it's a three-legged stool. Each leg is better care for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, better value for those health services through
continuous improvement and, ultimately, better health for the population of this
province.
We have
a plan. The department's strategic plan, which fits under the umbrella of
The Way Forward – it's on our website;
it's there for everyone to see – supports this vision. It highlights areas of
improving community supports, enhancing primary care, reform of mental health
and addictions, better use of eHealth technology and modernizing and
streamlining service delivery.
On that
plan we are acting. We've already announced a long-term care facility for Corner
Brook on the West Coast. We have a new model out for eHealth in the province. We
have shared services starting up across the province, and there's more to come.
This is
all tied together; it's not ad hoc, knee-jerk reactions, as we've seen from
previous administrations. Our system is expensive and it's currently based on
hospitals, facilities, which are the highest cost of health care and they're
best suited to treating sick people when they're sick.
Too
often people will be better cared for at home, if the supports were there, or in
a long-term care facility if there was a bed available, not the most expensive
location, which is a hospital bed. We don't need yet another study to tell us
that and to tell it's not the right model for care for that patient, or that
it's too expensive, or that it's tying up the bed for somebody else. I would
suggest these are probably self-evident to even a man in the street with a
passing interest in health care.
We need
to get down to the business of putting our house in order. Too often people are
using emergency rooms to get basic, primary health care, to get their driver's
licence medicals that they should be able to get from a multidisciplinary team
in the community. We don't need a study to tell us that emergency rooms are for
emergencies, not for continuing care for people who really could be managed in
the community. We know that the key to improved health services and improved
population health is through prevention and access to appropriate services at
the right time in the right place.
One of
our key themes running through all of our service delivery models is that of
enhanced community and primary care. This, then, will reduce the inappropriate
use of hospitals and acute care. Throughout the consultations we've held, and we
have held many, residents and stakeholders have demonstrated a willingness to
explore alternate service delivery models and move away from the idea that if
you have a health problem, you have to see a doctor and it has to be at a
hospital.
When we
do have the communities engaged and asked them what they've required, members of
the public consistently come back and say they want to focus on basic everyday
services available as near to home as possible. That's not to say that acute
care isn't important. We still have to preserve access to acute care for those
who really need it, but at the same time we move service delivery to focus more
on providing more effective and lower cost interdisciplinary community services.
André
Picard in The Globe and Mail, two day
ago, said the fix for acute care is in the community, and he wrote a wonderful
editorial – and I would recommend it to the Members opposite for the edification
– about specifics, primary health care.
Mr.
Speaker, primary health care is at the forefront of our health care
transformation and it's a shift from acute to community and it's a shift to
prevention. It's based on interdisciplinary teams central to primary care, with
each provider working to their full scope of practice. That's key. So they each,
then, are available to provide the right care to the individual at the right
time.
In
keeping with The Way Forward
commitment, we are introducing primary health care teams. There's one already,
there's one coming in Burin and there's one coming in Corner Brook before the
end of the year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
And there are more in the
pipeline.
We are
looking at mental health and addictions. We did have a very comprehensive review
and we produced a 54-point plan. Work has already begun on those. Indeed, the
day of the announcement, five of those had already been completely or partially
met. Again, that system needs to focus on community, a strong emphasis on
promotion, resilience and prevention, as well as the treatment recovery and peer
support which we deliver through an integrated model, not in a silo.
I'm
going to share some examples of the mental health and addictions changes to
illustrate my argument. In changing the delivery, we're moving again towards an
interdisciplinary approach. Part of that is a revision of the old plans for
replacing the Waterford. We're going to align those with what we heard in that
review.
Basically, we're not going to replace the Waterford with another equivalent
large-sized institution. The one we're going to replace it with is going to be
appropriately sized for care of individuals who require acute in-patient
services. On the flip side of that, we're going to look at expanding services
for individuals in the communities.
We've
begun to establish mental health clinics throughout all the regions of the
province at a primary care level. We've implemented the Memphis Model for mobile
crisis intervention teams. So those teams include a mental health care worker
and a Memphis Model-trained plainclothes police officer working and travelling
together in an unmarked vehicle.
The
stigma of enforcement and judiciary for mental health patients' needs to be
removed. It has begun already. In actual fact, Chief Joe and I were talking
about it. It started two weeks ago with training the trainer, who will then come
back and train north of 40 officers across the province. Is it enough? Probably
not, but it's a start. This problem didn't come overnight and the solutions will
not come overnight either. There is no Harry Potter wand for this one either.
We're
expanding e-mental health services. We've started a pilot project with Therapist
Assisted Online. We're the first province to do this in Atlantic Canada. It's
been proven to work elsewhere.
We've
already started harmonizing mental health and addictions programs across the
four regional health authorities into a provincial model. This means that
approaches to care will be consistent across all regions of the province
focusing on evidence-based preventative approaches that are more effective in
improving outcomes and have the added benefit, as we referenced in Question
Period, of lowering the cost but keeping the quality; better value for the
dollar.
Departments across governments are involved in working groups to look at
supporting the other areas of implementation. There's Education, there's
Children, Seniors and Social Development and there's Corrections. This will all
tie in to moving the system to where it needs to be. We don't need another study
on that.
I'll
move on to long-term care and community supports. We know very clearly, and we
heard very clearly, that seniors and individuals with disabilities have a far
better quality of life when they're supported in their own homes for as long as
possible. Our goal is to reserve the more costly placement long-term care
facility beds for those who can't manage safely in that environment. The
philosophy is home first, not institution first.
We have
a committee with stakeholders, including advocacy groups for seniors and persons
with disabilities as well as service providers, that is advising on these
changes and guiding how they are rolling out. That, too, has begun. We don't
need another review to tell us where to go with that.
The
committee is working on clinical assessment processes, including an integrated
approach to care planning. The challenge here is to improve the coordination of
care through a multidisciplinary approach and it's already rolling out across
the RHAs. Once that's done successfully, we'll see better planning for
individuals. They will be much more involved in their own care in a place that
works for them and suits them.
In
keeping with The Way Forward, we've
started a review of the financial assessment processes that determine
eligibility for the publicly funded plans. We're hopeful that we'll come up with
those recommendations in the coming months.
We're
also working with the RHAs and the home support agency association to deliver on
service-level agreements for home support – not a funding model, a service level
arrangement focused on quality and outcomes. The first time that's ever been
done. We don't need another review to tell us that's what we need to do. We had
one as recently as two years ago.
Emphasizing community care, we know we need more long-term care beds. We've
sorted out Western region; we're sorting out Central. The EHR; we have announced
already plans to consolidate the EHR across all RHAs with NLCHI. We are actually
a national leader in the development of the EHR. We are leading others.
Who's
going to review that and tell us where to go next in a way that's going to make
sense and value for money? We have multiple sources of information in the EHR in
a way no other jurisdiction has – lab, X-ray, pharmacy – all a one-stop shop.
That data provides for better care and that data provides for better management
decisions.
The
Centre for Health Information is a national leader and will continue to do that.
We've looked at supply chain. We've already put in place a mechanism whereby the
province's institutional supplies can be bought through one single central
mechanism. Currently, that is housed in Central Health.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker – I notice the time is running out – we do recognize in
the department and in government that our health system is an ongoing evolution.
It requires continued engagement with the public, community leaders, health care
professionals and a whole range of stakeholders.
We value
the work that the Medical Association has done and the view they provide in
representing the perspective of physicians working in the health care system and
their advocacy role. We also need to recognize that change will not happen
overnight. We didn't get where we are in one day. We won't fix it in a day.
We have
to shift our focus away from institutions into the communities and break down
those silos. We've started that. Work is underway reforming the major policy
changes under advice from reviews we've already had. We've been given a clear
mandate by the people of this province.
We have
a vision, we have a plan and we have action already. We do not need to paralyze
this process by going back and reanalyzing stuff that's been done before. The
problem has been, since Romanow, no one has had the intestinal fortitude or the
application to actually do what was necessary, even though it stared them in the
face. That changed in December of 2015, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an
honour to stand today as we debate and discuss the private Member's resolution.
I'll just explain for people who may be listening in or watching, what a private
Member's resolution is.
Particularly, one of the parties, at any given time, selects an issue that's
pertinent to them from a party point of view or a provincial point of view or a
district point of view of significance. In this case, what's been put forward by
the Third Party is very significant to all of us. It's about health care, it's
about the quality of health care and it's about providing the best service for
health care in our province at an affordable rate, or using the money that we
have so that we can get better services provided for people here.
