|
Oral
Questions
December 16, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS
JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the
Premier.
Today we are debating an
act to return to the Crown certain rights relating to
timber and water use vested in Abitibi Consolidated.
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Premier today: What
prompted government to take this emergency action
immediately, today?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, government has been reviewing this situation
over the past several weeks to make sure that we acted
to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and particularly our natural resources.
We did not want to act
too quickly, on the basis that we wanted to make sure
that we had done the proper research and the proper
preparation and had brought the best minds that were
available that we could bring to the table to look at
this.
On Friday we actually, in
fact, sent a letter, because I had indicated publicly
that one of the options was that Abitibi would transfer
these assets back to us. That would be the honourable
thing to do, given the fact that the bargain was broken
which had been established over a century ago.
So, in fact, the minister
wrote Abitibi last Friday with that very simple request
- and that correspondence can certainly be made
available to the Opposition; I apologize for not even
having it in the package of materials today, but that
will be provided forthwith – asking them to actually
transfer the assets over to us.
In fact, they came back
on Monday and indicated that they would not be prepared
to do that, but would be prepared to sit down over a
period of time and discuss compensation.
At that point, of course,
we felt that this was certainly an urgent matter that
should be dealt with forthwith. As the House is moving
towards the Christmas period, it is a closer time, a
tighter time, and we felt the matter was of such
importance that we should deal with it as soon as
possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask: Have
there been any discussions with Abitibi with regard to
bringing this particular piece of legislation forward in
the House today? Also, were there any discussions with
the union, business or other affected interests that
could be impacted by this legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: As
the Leader of the Opposition is aware, we are dealing
with a publicly-traded company and these discussions are
delicate at the best of times.
The correspondence was
sent to Abitibi in confidence and was not discussed
publicly at the time; and, of course, then they
obviously had time to react.
Since then, and recently,
within the last hour-and-a-half, we have certainly
spoken with – the minister has actually spoken with -
Abitibi. The Minister of Finance has spoken. The
Minister of Justice has actually spoken with some of the
lending institutions that were involved, because they
would be affected.
We have also spoken with
Enel, who were a partner in the Star Lake Partnership,
and Fortis, who were a partner in the Exploits
Partnership as well. We have made them aware –
MS DUNDERDALE: And
the union.
PREMIER WILLIAMS:
I am sorry - forgive me – and the union, as well, has
been spoken with.
So we have basically
tried to contact all the interested parties in the short
time frame. Of course, our apologies to you. As I
explained to you when we all met together, time
restricts us here. Because the Legislature was due to
convene at 1:30, we felt that the appropriate time to
launch this information, for want of a better term, was
just over an hour-and-a-half ago.
Time constraints prevent
us, but certainly it was an attempt to give disclosure
to everybody at the appropriate time without affecting
the markets.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Under this particular
bill you would see the assets such as timber and hydro
being transferred, or being held by government through
the Nalcor Energy Corp. What
does this mean for Nalcor Energy in terms of
compensation? If there are to be any payouts of
compensation to any entities, whether it be Abitibi or
to someone else, will that revenue have to come from
Nalcor Energy or will the money be provided for it
through the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: A
good question, Your Honour.
The way that this has
been constructed, I indicated in my remarks that the
assets, particularly the water assets, would be managed
by Nalcor Energy, because obviously Nalcor Energy are
now the parent company of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, so our expertise lies at Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro. They would be, obviously, the
appropriate ones to move in and to oversee the water
assets particularly and then also to work in partnership
with Fortis and Enel on the two partnerships that are on
the river. The assets themselves actually revert to the
Crown, so the Crown, the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, is actually standing behind this, so we would
basically be repatriating our water rights and also
repatriating our land and timber rights back to the
Province.
If, at some point in
time, on a go-forward basis, then for purposes of the
efficient operation and management of the hydro assets,
for want of a better term, then, in fact, an arrangement
would be done with Nalcor, but the ultimate liability
and the ultimate responsibility very clearly rests with
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we talked about timber rights and hydro rights.
I am just wondering if there are any mineral rights that
are associated with this legislation that would be
recovered as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
All of the rights that
are held by Abitibi with regard to the 1.6 million
hectares of land that is under consideration in this
legislation, whatever their rights and privileges are
under those legislations, acts and charters, will revert
to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week in the House of
Assembly we raised some issues around the potential for
bankruptcy of AbitibiBowater, and we were basing it more
or less on where the share prices were in the market and
the volatility of the company in terms of they are
losing their customer base and so on.