I won't
go through the whole legal process of presenting this, but I will talk about the
last sentence in it, the intent here of this debate, and what's being proposed
by the Third Party: “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Government undertake an
independent, external review of health care, to be conducted by an eminent
expert recognized in the field of health care delivery, with the goal of
maintaining quality health care into the future.”
Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Health and I wholeheartedly agreed of all
the things that are being done in our health care system, all of the positive
things that are there, the quality of people that we have in it; but I disagreed
on two key points: one, that we don't need an external review to look at exactly
how we better manage what we're doing, because we're not doing a good job.
That's reality – we're not doing a good job. That's the focus of what the debate
will be around today.
We're
not doing the job that people deserve and we're not spending the money, which is
a substantial amount of money – almost a third of our full budget, maybe more in
some cases – to really benefit people when it comes to health care. So there are
a multitude of things.
He
talked about preventative health; I agree 100 per cent. He talked about acute
care, primary care, all key components that we've talked about. There are some
great examples of how that's working wonderfully, but it's not working
consistently across the province. It's not ensuring that everybody would have
proper access to health care. There are major cracks in the system. There are
people falling through those cracks. There's the economy of scale of the return
on investment.
I know
it's questionable, Newfoundland and Labrador – like a lot of people, I have
travelled extensively in this province in a former life and get to understand
the geography here. I understand the various cultures and different parts of it,
and I understand the health needs and the situations.
So to do
that we sometimes – and maybe too often than not – work in isolation; we talk
about things we know best about. I can talk about health care on Bell Island
because there's a hospital there and I see every day the challenges that people
have, but that may not be relevant to what happens in Twillingate or L'Anse au
Loup, or what happens in Nain or what happens in St. John's.
We need
to have a better focus on what we're doing. We sometimes work in silos, so
proposing that we bring in somebody – we're not talking a big inquiry; we're not
talking massive, millions of dollars to do any of these things. We're talking
spending $3 billion to bring in somebody who can connect the dots, but connect
the dots with the people themselves who are going to be able to help deliver
those services.
In most
cases, that's health professionals, but in a lot of cases it can be service
organizations that can also support those. It can be a different approach to how
we do things, better uses of technology. From my understanding in listening to
the Leader of the Third Party, we're talking about let's open it up. Let's be a
little more creative; let's think outside of the box.
Unfortunately – and that's no discredit to what we do here, but people were so
consumed by our own responsibilities that sometimes we're too busy dealing with
those that we can't see what we do here can connect over there, can connect over
there, can eventually provide a much better service at a more much
cost-effective process.
The
premise right across the board, to me, makes sense. It is not only in health
care. I'd do it in education. I'd do it in road development. I'd do it in
recreation. We do it in child care. Whatever the program and service would be
would make sense, we would do it, very much so.
As the
Minister of Education talked about, we do it in ABE also. We do it in ABE, not a
problem, because every service that people need should be delivered in a way
that is accessible by the masses and is most cost-effective to those taxpayers
who pay who may not have to avail of that service, but that service should be
there to be availed of.
Unfortunately, not everybody gets the same return on government services but, on
the fortunate side, because they don't need them. Some people need more
education supports; some need more health care supports. In some communities,
some people need more infrastructure supports, but that's why our investments
should be there so at the time of when you do need them everybody has an equal
access to proper services. In this case, it's health care.
Very
much perhaps the number one – not perhaps, I know it is. It's the number one
service that people understand that they need; understand that if they don't
need it now, they're going to need it in the future; and understand that
somebody else in their family is going to need it very immediately. What would
you want? You'd want the best type of quality health care you could get.
A lot of
that is relevant to being preventative. A lot of it is relevant to how we
educate around our own environment, our own health care, how we take care of
ourselves and that. We need to do that in a coordinated effort. A simple way to
do a coordinated effort is bring in somebody who has that expertise, who's done
it somewhere else.
Too
often I get up – and we had debate today and it was very easy for the ministers
to say, well, it's done in this jurisdiction and we do this. It seems to be
convenient when it fits your argument, but it's not convenient when somebody
else brings up something that we can look at it from a different perspective –
and maybe we need to slow down a second, not in providing our services, but in
changing the world if it's not going to change it for the better, and it becomes
that simple.
I hoped
and thought that the private Members' resolutions were about let's look at
what's in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that means
from the service we're trying to provide but it also means for how
cost-effective we can do it.
The
minister talked about preventative services, and I agreed, and preventative
investments and all that, and it made sense to me. But I did have to chuckle at
one point because as I started to think in my mind, going back two years ago and
even last year, the 300 taxes and cuts to programs and services – people don't
realize it – a lot of them were relevant to health care.
It may
not have been direct money pulled right out of health care, but when you take
money away from Boys and Girls Clubs, for healthy living, recreation and social
development, that has an impact on their physical well-being, their mental
well-being. When you take program money out of schools and you don't have enough
ability there for teachers to be better engaged, that opens up more
opportunities for bullying in schools. When we talk about mental health issues
in schools and not having proper counselling, that has an effect –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
– on our whole health care
system.
So when
you start talking about, in a generic sense, that we're doing wonderful things,
we're doing a lot of things – and a lot of them are good, don't get me wrong and
they're being done by great, qualified people, extremely committed people, but –
I can honestly tell you this – by a lot of very, very frustrated people who are
offering these services, because there's not the proper coordinated effort in
how we're doing things. Sometimes just throwing money at something doesn't solve
an issue. Sometimes you put too much resources in one side and not enough in the
other and because there's too much there, the coordinated effort doesn't happen.
One can't keep up with the demand on another service.
So
having a coordinated effort, to me, would be the simplest thing in the world,
particularly when we're not talking about some extreme thing. If we were talking
Royal Commissions and we were talking about all these bigger cost-effective,
long-term encompassing time frames, fair enough; I'd have to question whether or
not that's in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
particularly trying to expedite the quality of health care we have here.
But
there's been a fair bit of work done in other jurisdictions. Because we're going
back to it now, it's being used when it's convenient. I want to go back to it. I
started to do some research on it as a critic and I know the Leader of the Third
Party has done extensive research to understand that there's ability out here to
better coordinate what we're doing, to expedite it. These are not long-term
things; these are about facilitating the process, because that's what is
important here.
I think
$3 billion in health care is a great investment; it's a substantial investment.
Getting the best use of that is very important. Making sure what the priorities
are, making sure the coordination is done and that we use alternative approaches
to things. That's what this private Member's resolution is all about. It's about
giving the stakeholders out there – and we have a multitude of them, from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association to the Pharmacists' Association,
to the Association of Registered Nurses to the Home Care Association. All these
people have a stake in this.
And what
do they want to do? They want to ensure the quality of health care is second to
none. But also that if there is a change – and there is a change, the
demographics change, age-wise certain aliments increase – that there's an
ability to move our financial investment to another level to ensure that people
don't get lost or fall through the cracks in those programs.
So why
we'd be adverse to that, I'm bewildered at that. I don't understand why we
wouldn't do it. I know the argument will come: Oh, we're spending more money and
that. We're spending $3 billion-plus a year on health care. The quality of
health care we get, don't get me wrong, is great for those who get it. The
problem is the wait times in a lot of cases, the travel situations that people
have to face. The fact that we sometimes have outdated equipment, that becomes a
challenge. Sometimes we're not better using things because of isolation and the
impacts that it would have on people.
There's
got to be a better way to do it. When we're, unfortunately, spending more money
and getting fewer outcomes, then obviously any new approaches, any new changes,
any new dialogue can only be an improvement. That, to me, would make sense in
any process we use, but particularly in health care, because I will tell you
right now, there are very few people who won't weigh in and let them know what
their experiences are. Most are not just screaming for the sake of screaming;
they're letting people know here's my situation, here is how, from my
experience, I could suggest this could be better handled.
I see
that from the hospital on Bell Island when people have to travel to St. John's
for dialysis. I'm still bewildered – and this is the conversation I will have
with the Minister of Health. It should have been addressed in the past, don't
get me wrong. This is not passing the buck because myself and the Minister of
Health will have this conversation about dialysis.
We're
spending, I would suspect and I'm getting the numbers crunched now, $100,000
more. That's for people to travel to St. John's to do dialysis when we could
have one unit, one bed, one chair. We already have existing nurses over there;
we may need a half-time position. So we offer better quality of health care,
because I can tell you right now, those people who get on that boat and wait
three and four hours – sometimes get home, sometimes don't, go in and do their
dialysis for three hours, then wait three or four more hours coming back –
they're not as productive as they want to be. That has an impact on them. It has
an impact on their health care also and their quality of life. It's about
dignity also.
I'll go
back to my accounting background. From an economy of scale, the numbers will
speak for themselves, but we haven't had that conversation about how do we do
it, how do we provide it. A number of years ago we provided the dialysis
services on the island of Fogo, a marvelous investment. I can't, to this day,
even imagine people from Fogo, even a longer trip, having to leave to go in to
the nearest unit, Gander somewhere, to get dialysis. That astonishes me. The
fact that it went that long, to me, whoever was involved there really wasn't
thinking straight and really didn't have an understanding of the impact it has.
Fortunately enough, I get to see that. I would never want to live it, but I do
understand and sympathize, have empathy and feel we owe people who are going
through that the best approach we can use to minimize the impact it has on them,
and give them a sense of inclusion again, a sense of dignity, a sense of quality
of life. They have a long-term alignment. They have a life-threatening
alignment, and we're minimizing the approach we could use to make sure the
impact is beneficial.
That's
what frustrates me here. That's why I'm a bit frustrated at the minister that he
would say he wouldn't even entertain – and he says all the data has been
collected. No doubt, some of the programs you've implemented as a government are
great ones and they're based on data that's been collected from those in the
field who tell you how it works from experiences, from pilot projects, fully
believe this can work, fully believe that what the minister is implementing are
in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Unfortunately, that's
a very small proportion of some of the demands we have, some of the challenges
we have, but, particularly, the total needs we have.
We have
a multitude of agencies here, a multitude of professionals who could have that
ability to give their expertise in one coordinated effort. One individual who
could sit down, who has that expertise, who wouldn't take two hours to draw out
a 10-minute overview of what would be the best approaches of it, because they
already have that.
If David
Brazil had to go in and ask somebody about a particular alignment, it might take
me three hours to even figure what it is; but somebody else doing it who has
that expertise would be able to do it much quicker, more efficient and would
understand exactly how that would fit on the bigger stream of improving our
health care system. So I think we need to go back and really look at what it is
we're proposing here.
This is
not political. The one thing I like about this – and we've all presented
political ones, no matter what side of the House you've been on. Some have been
political for the sake of being political, but in this case, I see this as being
what it was set up to be: a better way to have proper dialogue without it being
dragged out from a time frame point of view, without it being too financially
encompassing or burdening on the already stretched budget we have, but at the
same time giving all those agencies – I look at the minister, the minister would
know. Every day he has been bombarded by various agencies who are looking for
this, that and the other thing, and rightfully so, but on a coordinated effort
that dialogue could be there so people would understand what they're asking for
fits well with this organization or fits well with this organization.
I could
guarantee you the pharmacists' association would come in and say: You know what?
We can help alleviate some of the stressors on the GPs, or some of the stressors
that nurses have to face in school systems.
Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this and I will be supporting
this.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters – Pleasantville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
honoured to stand as the former parliamentary secretary for the Minister of
Health and Community Services. It's a tough act to follow. He so eloquently
speaks in that English accent; it's tough to follow that accent.
I'm very
surprised at a couple of statements by the hon. Members across the way. The hon.
Member for St. John's East –Quidi Vidi mentioned a knee-jerk reaction. I would
say that's so far from the truth it's unreal, a knee-jerk reaction. We cannot
increase reviews and services like this if we're not going to be willing to do
the actions that are required now when we already have the information that we
require. It's very important. There's no knee-jerk reaction here. We've looked
at the information, we've studied it and we're moving forward.
I'm just
going to take a few minutes and go through some of the things we are doing that
I think are novel and important that the general public understands. Our health
care system impacts all of us, as we all know, every Member here, our families
and indeed every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
Health
care is arguably the most vital service that a provincial government delivers.
We have over 20,000 people employed in this sector working tirelessly each and
every day for their fellow residents, and we've talked about it. Members across
the way and Members on our side of the House have talked about the percentage of
the provincial Treasury that is focused on health care. Approximately 40 per
cent of the provincial budget goes to this agency. It's very important that we
provide that service. Obviously, from a financial perspective it's very
important because it takes up 40 per cent of our budget.
The
Canadian Institute for Health Information indicates that the major drivers in
our health care is compensation for health care providers, provincial drug
expenditures, increase in the use of public health services and the emergence of
new drugs and diagnostic tools. Everyone wants the best of the best, which is
important, and we want to try to strive to get that.
The
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, I agree with some of the things he
said about we want to get the best out of our health care investment. Of course
we do. We want to get the best outcomes for our residents.
Mr.
Speaker, it's funny that the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island is
asking for us to do a fulsome review on the health care system when there have
been many done at a cost of $3 billion to the provincial Treasury each and every
year but was unwilling to do that same fulsome review of Muskrat Falls when the
project was $12.7 billion. It's disheartening to hear when he's over here
talking about that; it sort of smacks of hypocrisy.
It is
our government's responsibility to offer residents quality health care and
prepare the health and community services system to respond to the needs of
future generations; yet, we have to stay within our own fiscal framework and the
limitations we have.
We are
in full agreement that we need to address how we spend the money for health
care, and we're doing that. The Minister of Health and Community Services
already alluded to many of those reports that we're working on now.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest per capita health care costs of any
province in Canada, with the highest spending on hospitals and institutions. We
need to bring our spending in line with comparable provinces or territories.
That's an important piece, and I can't agree more with some of the statements
that the Health Minister mentioned on that.
What I
don't agree with is that we need another review. We're reviewed to death in this
department already. We have review on review on review of every process that we
put in place. It's very, very important, those reviews had to happen and now
it's time for action.
Our
government has a vision to provide more effective and efficient services in the
priority areas, while maintaining and reducing costs. We have engaged
consultants in clinical priority areas and have engaged our residents and our
health care providers, and we will continue to do so. We need to move on this,
though, now.
The
Triple Aim reference by Minister Haggie is a health reform concept that has
three key components: improving population health; enhanced provider and patient
experiences for our health care; and creating better value for health care
expenditures. Everyone in this House would agree with all three of those aims.
Given
the challenges facing the health care sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Triple Aim framework is being used as a guide to guide the reform already
underway in this province, and we don't want to delay that process that's
already underway. We're not willing to start another costly and redundant
review.
In
addition, The Way Forward commits to
health-in-all-policies approach. Everyone in this House would agree with that,
which is being established. This will ensure that health considerations are
taken into account in all policies and in all decisions across our government.
I'd ask
the hon. Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island: How many reviews, when he
was on this side of the House in government, did they do in health care in this
way? None. The answer is none.
This
approach has been shown to improve health care outcomes in other jurisdictions,
and it's our intention it will lead to reduced health care costs in the long
run.
A
complete review of the health care system is not only a waste of money, given
the substantial consultations and research that has already been done, but it
will stall the significant health reform planning that are under way and will
delay the improvements to our system, which is not the approach that we want to
take.
As the
Minister of Health and Community Services indicated, there are significant
initiatives underway right now in health care to achieve these objectives,
initiatives that have been carefully planned based on a host of factors,
including consultation and the best available evidence.
I want
to speak about some of the successes we've already witnessed in the result of
the transformation that has taken place within our health care. A key pillar in
our health care reform is shifting focus from treatment to prevention. Our
residents have among the highest rates of circulatory disease, cancer and
diabetes in the country. Mr. Speaker, residents rank high on the risk factors
for smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption and inactivity, and eat fewer fruits
and vegetables than the Canadian average.
Aging is
associated with the increase in chronic conditions that require ongoing
treatment and management. We have the most rapidly aging population in Canada.
These are the facts. We also know the investment in health promotion and disease
prevention can and do work.
Recent
efforts to increase childhood activity, decrease smoking rates and increase the
number of breastfeeding mothers have had a positive impact on the community.
Furthermore, effective and accessible primary health care in the community has
been proven to keep individuals healthy while reducing the need for acute care
services and more costly intervention, such as emergency room visits, surgeries
and hospitalization. This stuff works.
We are
living in an era where our biggest health care challenge is how can we prevent
and appropriately manage chronic diseases and other conditions as our population
ages. Our health care system is not designed to meet the challenges, based on
the bulk of the effort it is treating for the illness rather than preventing it.
That is why we are taking a primary health care focus throughout all of our
priority areas.