I guess what I want to
ask the government today is: The
action that you are currently taking, while it may be
necessary, do you think it will potentially force this
company into a bankruptcy position?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, I cannot speak for the company but it is my
understanding that they are realigning their assets and
conducting the proper financing, obviously to keep that
company a viable company. Its stock in recent days has
dropped somewhat, and has dropped over a period of time.
They did actually consolidate and are actually trying to
improve their worldwide operations. We have no
information before us right now that indicates that this
company is going bankrupt under any circumstances.
Of course, the core
reason for this particular action is because, in fact,
there was, as I said before, back in 1905, a Charter
Lease which was executed which very clearly tied the
milling and logging operations to the waterways and the
water power and the hydro power. So, as a result of
their announcement that this particular mill in
Newfoundland and Labrador is closing down, we feel,
obviously, we have the right then to repatriate those
assets and, in fact, expropriate the power assets, but
we have no information before us right now that
indicates that this company is going bankrupt. If it did
go bankrupt, then there are other consequences.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
If
they happen to find themselves in a bankruptcy position,
what will be the impact for the unionized workers who
are due to get pensions and severance packages from the
company? What protections would be there for them?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding from the pensions that
in fact the pensions are pooled funds. I think the
majority of these pension funds are actually registered
in Quebec; that, in fact, because of the downturn in the
economy right now, all pension funds – including,
obviously, our public pension funds - are down. So if,
in fact, for example, the pension fund for Abitibi was
down by 25 per cent, it is my understanding that if, in
fact, a bankruptcy took place then that would be frozen
at the 75 per cent. The 25 per cent would be left on the
table and then that 25 per cent would be something that
would go into an unsecured creditors’ pool.
Now, I am only speaking
from second-hand information here. I do not have a
direct opinion on that myself, but my understanding is
that it would be status quo, so that the workers would
have access to the pension fund, which was separate and
apart, but it would be at current values.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We looked at this
particular bill, and I guess back a couple of weeks ago
when all this happened with Abitibi we had asked about
expropriation of assets there. This bill does not
necessarily deal with expropriation of all of the
resources, but rather deals with repatriation of some.
I would like to ask the
Premier: Why have you chosen
that option as opposed to just expropriating all the
assets and the resources connected with it?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: This
hon. House, Mr. Speaker, and this Legislature is the
paramount authority. It is the highest authority here in
the land. So when it comes to basically cancelling or
revoking and-or repatriating these particular licences
and these particular rights - also, as well, overriding
the provisions of agreements that have been entered into
in the past - than the very best method of doing that is
to bring this matter before the Legislature so that it
is presented in the bill; that it is, in fact, available
for public disclosure; that, in fact, it is available
for debate if necessary, and it is the best method to
proceed.
We have taken advice, of
course, obviously from our own, from the minister and
our own justice officials and also independent advice,
and this is the best route for us to go. But, we have
also coupled it with an expropriation on the basis that
we want to send a clear signal of course to the company,
that if there were nuts and bolts, for want of a better
term, machinery type assets that were put on the ground
with regard to power generation, than we are
acknowledging that there is some value in those
particular assets.
With regard to the water
and the timber and our lands, those are the natural
resources to the people that have been here for eons and
eons, and as a result, we felt the best place and the
best vehicle to do that was expropriations of the
Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Actually,
Mr. Speaker, my next question was with regard to legal
counsel that the government would have retained around
this particular bill, and the Premier just alluded to
that.
So I would like to ask
him: What legal counsel did the
government solicit, I guess, in terms of looking at this
particular legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: It
is my understanding that the legal counsel that was
employed in this particular file was a corporate group
called WeirFoulds. I do not know if there is any other
counsel, if the Minister of Justice - if there is any
other counsel that has in fact been retained and has
given other opinions on this particular issue in recent
weeks. That is the information I, obviously, can provide
to the Leader of the Opposition. That is the dominant
opinions that are available right now, as far as I am
concerned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we understood from the Premier in his answers
today and in the briefing that we had that there will
be, I guess, a price tag associated with the buyout of
the power facility itself.
I do not know if
government has the answer to this yet but we are just
wondering: What would be the
ballpark in terms of a price tag that would be attached
to that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I
would have to say it would be minimal. Now, what the
range for minimal could be when you are dealing with
assets of this magnitude, the number could be a number
that some people would not consider it to be small.