To
reiterate, primary health care is typically a person's first point of contact
with the health care system. It includes a range of community-based services
aimed at improving health, such as visits from a family doctor, community health
nurse, physiotherapists and pharmacists, just to name a few.
As the
minister had mentioned earlier, we are implementing primary health care teams to
several locations around our province, which is a commitment me made in
The Way Forward. As an example, in
Bonavista collaborative teams have been established to address key issues
identified by the community, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder,
diabetes and the opioid crisis. This site also has access to electronic medical
records.
Mr.
Speaker, another way we are improving primary health care is establishing nurse
practitioners in communities that do not have reasonable access to a family
physician for day-to-day care in or near their home communities. One of these
communities is St. George's, and I'm sure the Member can attest to the success
of this area. It was featured recently on a CBC story after residents realized
the positive impact that a nurse practitioner has had on their community.
These
are all positive initiatives, Mr. Speaker. As a result of these initiatives, now
patients in their communities have somewhere to take their children when they
have an ear infection, and individuals of chronic diseases have a stable health
care provider that can monitor their condition and know their medical history.
To
complement the improvements we are making in community access, we introduced the
Chronic Disease Action Plan in June of 2017 – just this past June – which
contains a series of concrete initiatives focused on prevention, self-management
and treatment. All of these patients are not using emergency rooms for their
day-to-day health care needs, thereby freeing up time in emergency rooms for the
patients they were designed for: those facing medical emergencies.
This is
evidence on how we are working to improve clinical efficiencies by expanding and
maximizing the scope of practice of our health care professionals, particularly
those working with primary health care, such as pharmacists, paramedics and
nurse practitioners. We want all of our health care professionals working to the
full scope of their practice.
We also
recognize the geographic realities that exist within our province, and we are
working on the development of new technologies to help improve access to health
care services for all regions of our province, particularly rural and remote
communities. Telehealth is one example where patients can video conference with
their health care provider from a distance, reducing travel. As of April 17,
2017, Telehealth was accessible in 63 communities and 98 sites. So expansion of
that is key for us. We want to expand that and keep it going.
Remote
Patient Monitoring pilots are also allowing Eastern Health to track the vital
statistics of patients with COPD and congestive heart failure through
technology, thereby reducing their need to travel while decreasing and avoiding
emergency room visits and admissions. Since it began in November 2015, hundreds
of patients have availed of this service and the feedback from these patients
has all been positive.
The
HealthLine is also particularly beneficial in rural communities for seniors and
those with disabilities as it provides 24-7 access to health care systems
regardless of weather, transportation or proximity to a clinic. We are further
expanding the HealthLine services by implementing a telephone-based dietician
service on a pilot basis. Registered dieticians will provide callers with
evidence-based nutrition and diet related information and support.
Mr.
Speaker, these are ways we are making the health care system modern, smart and
responsive. The approach of increasing community-based services to support
people effectively and through more affordable health care can have a profound
impact on seniors and individuals with disabilities. Supporting these
individuals to live independently and safely in their own homes can delay and
avoid admissions to long-term care facilities.
Mr.
Speaker, this is clear evidence of the Triple Aim approach in action that the
minister spoke about and the minister is trying to implement.
The
department is building capacity and community support systems throughout
home-first initiatives to provide appropriate levels of care based on individual
needs. Regional health authorities are already putting home-first philosophies
in practice with at least 150 clients having been offered community-based
services instead of placement in a long-term care facility.
Mr.
Speaker, you can see that the changes our government is making are already
beginning to have a real impact and positive impact on the lives of individuals
and families in our province. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but we're working
as best we can to move the system as quick as we can to the best system we
possibly can. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
As we
roll out the implementation of these initiatives, such as Mental Health and
Addictions Action Plan and the Home Support Program Review, and continue to
fulfill our commitments under The Way
Forward, residents will continue to see improvements while the system
as a whole will benefit from the increased efficiencies.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we have made it abundantly clear to
the people, they do not need to worry about their health care system; it will be
there for them. The health care system is more responsive than ever, utilizing
evidence-based solutions and modern technology to provide equitable and
appropriate services.
In conclusion, a review will not only stall the progress
that is being made in our health system, the time for studies is over. We have a
vision, we have a plan and it's now time for taking that action.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and speak to this private Member's motion. How lucky are we. How
incredibly, incredibly lucky are we to have our public health care system, a
system that's based on equality for all people, a system that is based on equal
access to health care. It doesn't always happen.
When we
look at the challenges that are faced in our province right now in our health
care system, not everybody does have that equal access. Some of it is dependent
on geography, some of it is dependent on a number of other issues, but
basically, how very, very lucky are we to have our public health care system and
how very, very lucky are we to have a public health care system throughout our
country. It is the envy of many.
I went
door to door the other night, knocking on one door and a man, in his early
thirties, with some young children. He said what we need is a private health
care system. He said our health care system is not working, it's a waste of
money and we need private health care. That's what we need. He said I've got
insurance. I thought, yeah, and if he were to contract a persistent disease, if
he were, for instance, to have a really serious cancer, unable to work and lose
his job, how lucky would he be, I'm not so sure.
But we
are lucky to have this incredible health care system. We know at this time in
our province with the changing demographics that there are increasing demands on
that health care system, which results in increasing challenges to our health
care system because of our changing demographics. But none of those are
insurmountable.
It was
very interesting to hear the Minister of Health stand today and talk about we
don't want to work in silos. He talked about some of the initiatives in Question
Period. When I proposed that we look at a select parliamentary committee on
health, which is best practices in most provinces across the country, he said we
have the mental health implementation plan; we have our home support review; we
have our personal care support program and committee; we're revising our
standards in long-term care; we have the eHealth initiative; we have shared
services coming out; we have payroll and a whole variety of initiatives.
Do you
know what, Mr. Speaker? He's probably right that he has this and he has that,
and somebody has this and somebody is doing that. But that's the challenge that
we have to overcome. It's not enough, (a), to tinker around the edges of our
health care system, nor is it enough to deal with this particular issue and that
particular issue. They are all so incredibly interdependent, and we know that.
As a
matter of fact, without taking a review and looking at our health care system in
its entirety, including the social determinants of health, then we continue to
work in silos. It's exactly what the Minister of Health is saying he doesn't
want to do. But without a clear overview that looks at our health care system,
that looks at what's happening, what are the demographics down the road, how can
we improve our health care system? How can we close some of the gaps that people
fall through?
The
other thing about how lucky are we to have such a strong public health care
system, how lucky are we to have the dedicated health care workers that we have.
Whether they be allied health professionals, people working in dietary,
psychologists, people working in maintenance, our lab workers, our home care
workers, our nursing staff, our medical staff, how lucky are we to have people
who are trained, who are experienced, who are dedicated and committed. How very
lucky are we.
I've
had, at different times in my life, significant health challenges. I've had
breast cancer and I've had to be involved in the health care system. I have
experienced the expertise and the compassionate care that many of us have
experienced or people in our family and our loved ones.
I
remember when the current Minister of Health was appointed as the Minister of
Health. His background is that he's been a surgeon and served the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador for many, many years. I thought, how lucky are we to
have a doctor in that position, because it's somebody who has the field
experience, somebody who has been embedded and working within that health care
system. How lucky are we to have that.
However,
when we look at some of the decisions that have been made while he has been
Minister of Health, it's a little bit concerning. He talked again – or some of
his colleagues on the other side, on government side – about some of the
programs that they have reviewed, some of the work that they're moving towards.
They're looking at a home first, their philosophy of home first, of keeping
people in their homes, particularly seniors, as long as it is safe and
appropriate. Yet, the same government has cut home care hours to a significant
number of people, seniors, people with disabilities and they cut not only some
of the regular home care hours, but the housekeeping home care hours. That makes
it very difficult for people to be able to live independently and safely in
their home.
This is
also the Minister of Health who cut the Adult Dental Program. I know that many
of us here in this House have seen the effects of that, the detrimental effects
on many people, particularly our seniors, because again we have the highest
percentage of seniors in the country in receipt of OAS and GIS.
I had a
woman who came to my office this week. Her dentures are broken. They keep
getting repaired, but every time she tries to use them they break. They will not
be replaced. The Adult Dental Program has been cancelled. So the minister has
talked a number of times about how people can appeal. The appeal sometimes takes
months and then, oftentimes, they are still turned down because it is very clear
and rigid what will or will not be paid for.