However, having said that, the water assets and the
timber assets and the land assets have basically been
repatriated, taken back. So we are dealing with power
facilities that have been put in place, presumably over
the last ten years. I do not know the exact time of
construction, but I assume it was in the late 1990s.
They would obviously have a cost. They would obviously
have a value. They would also have a depreciated value.
Cabinet will determine a
formula; part of that formula could be on depreciated
capital cost or something else. That is a formula that
is within our power to determine at the end of the day,
of course bearing in mind that there could be a
considerable offset here. In fact, what we have done to
the legislation is basically protected any environmental
liability.
So, if, in fact, there is
contamination which is located with operations in
Botwood or around the mill in Grand Falls or the logging
operations or any other rivers or whatever happens to be
where they have constructed bridges or have had a
presence in Newfoundland and Labrador, then there may be
environmental fallout from that and that has to be
quantified. If that is quantified, then that would be
offset against any responsibility for compensation. If
there is an excess of value over liability, then that
would be the amount that would be paid.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I can only assume that it would be too early to
have an indication of what some of the environmental
costs might be associated with that.
Maybe
I could ask if the Department of Environment or
government will be undertaking to do a complete
assessment themselves to be able to determine what those
costs would be and what it would entail?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That
work has actually already been undertaken. It is in
progress right now. I certainly want to compliment all
our officials in all the departments who have really
pulled together over the last week to try and basically
put all this information together.
It is certainly not a
complete process. These assets are contained over a very
significant geographic area, but it is certainly a
number that we want to quantify and intend to quantify
to the best of our ability as soon as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The
repatriation of water rights under this bill, does this
include the Exploits River and Star Lake?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: This
includes the water rights of Abitibi in the Province. So
if there are any water holdings that they have on
Exploits or Star Lake or the Exploits partnership, any
of those assets at all, this bill is intended to
encompass all of those water assets.
In fact, once this bill
is passed, if it is passed with the wish of this House,
then Abitibi’s rights to lands and water and timber
will be revoked and cancelled.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Under section 7 of the
bill we understand that all agreements from 1905, except
the Charter, will be revoked.
I would like to ask, Mr.
Speaker, if this has ever been
done and if there is any precedent for it. Is there any
impact on any other legislation by revoking this? Have
there been checks done in terms of how it
cross-references in other departments or other projects?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Without
passing the buck, I have to rely on the benefit of our
legal advice on this. To the best of my knowledge, there
hasn’t been any precedent. We have certainly looked at
all the documentation, which is considerable, which has
been placed over the years relating to Abitibi and its
operations in the Province.
With regard to any legal
precedent in the Province, I am not aware of one. That
it not to say that there isn’t one. In fact, we will
certainly make sure that we confirm that for you, but my
understanding is there was no precedent.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue on with
questions. I won’t repeat any that have been asked.
To come back to the
environmental issues, Mr. Speaker: Section 13 of the
bill does say that nothing in the Act affects the
liability of Abitibi Consolidated related to
undertakings made by it in relation to environmental
remediation.
I would like to know from
the Premier: If Abitibi Consolidated were to go
bankrupt, if the worst case scenario were to happen,
would the undertakings in relationship to environmental
remediation have to be covered by those who would then
hold the assets, or the liability?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I am giving legal
opinions on the fly here now, so take it for what its
worth.
With regard to anything
we do here under this legislation, it is my
understanding that if it occurs before a bankruptcy
proceeding then obviously it supersedes. If, in fact, a
bankruptcy proceeding occurred before this legislation
was actually finalized, then the question would be where
the particular environmental legislation stands.
I would be inclined to
thing that because that environmental legislation is
already in place, it would certainly supersede a
bankruptcy and would carry over to the trustee in
bankruptcy.
With regard to this
particular legislation, though, this particular
legislation has to be completed before a bankruptcy,
because a bankruptcy then would be a federal law that
would be paramount to a provincial law and would oversee
it.
The simple answer to your
question: existing legislation already in place, already
passed, dealing with environmental problems, I would
suggest to you that that probably would be the paramount
legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In his statement, the
Premier said that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, once the legislation would be passed, would
own and control the assets and would allow Abitibi full
use of them until March 31, 2009.
I am wondering, when this
legislation gets put in place – because I think it is
our intent to make sure it gets put in place – if
Abitibi wanted, if they came back and said, well, you
know, we would like to continue a bit longer now, past
March 31, 2009, what would be the response of the
Premier to that?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There
would be no doubt, we would be in total agreement. This
is about the operation of the mill, and the continuance
of the milling and the logging operation.