So we
have seniors without dentures. We have seniors who can't get the appropriate
hours of home care. We know that some of the cuts were done simply by an audit
of files, where seniors were asked: Can you raise your hands and wash your hair?
If so, well, then you don't need anybody to help you with any of that kind of
home care. We know that in fact our home care system can be better; we know that
we need a publicly administered, supervised home care system. We do not have
that.
We know
– and the minister has talked about the whole primary health care initiative –
it's an integrated primary health care model. And how great is that; we have
been waiting for that for years. I attended a health care summit, the Premier's
health summit, from the previous administration two years ago, or two-and-a-half
years ago, and sat at a table with nurses who have been nursing since the '70s
and they said we heard this before. We've had this kind of consultation before
and nothing has been done.
I
understand and I can appreciate the Minister of Health's impatience to get to
action, but again I would like to say that I believe he is also working in
silos. We do need a comprehensive look at our health care system and how we can
close some of those gaps, how we can look at the interconnectedness because,
again, our health care is very, very interconnected.
The
interesting thing as well is how lucky are we to have former surgeon as our
Minister of Health, yet our doctors, through the Newfoundland and Labrador
Medical Association, are saying they are not being heard, that their opinions
are not being heard. Their ideas are not being considered.
How
unfortunate. One would think that if we had a former surgeon in that role as the
Minister of Health that he would be attuned to hearing his colleagues who,
again, are working in the front lines. We're also hearing from nurses. We are
not being heard, they are telling us. For years, they have been raising red
flags about the issue of understaffing of nurses throughout our health care
system, but they are continuing to say they are not being heard.
We know
what happens in this province when there isn't an overall examination and then
plan to address a number of our social programs. Without that comprehensive plan
that considers the interconnectedness, we're not going to get as good a health
care system as we possibly can – again, because of the interconnectedness. I
believe that to not do so leaves us in a situation of dealing with silos.
I do
believe that this minister and I do believe that this government wants to make
evidence-based decision making. I do believe that they want to make our health
care system the best that it possibly can be for the people of the province, for
our children and for our grandchildren, and also, so importantly, a health care
system that respects and uses the expertise and the skills of our health care
workers. We have to ensure that we are getting the best that we can from the
expertise that we have, from the money that we have, from the best practices in
terms of health care, and I believe that we can.
I
believe that can be done best if we really look at what is the interdependence,
how does the interdependence of our health care system work, how do we ensure
that we are protecting our public health care system, because there are so many
challenges on our health care system right now.
It's
kind of interesting, the minister has talked about the changes and the
advancements we're seeing in mental health and addictions, but that came about
because of an All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. That didn't
just come out of the blue. That committee was committed to looking at the rights
of patients, the rights of workers, what are the goals and obligations of our
health care system, and we must do that in our overall health care system.
Again,
why I proposed to the minister and the Premier to look at striking a select
parliamentary committee on health care, it takes the politics out of it. It
brings all of our expertise to the table to look at how do we design the health
care system that best suits and serves the people of our province, particularly
when we look at some of the challenges we face because of our geography and
because of our demographics.
I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do that. I believe this is not about stalling
or stopping the minister from doing some of the work that he says they have
started, but without a comprehensive analysis and a comprehensive plan that
includes the input of all of our workers, that includes the input of patients,
that includes the input of our communities, that we will continue to work in
silos, which is one of the problems we are facing on a daily basis in our health
care system.
We must
hear from our allied health professionals. We must hear from our doctors. We
must hear from our nurses who have been pushing, pushing, pushing government in
the areas of expanding their scope of practices in the area of staffing.
It's
very interesting, when we did the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions we heard from workers that traditionally are not heard from. It is
time that we hear from every segment of our health care system in order to build
the best possible health care system, public health care system that we can in
Newfoundland and Labrador for all people, where nobody is left behind.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a great pleasure to rise and speak today to the private Member's
resolution that we're debating. For those just joining us, the private Member's
resolution was brought in by the Members of the NDP. In short, the resolution is
essentially stating that the “Government undertake an independent, external
review of health care, to be conducted by an eminent expert recognized in the
field of health care delivery, with the goal of maintaining quality health care
into the future.” Essentially, calling for an overall review of our health care
system and seeking an eminent expert to do so.
I'm very
pleased and honoured to have the Minister of Health and Community Services, the
Member for Gander, as a fellow colleague. I would certainly classify him as an
eminent expert in the field of health care. I believe the team around the
minister in the Department of Health and Community Services, and also the good
work of some-20,000 civil servants who work in health care in this province,
certainly do a tremendous job day in and day out.
Mr.
Speaker, in introducing the motion, the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi
said: We need to do analysis. We don't need an EY report. We need to make sure
that the money we are spending gets the best value. We need eminent people who
work in the health care system to get involved. I would say to that: The
Minister of Health and Community Services has been on the record for quite some
time now stating that we need to get better value for the dollars we spend. In
fact, he just reiterated that this afternoon in Question Period.
I also
feel fairly confident – quite confident, for that matter – that we certainly do
have some eminent people working in our health care system. It was just this
week that we recognized Dr. David Allison, the chief medical officer for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He received an Excellence award for his
work in the public service sector. We certainly have a tremendous amount of
eminent and prominent individuals working in our health care system. I do not
believe, despite the notion from the Members of the NDP, that we need to find
someone else to come in and tell us what we are doing.
Government's focus on better health care, better care and better value, will
allow us to simultaneously improve the level of care provided, while creating a
more efficient health care system and a better control of expenditures to help
us in achieving the health care system of our future.
The
Minister of Health and Community Services alluded to a few things. I'm going to
touch on three things specifically, Mr. Speaker. The minister alluded to the
primary health care teams in our province, the primary health care team in Burin
and the soon-to-be one in – the one in Corner Brook and Burin. He touched on the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, of which I was very
fortunate to be asked to be a Member of that committee.
The
Member for St. John's Centre was a Member of that committee. I'm sure she would
agree that the level of consultation we heard in developing the All-Party
Committee on Mental Health care plan was absolutely astonishing. It was just
quite the success. It's been touted right now as a model all across the country.
We also had Members from the PC Party who also sat on that committee. That is
certainly a positive step we've made forward in addressing some of the needs in
our health care system.
The
minister went on to talk about the Memphis Model, some of the things in having
individuals in plain clothes; police officers deliver mental health services,
another example. He went on further to talk about our initiatives in long-term
care. We just had the announcement of a long-term care centre in Corner Brook.
The minister has been on the record saying that Central Health will soon follow.
The
minister also said we didn't get here overnight; and, Mr. Speaker, nothing could
be further from the truth. The health care system as it stands today, spending
some 40 per cent of the finances of the province, did not arrive here overnight.
We will not get out of that overnight and will not be able to reduce
expenditures and provide the same quality of care overnight, but we are making
some great strides.
The
Member for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville alluded to the fact that in our
Way Forward document we have a
health-and-all-policies approach. We're shifting from treatment to prevention,
and there's been a dramatic shift from treatment to prevention.
We
talked about the Opioid Action Plan; we talked about nurse practitioners. Mr.
Speaker, in your own district of St. George's – Humber, we've seen great success
in the neighbouring community of Stephenville and St. George's of the great work
and what nurse practitioners can do. What I do know is the recruitment
initiatives from Western Health, and Dr. Dennis Rashleigh and his team in
particular, some of the initiatives they've been embarking on to recruit nurse
practitioners is truly remarkable and I'm certain we'll continue to see some
success.
The
Member for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville talked some of the geographic
challenges, talked about initiatives around telehealth and the telehealth line.
He talked about a telehealth line with dieticians. It's certainly a number of
initiatives we're moving forward on.
I want
to talk a bit about some of the things that weren't touched on. One in
particular is the supply chain, Mr. Speaker. In
The Way Forward, we committed to
implement a government-wide shared services model for back office function. The
past summer, the minister announced the implementation of a shared services
model for the supply chain management. The supply chain is the function that
ensures that the product users have the right products at the right time in the
right place. It includes sourcing and the procurement of items such as office
and various medical supplies.
Right
now, each regional health authority has a department that is responsible for the
delivery of supply chain services and the managing of spending on supplies. This
approach, as you can imagine, results in some duplication, a lack of
coordination and for combining any purchasing volumes at all. So our new model,
the intention is to facilitate a provincial coordination of capital purchases
that will allow for combining of volumes and bulk purchasing.