If they, in fact, wanted
more time or intended to continue on for a period of
time, we would only be too delighted to have them do
that, and would make those assets available for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to push that a
little bit further with the Premier, and I know I may be
asking questions now that he may not have – maybe he
had - time even to put thought into, but if that were to
happen, what kinds of demands and restrictions would the
government put on Abitibi with regard to continuation
after March 31, 2009?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Without
discussing this particular issue with the union – and
we have worked very, very closely, through the Minister
of Natural Resources, with the union to get their
wishes, but - I would suggest to you that it would be a
continuum of exactly the way that the mill is being
operated right now.
Depending on the time,
depending on how long, if this was an extension of a
month or two months then obviously it would be a
continuum of what is happening now. If it was intended
to be a longer term arrangement then obviously we would
have to sit with the union and the minister and
officials of Abitibi and work something out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly want to thank
the Premier for his co-operation in Question Period on
this bill. The rest of the questions that we have, we
will reserve until we have our briefing because they are
more around the legislative clauses. Then, after that,
maybe we can discuss any further questions that we might
have.
In the meantime, Mr.
Speaker, I am going to move on to some questions in
Health and Community Services.
My questions are for the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, many
provinces, including P.E.I. and New Brunswick, have made
legislative changes to allow pharmacists to manage
medications without actually writing prescriptions. This
includes the ability to cover situations like providing
for pills to tie a patient over for a suspended period
of time, I suppose, or to allow a doctor to do a refill.
I ask the minister: Is
his government prepared to update the Pharmacy Act in
this Province to permit medication management by the
pharmacists?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The member opposite would
know that this Legislature, I think it was about a
year-and-a-half ago, passed new legislation dealing with
the regulations and legislation around the practice of
pharmacy in the Province. The member opposite would also
recognize, too, that act has not been proclaimed yet.
There are a number of
reasons for that, I say, Mr. Speaker, and one of them
relates to some discussions that we are having with
pharmacists in the Province around their practice,
auxiliary services they provide, and the kind of
compensation associated with that. As a part of that
discussion there are a number of things that have
surfaced. One of the things has been what the member
opposite has raised. I say to her, it has been a topic
of some discussion but it will form a part of the
discussions we are having with the pharmacy association
prior to the proclamation of the existing legislation
that has already been enacted in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Government announced
changes to its provincial drug formula so that the
Province would only accept prices for generic drugs that
do not exceed the lowest price in any other province.
There was concern raised - I know the minister knows
this because he has met with them - with the
Pharmacists’ Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There was a review that was completed back in October of
this year.
I ask the minister today:
Can he update us on what
generic drug formulary government is considering and
when will these changes come into effect?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: As
I indicated in my earlier comment, the legislation that
the member is referring to is legislation that was
passed in this House about a year-and-a-half or so ago.
In that legislation, the intent and thrust of that
legislation was to ensure that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians had access to generic drugs at a price
equivalent to that of the lowest in the country, and
that is what the legislation actually spells out.
As we were about to
implement that legislation, proclaim it, there was a
recognition by the pharmacy industry itself that it may
have some negative impacts on some pharmacy operations.
We were sensitive to that particular concern that was
being raised, and since that time we have been trying to
work with the pharmacy association on how we might
mitigate some of the impacts of introducing that kind of
legislation. As a part of that discussion, it brings me
to the answer to her first question which was around the
role of pharmacists.
The formula that is
currently in use today is the same as the one that has
always been in place, I say, Mr. Speaker. Until we have
a better understanding of how it really impacts
pharmacists in the Province, we have held off on the
proclamation of that particular legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we also know that the pending regulation
changes will mean significant savings to government.
I would like to ask the
minister today: What is the
projected savings for government in the next fiscal year
based on these new pharmacy policies?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the
challenge we have at this particular juncture in trying
to forecast what might be the savings, there is a
savings that will accrue as a result of an
interpretation of the legislation once it is
implemented, but, as I said earlier, we are trying to
better understand the real impact on pharmacy
operations, and what might we do to mitigate some of
those financial impacts in the interest of providing
service to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So, as we
create a net calculation of, on one hand, how much we
might save with the implementation of the legislation
but how much will it cost us in terms of service
enhancements we might do to help mitigate the impact to
pharmacists, that net calculation has not yet been done.
Until we understand the extent to which we would want to
implement any kind of mitigating measures, we will not
be able to complete that kind of a calculation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Finance will soon
have the numbers crunched now, as he is getting ready
for his Budget, so maybe when that piece is done the
minister can tell us what the savings will be.
The report on the
provincial drug formulary outlines a list of activities
that are performed by pharmacists in the Province. We
all know, Mr. Speaker, that pharmacists not only
dispense drugs and collect their fees but they also do
many other things, such as medication adherence,
reviewing patient files, drug interactions, and dealing
with side effects of medication.
I ask the minister: Is
government prepared to provide reimbursements to
pharmacists for the value-added services that they
provide, which is a program that is not uncommon in
other provinces of Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The
member has framed the question, and actually within her
question there is the answer because it ties back to the
earlier comment I provided as well, which is: I
indicated that we are working with the pharmacy
association to try to look at services that may be
provided that they could be compensated for, that might
help mitigate against some of the financial losses that
might be incurred as a result of the proclamation of the
legislation itself.
Through that process
there have been a number of things that have been
identified that pharmacists now do that add value to the
customers that they serve and add value to the health
services they provide, and that is a part of the
consideration government is now looking at as we
evaluate where we go forward.
The report that the
member opposite is referencing is a report that was
commissioned by the pharmacy association themselves. We,
as a government, have had an opportunity to look at that
report and look at its implications, its impact, to be
able to validate some of the assumptions that are made
in that report, but it will help inform a process. It
will not be a report that we will implement because it
is not our report. It will help inform a process,
together with representations that have been made by
other individuals on that same issue. We are working,
also, with some of the other jurisdictions –
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
I ask the hon. minister
to conclude his answer.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought we had an
unlimited time today. I will, with respect for the
House, conclude my comment. I also will tell the member
opposite that I am working with my other colleagues in
Atlantic Canada looking at how we might benefit from
better generic pricing.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I should have clarified
at the beginning that the rules are now in play, I say
to the Minister of Health.
The report on the
provincial drug formulary states that the average cost
to fill a prescription in Newfoundland and Labrador is
$12; meanwhile the government currently pays about $8.90
per prescription. Mr. Speaker, right now the pharmacists
are recouping these financial losses through the generic
drug rebates. Once the new regulations come into play in
January they are not going to be able to do that.
I ask the minister: Is
government planning to fill this gap and increase the
amount that it pays to pharmacists across the Province
to reflect the actual cost of filling a prescription in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member opposite
raises each question, obviously it substantiates the
reason why we would want to continue to do our review
that is taking place. She has identified a number of
things that are contained in a report commissioned by
the pharmacists themselves where they assert what the
cost might be to dispense drugs.
One of the things we are
very conscious of, Mr. Speaker, is that the proclamation
of the new legislation will have a financial impact on
pharmacies in the Province. To the extent to which that
happens is something that we are now in the process of
trying to better understand. Whether or not the
services, that the member opposite has outlined, become
the subject of some kind of compensation, that is a
piece of work yet to be done and that is tied to the
question around: How much will it cost government? We
need to better understand all of the questions raised by
the member opposite.
One thing is important,
Mr. Speaker, is that we are working with the pharmacy
industry in this Province to come up with the kind of
solutions that will be beneficial to both
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to the providers in
the pharmacies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The hon. the Leader of
the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The report, as the
minister knows, also speculates that pharmacies across
the Province, especially in rural areas, will lose
substantial revenue and as a result of these regulation
changes, some pharmacies will be forced to close their
doors. It is also anticipated that the changes will mean
increased fees being passed on to patients, and we all
know that this will have an effect on those that are
most vulnerable in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: I know you are doing the review, I know that
you are meeting with the pharmacists, but when
can we expect some answers and when can we get some
guarantees that these pending regulation changes will
not affect service availability or the quality of care
that is being maintained in our pharmacies around the
Province right now?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr.
Speaker, the mere fact that this government passed
legislation in this House about a year-and-half or so
ago, two years ago I think now actually, a little over
two years ago, and the fact that we have not proclaimed
it yet speaks volumes I think to our sensitivity to the
issue. We understand the issues raised by the member
opposite. If we did not understand them we would have
rushed out and proclaimed the legislation a
year-and-a-half ago but we did not do that, we did the
responsible thing. When we recognized and became aware
of the financial implications of the proclamation of the
legislation we have held off on doing that until we
better understand, and until we fully understand and
until we have an action plan for the implementation, we
will not be proclaiming the legislation.
So I say to the member
opposite, she can be assured, and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador can be assured and the
pharmacists can be assured, that until we are
comfortable with the full implications of the
proclamation it will not occur.
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
The time allotted for
Oral Questions has ended. |