This
will also better position us to collaborate with other areas in the Atlantic
partners for national purchases, as well. This, we believe, will result in
better pricing on medical equipment and other equipment purchases as well. We
already anticipate that 10 per cent will be realized in annual capital
purchases, just by simply looking at a shared approach through our supply chain.
This
work has already started. It has begun in Central Health, and there has been a
governance committee struck there to start this work. We're looking forward to
the continued work there and certainly a strong step forward in a way that we
can (a) reduce expenditures and (b) still provide the same quality of care.
eHealth
and the importance of eHealth – improving our eHealth solutions is another
action. It's another action that was alluded to by both the minister as well as
the Member for Virginia Waters – Pleasantville. These information tools are
absolutely paramount. In today's society, we need to utilize technology in the
best way we possibly can.
One
example of how that's working right now is the tool that the pharmacy network is
using, that ensures there's a record of all medications that have been
prescribed to individuals in the province that can be accessed by all clinicians
in the province. Meditech is just another example, and this is used by
provincial hospitals to collect and store personal health information.
Currently, our eHealth is managed separately by the Newfoundland and Labrador
Centre for Health Information and the four regional health authorities. This
approach, we've realized, presents a number of challenges including a lack of
standardization of data collection and overall duplication of resources and cost
among all the organizations. Again, here we see an opportunity for a
shared-services model for the delivery of eHealth, a key component of our
eHealth strategy.
The
shared services model will look at and leverage all IT – human and technical –
resources to build a stronger IT support function. Once it's fully implemented,
we will see cost savings through economies of scale. Again, you can imagine
right now with the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and
the four regional health authorities, we need to coordinate better, and this one
area they focus on.
They
also believe it will achieve more standardized data that can provide better
quality information for health care providers. It will provide a single budget
for eHealth which will allow for better resource planning. You can imagine four
health authorities having each their own resource planning here and trying to
budget. So from a provincial perspective, this will certainly lend itself to
some efficiencies. It will also allow the pooling of expertise under a shared
mandate for more effective eHealth programs; therefore, better patient care.
We also
anticipate a greater focus on personal health solutions such as remote patient
monitoring, as previously mentioned, which can keep people out of the hospital
and closer to home. This revised eHealth model will be managed by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information to centralize this
function and reduce duplication. In short, we believe we'll have a more
flexible, innovative health system providing for better care for people at
better value.
Another
area, Mr. Speaker, where we see an opportunity is through our laboratory and
diagnostic imaging. One action in our plan is to make changes to the delivery of
laboratory and diagnostic imaging services to achieve greater efficiency.
Currently, laboratory costs in Newfoundland and Labrador are higher than the
national average and the rates of diagnostic imaging are among some of the
highest in Canada.
The
number of sites delivering laboratory and diagnostic imaging no longer reflects
our demographics, our population health needs and our changes in technology. The
four regional health authorities are responsible for independently planning and
delivering our lab and diagnostic imaging services. There are currently 38
laboratories in the province and diagnostic imaging is offered at 40 different
sites. We know this model has resulted in a fragmented system with duplication
of services, some competition for resources and limited uptake of new
technology.
We're
looking at other jurisdictions and how we can do better. Several other
provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have
all implemented provincial models of oversight and service planning for
laboratory medicine and diagnostic imaging services – again, a key lesson we can
learn from other areas. The system we have is currently outdated and we believe
once reformed we'll have a more efficient and effective delivery of the system.
The
Department of Health and Community Services plans to transition the current
regional service delivery model of the laboratory and diagnostic imaging to a
sustainable, efficient and cost-effective provincial service delivery model. Mr.
Speaker, those are just three initiatives that I touched on. Again, we know
there is much more opportunity and much more efficiencies.
The
minister has been on the record stating the best we can do for health care in
the province is to find better value for the dollars we spend. With our
population and the aging demographics, the challenges in our health care system
are known to us, they're known to the Department of Health and Community
Services and they are known to many people all across this province.
One of
the challenges, Mr. Speaker – and as alluded to in the eHealth initiative – is
our sheer geography. The Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi referred to an
NLMA conference that was held here and Tasmania, the folks from Tasmania were
in, the State of Australia. Tasmania is much similar to Newfoundland and
Labrador, an island of some 519,000 people, very similar to our population. We
have some 520-odd thousand people. They have some great initiatives they've
proposed.
I know
that the minister and his staff had some great meetings with the delegation that
was here from Tasmania and, again, learning from other areas. A slight
difference though in some regards: Newfoundland and Labrador is about five times
the size geographically than the island of Tasmania, but again, certainly an
area where we believe we can learn.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I wish to say that we are aware of the issues and
challenges in our health care system. Under the guidance of the Minister of
Health and Community Services, a former physician I may add, who dedicated many
years of service through Labrador, through Southern Labrador, through the
Northern Peninsula, and through Central Health as well, he's seen first-hand the
challenges.
I know
how appreciative the staff is to have him as a resource. I've been fortunate
enough, as I mentioned previously, with the All-Party Committee on Mental
Health, to sit in on various meetings with the minister and his staff. I can
tell you that the staff certainly admires his dedication to improving health
care outcomes in this province, and I can tell you also that he's a stickler for
details. You will note that in his speeches and when he answers questions in
Question Period, there are not many numbers you're going to get by the minister.
We heard
just today, in Question Period as well, around the health care costs, he quickly
pointed out that our health care costs have remained static over the last three
years, with $2.9 billion, $2.9 billion and $3 billion. So our costs have
remained relatively static, despite, as he noted earlier, the rise in inflation.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit we are making great strides with the
health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is certainly a strong
priority of this government. I believe there are many more initiatives we will
hear from the Minister of Health and Community Services. I do not believe right
now is the time to call for any more review to stall any good work that is
currently ongoing.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on this private Member's motion. It's a very
important issue. Our health care and our cost of our health care is the biggest
budgetary item we have at present, and it's an issue that is top of mind each
and every day to most people that you talk to. You go to a coffee shop and talk
to anyone around, health care comes up. You open the newspaper or turn on the
radio, it's a huge issue. As the saying goes: You don't have anything if you
don't have your health.
Mr.
Speaker, without reading the clauses of the private Member's motion, I'd just
like to make some comments on each clause as I start. The first WHEREAS clause
reflects the Auditor General's report which stated on page 28: Program expenses
are forecast to decline by $376 million over a six-year period from 2017-18 to
2022-23, a decline of 5.1 per cent or an overage of 0.85 per cent per year.
The
second WHEREAS clause is true: “people are worried that their health care system
won't be there when they need it.” This is particularly true as young people
leave for a lack of opportunity and the population ages. With too few wage
earners to balance the province's demographic profile, it all stems from the
lack of an economic plan and the consequences for all of us.
The
third WHEREAS clause is fundamental: cost reductions cannot happen without a
plan and the plan cannot be developed without comprehensive information.
The
forth WHEREAS clause is something we've all heard. The province's Medical
Association issued a news statement on January 17 of this year saying: There is
a significant need to review all health facilities and services in order to
facility meaningful health system reform. Their statement reflected the views
and expressed at a provincial forum the NLMA hosted October 19, 2016 in
collaboration with the Leslie Harris Centre and the Centre for Applied Health
Research of Memorial University. The recommendation is actually that the review
be held by an independent office that has freedom to engage patients and the
public.
The
fifth WHEREAS reflects the message of the NLMA proposal, it stated: “Rebuilding
NL Health is not about bricks and mortar. The emphasis is on reconfiguring of
existing resources with an infusion of technology to deliver smarter, less
costly, high quality and stable health care that is focused on staying healthy
outside hospital walls.
“Rebuilding NL Health must start with a review of the province's facilities and
services. The review should deliver: 1. A Role Delineation Framework; 2.
A Clinical Services Plan; and 3. A Health Human Resource Plan.”
The
sixth WHEREAS clause calls on MHAs to work together; we have proven that we can
indeed accomplish significant gains when we work co-operatively across party
lines. We proved it with respect to the mental health and addictions, which is
an aspect of health care and was just mentioned by my colleague across the way.
The
resolve clause is very straightforward, “that
Government undertake an independent, external review of health care, to be
conducted by an eminent expert recognized in the field of health care delivery,
with the goal of maintaining quality health care into the future.” It was the
NLMA that emphasized
the term “eminent expert,” as well as the need for independence.
Let's
remember, Mr. Speaker, where this proposal came from. The Medical Association's
proposal flows from an overview of views and opinions expressed by more than 130
health system stakeholders who attended this forum that the NLMA hosted with the
Leslie Harris Centre and Centre for Applied Health Research at Memorial
University on October 19, 2016.
They
said: “a. The review should include tertiary, secondary and primary clinical
services, and the facilities associated with delivering these services.
“b. It
is recognized that primary medical/clinical care is one component of a broader
primary health care team service, and government is developing a new approach to
primary health care teams in the province. While the team model may vary from
region to region, the delineation of the required or core primary care services
in each region can still be defined in a review of facilities and services,
setting a standard for capacity and service level. The particular way that such
services are blended into a team model with additional primary health services
would not be part of this review.
“c.
Other components of the broader health system, such as long term care,
population health and public health can benefit from the same methodology
suggested for this review, or could be reviewed as a second stage.”
They
said: “The review process should be guided by the following principles: i.
Placing patients first and ensuring clear and affordable pathways to needed
care; ii. Ensuring the quality and safety of care through agreed standards and
minimum service volumes; iii. Strengthening the ability to plan health services
on a province-wide basis; iv. Providing evidence-based health services that are
not wasteful of resources; and v. Building partnerships with community service
providers.”
As the
Medical Association noted “Case studies from Canada and Tasmania were selected
to provide participants with concrete examples of health facilities and service
reviews that have been conducted in other jurisdictions.”
The case
study from Tasmania was particularly interesting. “Tasmania is an island with
about 500,000 people on the periphery of a large country. It exists within a
federal system where jurisdiction over health care is largely the responsibility
of the state.
“In
recent years, Tasmania has suffered from fiscal problems, poor population health
status, and poor health system performance in comparison to the rest of
Australia.” That sounds a little familiar, I think, Mr. Speaker.
Dr.
Kelly Shaw, specialist medical advisor, safety and quality, Department of Health
and Human Services in Tasmania provided an overview of their framework called
One State, One Health System. The
important thing is that the forum participants were focused on finding workable
solutions, approaches that lead to better ways of approaching challenges we
face.
In
January 2015, our premier of the day, Premier Davis, gathered over 300 health
care professionals, stakeholder groups and residents to discuss important topics
related to the delivery of primary health care in Newfoundland and Labrador at
the Premier's Summit on Health Care.
One of
the most significant things to come out of this exercise was the realization
that people with expertise have solutions to offer. They simply need those in
authority to listen and to channel their observations in ways that will bring
the right kinds of changes. The Medical Association's forum in October 2016 was
a similar undertaking and it resulted in similar conclusions. We need those with
expertise to lead the process of securing and sustaining our health care system.
The
Medical Association's proposal would lead to recommendations within a very
reasonable period of time. Their expected time frame for recommendations was one
year. Their summary report covered such issues as evaluation and monitoring,
technology, decision-making processes, public engagement and responsibility,
system integration, transportation infrastructure, remuneration, pilot projects
and upstream solutions.
They
covered such themes as redundancy and duplication of services, population and
community needs, primary health care, telehealth, medical transportation
systems, evaluation metrics, patient safety, human resource planning and
interdisciplinary care, public-private partnerships, generalists and leveraging
existing resources.
They
talked about the values that need to be reflected in this review, evidence
inclusiveness, transparency, independence, timeliness, expertise, skill-set
communications and consistency. We also need to find ways to co-operate with
other jurisdictions in the country, which are also facing cost pressures and
could possibly co-operate with us in achieving efficiencies or teaching us best
practices.
The
worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the sand or tread water without
changing anything. The cost pressures are increasing. The challenge is growing
more serious each year. We need solutions now and pretending you are the
smartest person in the room is not a solution. We need to be humble enough to
realize that all of us can learn from others about how to do things better. It's
all about ensuring people have the care they need, when they need it and as
close to home as they can get it, and in a way that is as affordable and
sustainable as we can make it.
Mr.
Speaker, we speak sometimes – in health they say there are some horror stories
and stuff, but government likes to tell us everything is good and in good hands
when it comes to peoples' health care. The political spin is not acceptable, Mr.
Speaker. We need to cut out the endless blame game we're hearing from the other
side. We need to cut out the endless desk thumping and backslapping from Members
on the other side who pretend everything is fine.
We need
to all acknowledge everything is not fine. The way to do this is to expose
examples of things that are not fine. It's our role in Opposition to expose
those things, and I think on a day-to-day basis we do our best to do that. There
are glaring examples of this in the news every day of the week. Examples are
dialysis, issues with dialysis, lack of dialysis care, dialysis patients
struggling to get to their dialysis appointments, not in the right locations,
nurse practitioner services, diabetic strips. Mr. Speaker, we've talked about
that endlessly in the House, the lack of diabetic strips, putting a number on
the amount of diabetic strips people can get.
Dental
health cuts – you need to go back and check the answer. I spent endless time on
my feet here about a resident in my hon. colleague's – the Leader of the
Opposition – in his District of Topsail – Paradise. A lady that fought so hard,
publicly, for her dental implants, stood on the front steps of this building and
protested those cuts. All she really wanted, she couldn't afford to get done
what needed to be done. I met with her and my colleague also met with her. We
know her well. She lives in CBS. It's a really sad story. Finally, through a
GoFundMe and some other assistance, the department did offer some assistance
after a while.
These
are people struggling all the while we're saying we're cutting costs or going to
do it better and all the while health costs go up. You can't say you're doing
things better when obviously something is missing in this full equation. We need
to do things better. Sure, we need to do things at a better cost, but we still
got to provide delivery, still got to provide a service to people.
As my
colleague from Conception Bay East – Bell Island pointed out, we have to start
thinking outside the box. To say we have the expert, the minister being the
expert in the field – I have no doubt, I have a lot of respect for the minister.
I was a Member of the all-party committee and I have a deep amount of respect
for him, but for me I think we'd go blindly in to the forest to say he has all
the answers. I think collectively 40 of us in the House struggle with all the
answers.
This is
the idea behind the Third Party's private Member's motion, is to bring it out
there to have an eminent expert review everything. Everyone comes out, all these
people come out and talk about our health care system and it's a day-to-day
conversation. Why is it so costly? Why do we have these wait times? Why is it so
hard to get this? Why can't I get my dental implants? Why am I only getting so
many diabetic strips? Why are they cutting this drug? Why is this drug not
covered? We all deal with it on a day-to-day basis. We hear it as MHAs. We hear
it in our districts.
As
recently as this morning, Mr. Speaker, I was driving in here this morning,
sitting in the house, and I got a call from a lady in my district who has been
diagnosed with inoperable cancer. She's not doing well. She called me, her
cancer drugs for pain medication, she was sent home. It's not covered under the
Newfoundland Prescription Drug Program. She is up there counting her pills,
worried about how she's going to man her every four hours to get pain medication
and wondering what to do. That's pretty heart wrenching.
I
understand government cannot be everything to everyone. I understand you have to
control your costs, but there are real sad stories out there. When I say there
are horror stories, there are a lot of sad stories. There are a lot of people
struggling in this province, Mr. Speaker. You have to control costs, we all
understand that. We have to find a better way. We all say that.
You
can't do the same thing over and over again, as the saying has been said many
times, and expect a different result. If you're doing the same thing over and
over again we know what that definition is. I will not say it, but we're not
getting any different results.
We need
to think better. We need to think outside the box. That's been said here, but to
just dismiss this private Member's motion as being, we don't need to do this,
this is a waste of time, or we have the expertise here. We don't need that. We
don't need someone to come in and review our health care costs. Why then are
successive governments, administrations year over year over year, successive
Ministers of Education, successive experts always saying: Why are our health
care costs so high? Why is it so high per capita? Why is it the highest in the
country? Why is it still increasing? Obviously, we have not found the answers.
I'll sum
up this way: Why not? We've said why and what for, for years and years and
years, so I'm going to finish off by saying – first of all, we do support the
Third Party's private Member's motion and we will be supporting it. I'll finish
off with this statement for the governing party: Why not?
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to stand now and bring to conclusion our debate today on the private
Member's motion that we brought forward, which basically is a motion asking for
us to really sit down and plan. That's what it's about. The review is not a
review just to do a review. It's to come up with an actual plan, a plan that
will move us into the future with our health care system.
Before
going in to some of my final comments, I do want to recognize that we did have a
good discussion here today in this debate. I thank very much all of my
colleagues who took part, the Minister of Health and Community Services, the
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the Member for Virginia Waters –
Pleasantville, my colleague for St. John's Centre, the Member for Stephenville –
Port au Port and the Member for Conception Bay South.
I
particularly thank the Members of the Official Opposition for supporting the
resolution. I think they understand what it's about and that's why they're
supporting it. I think the government understands what it's about and that's why
they're not supporting it. Because it's about going in a different direction
than this government is showing us they want to go. This is about not getting
rid of our health care system the way it is, not privatizing services, not going
into P3 arrangements with the building of hospitals, not cutting services to
vulnerable people.
I found
it very amusing, to tell you the truth, in a bizarre way, when the Minister of
Health talked about how important it is to get away from facilities and become
more community, home based. I notice my colleague for St. John's Centre pointed
this out, but I think it needs to be pointed out again. At the same time that
they come out making these statements – and the minister makes these statements
– what has happened since this year's
Budget 2017? Home care services have been cut; people have had home care
services cut, shorter hours, and not getting help with doing their housekeeping,
for example, which is an essential part of being able to stay in your home.
The
minister says one thing and then turns around and totally changes it. The
government says that we are in a fiscal mess, and we all know that we are, and
they say that they want to save money. Then, what do they do? They put a plan in
place to build a hospital in Corner Brook on the P3 model. They say that they
make decisions that are evidence based. Well, they've been presented over and
over again with the evidence with regard to the P3 model. Evidence shows that
they are more costly. Evidence shows – it is well documented – that there are
quality problems that develop because you have services that become based slowly
– not maybe right away, but based slowly – on the profit model.
Private
businesses get into P3s as an investment. They make money. So if they're making
money, what's happening with the services inside of those facilities? And the
same way when it comes to the workers, the government says: Oh no, the unionized
workers will continue inside of that facility.
Well,
something else that's been proven is that slowly all of that erodes under the P3
model. So you get situations – we have the evidence of – where every few years
all of a sudden there are more cuts, there are more cuts. So what are we talking
about here? We're talking about a costly model.
Our
discussion today is not about P3. Our discussion today is stopping anything like
that. Our discussion today is making sure that we have our public health care
system that is taking care of people, that is good for our patients, that is
good for the communities, that is good for our workers.
Government knows what we're talking about. We're talking about an open and
transparent process. An open process where everybody who's involved in the
health care system together, sit together and work together, plan together,
about how we move forward while maintaining our services, maintaining the work
opportunities for our health professionals and those who support the whole
health care system and maintaining our communities and taking care of our
people. That's what it's all about, and an open and transparent process.
That's
not what they're about. The minister stands and mouths off all the things that
are happening. I say: Well, where are they happening? What's the big deal? For
example, he talks about primary health care and how important it is. We've had
two set up this year.
At this
rate, two a year, is that really what a real plan for a primary health care
based system is about? No, it means sitting down and putting a full plan out.
Everybody knows what that plan is and then you certainly don't do it at two a
year. You say: We have to invest upfront in these teams as soon as possible
because that will save money in the acute care system.
So you
have to have a long-term plan. This government does not have that and they do
not want to support anything that would result in an open, transparent process
leading to that because they want to keep control, because they know what they
want and going the route of privatizing services is certainly on their minds,
and we know that. That's what concerns us.
They do
not have an overall plan for delivering services and using facilities. What's
going to happen as the pressure gets worse? Government will start closing
facilities. It will start getting rid of jobs. They will cut services and lay
off staff. That's what's going to happen. They've already done it since they've
been in government and they will continue doing it. That's the thing that's very
upsetting.
We have
to stop the knee-jerk downsizing. We have to put a stop to it. We have to put an
end to it. We want to sit and, yes, use an evidence-based plan, but real
evidence. Not evidence that they make up out of the blue and say: Oh yeah, this
is the way it is. We don't know that's the way it is because the proof is not
there that's the way it is. It's very, very disturbing.
The way
government goes on, they expect people don't know the difference. The thing is
we have a good system in many ways and we have wonderful workers, but they're
stressed out. We know that. We know the staffing problems for RNs, for example,
is very, very serious. We know that we have, in terms of the delivery of
services – and I think my colleague for Conception Bay East – Bell Island made
this comment – wait times that are way too long. We know that we have
insufficient and inadequate help when it comes to travel.
We know
that we can't have everything everywhere in the province and so there has to be
some travel. But if we don't have a good system in place that helps people with
their travel, then that's very, very problematic. We do have facilities that are
outmoded, outdated, that need to be brought up. People – especially the wait
times, it becomes a very serious issue.
When we
have surgeries or operating rooms, for example, that can't operate because you
don't have the staff that you need in that operating room and people get short
notices – maybe even on the day they're supposed to have surgery that they can't
have the surgery – we have problems. We are constantly having people come to us
being unhappy.
It's
interesting – and I think my colleague for St. John's Centre pointed this out
and I can speak to it as well. When you are diagnosed and you're in the system –
we get wonderful care, there's absolutely no doubt about that. We get wonderful
care, but the wait times can mean somebody waiting for what's deemed as an
elective surgery, like a hip replacement, for years – literally years. We are so
far behind, literally years.
Well, it
may be elective in the sense that the person is not going to die, but in terms
of quality of life, having a hip replacement or a knee replacement for example,
that, to me, is very, very important. People's quality of life, being in pain
all the time – which some people are as they wait, or being on painkillers in
order to stop the pain while they wait – is just not acceptable.
This
government and the minister just do not seem to be taking these things
seriously; the issue of the stress that's in the system, the issue of stress on
the nurses and stress on everybody. It's just unbearable for some people. We
keep hearing the stories, we keep being told what's wrong and they keep
pretending it's not there. So I don't know that the evidence is what they base
themselves on, that everything is fantastic, that there are no problems. There
are problems, so why not broaden the base of how to solve those problems.
The
workers are out there. They know. They know what needs to happen. They know how
the system should work. Sit down and work with them. Get everybody together;
make our system work for everybody. That's what this is all about. That's why
it's so disturbing that government shows that whatever they say about being open
and transparent, et cetera, they're not any of those things. They've just set
themselves up in an arrogant way to totally control the whole process, no matter
what that process is. That's very, very disturbing.
I am
pleased that I think my colleagues in the Official Opposition know what it is
we're talking about. They do know what it is we want to do and that makes me
feel good because they understand. I don't think they're talking about
privatizing our health care system. I'm sure they're not. From what they said
today, I think it's definite that they're not.
We have
to find a better way. We have to find a better way to deal with our reality. Our
reality is we are 500,000 people spread out over an immense piece of land, two
pieces of land – immense. We have to find a way to take care of people and to
stop saying – because it's driving me insane – the amount of money that's spent
on health care. We have to spend money on health care. We have to do that;
therefore, we have to work together to find a way to do that in our context and
make it work.
I know
that the groups are out there with the ideas. I know the Nurses' Union has
ideas. I know the NLMA has ideas. I know that NAPE and CUPE have ideas. We have
the organizations of the various specialists who are out there, even when I
think of something like midwifery. Here we are with people in this province who
are midwives and yet they still can't practice. They've got to be part of, you
know – and it's not a public system. So we have midwives, we have regulations in
place, but they're not under our health care system so they're privatized.
This is
what this government doesn't get. If we have a full public health care system,
then our home care has to come under our system, not be out there privatized. If
we have a full home care system, then our midwives have to be under that system.
All of our health systems need to be under our public health care system. That
is the reality. It shouldn't be: oh, I have better health care because I have a
private plan. That shouldn't be the way things are. It shouldn't be: I have
better health care because I have money and I can pay for services that somebody
else can't pay for.
This is
where we are in this province and we have to get ourselves out of it. We have to
make our public health care system work for everybody – and I mean everybody. We
can do it. As I said, the ideas are there, the people are there with the ideas.
Let's get everybody together to make sure we can do that. This government is
refusing to do that. They won't even sit one to one and deal with the issues,
let alone bring everybody around the table and really go at it together.
So, you
know, it's very disappointing. They don't want to do it. I'm very happy that the
Official Opposition, with us, believes we do have to sit together and work this
stuff through, for the good of our people, for the good of our communities and
for the good of our workers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division?
Division
has been called.
Call in
the Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Ms.
Michael, Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Kirby,
Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Edmunds, Mr.
Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Haley, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid,
Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: eight; the nays: 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion
defeated.
Order,
please!
I remind
all Members of the Management Commission there's a meeting that's going to begin
immediately after. It starts now at 5:15 p.m., but the in camera will be in my
boardroom.
It being Wednesday, in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House does now adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 in the afternoon.