Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Any abstentions? Bill 92 has had second reading and is referred to the committee.
Carried
I now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. Committee wishes to consider Bill 72 and Tabled Document 94019(2) and Tabled Document 94119(2). Mahsi, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We'll take a short recess and resume with the first item.
SHORT RECESS
Committee, we've agreed to consider Bill 72, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. I will ask the Minister of Justice to introduce the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here today to present Bill 72, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
The purpose of Bill 72 is to permit the Government of the Northwest Territories to file a lawsuit to recover from manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs, the past and future health care costs incurred on behalf of Northwest Territories' residents for opioidrelated illnesses. The opioid crisis has incurred substantial costs to federal, provincial, and territorial governments who have spent increasing amounts on health care to address the fallout of opioid over-prescription.
British Columbia has enacted its own opioid cost recovery legislation and is in active class action litigation before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. This action could include all federal, provincial, and territorial governments as potential class members in this lawsuit and seeks to recover the opioidrelated health care costs of the potential class members.
Currently, the GNWT's ability to independently recover opioid damages is in question as the applicable limitation period has expired under the Limitation of Actions Act. As our legislation stands, the GNWT may be unable to recover health care costs under British Columbia’s opioid action. The proposed legislation would not only remove the existing limitation period barrier to such a claim but also improve the likelihood of the opioid action's success by establishing a common issue across all jurisdictions with that legislation. This would simplify the advancement of the opioid action.
The proposed new act will:
Provide a statutory basis to sue manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs directly for opioidrelated wrongs;
Provide the ability to sue opioid producers and distributors on an aggregate basis without having to identify particular insured persons who suffered harm;
Provide simplified formula to determine the individual share of liability for each opioid producer and/or manufacturer named in a lawsuit;
Provide the ability to base claims of harm on statistical and sociological data; and,
Extend limitation periods applicable to actions based on opioidrelated harm.
Approximately eight other jurisdictions have enacted their own versions of this legislation, and the wording of the proposed new act is virtually identical to the existing legislation in other jurisdictions.
This concludes my opening remarks, and I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, I would.
Thank you. Sergeantatarms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Minister, please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On my left is Maren Zimmer, legal counsel for the Department of Justice. And on my right is Laura Jeffrey, legislative counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you. I will now turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Development, the committee that reviewed the bill, for any opening comments on Bill 72. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am pleased to speak to Bill 72, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in my capacity as chair of social development.
This bill allows for the Government of the Northwest Territories to participate in a class action lawsuit filed by the government of BC to allow the GNWT to recover health care expenses incurred from opioid damages. Committee supports this legislation.
During standing committee's review of Bill 72, committee heard from Indigenous governments and community stakeholders. Committee heard that at the time BC filed the class action lawsuit, the NWT was experiencing the fourth highest rate of opioidrelated death and hospitalizations in the country. Committee recognizes that communities and Indigenous governments respond to the needs of their residents by providing frontline response. Whether it’s through counselling, costs for addictions treatment, or other programs and services, communities in the NWT bare a cost for opioid addictions. Committee also recognizes that this bill is limited in scope to allow the GNWT to participate in the class action lawsuit with other Canadian jurisdictions. The strength of class action lawsuits is that interests of all participating jurisdictions align so we want to acknowledge that it was important to keep the bill the same as other jurisdictions. To respond effectively to the impacts from opioid addictions, committee encourages the GNWT to work with Indigenous governments to begin tracking the full cost of responding to the opioid crisis. Committee also encourages the GNWT to allocate any future revenues received from the class action lawsuit to be distributed among Indigenous governments in their response to this national crisis.
Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a couple of comments here. Within committee's review, they did look at some of the definitions to see that although the scope of the bill was narrow and needed to be narrow to allow us to align with other jurisdictions, we did think it was really important to acknowledge the expenses that Indigenous governments specifically are incurring for costs that are recognized under the definitions here.
On page 1 of the bill, under the definition for health care benefits, while (a) refers to insured services as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act, (b) speaks to benefits and insured services, both as defined in section 1 of the Medical Care Act; and (c) this is the one that was of interest to committee speaks to other expenditures made directly or through one or more agents or other intermediate bodies by the Government of the Northwest Territories for programs, services, benefits, or similar matters associated with opioidrelated disease, injury, or illness.
Madam Chair, it's really important to be specific here that committee is not asking for additional social costs to be covered by this bill. But the costs that the GNWT is prepared to capture and bring back to the territory through this suit, there are other entities that are incurring the same types of costs, for example treatment through Indigenous governments, and it's really important to committee that these expenses are captured and that revenue for current and future costs can be shared with Indigenous governments. So thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you to my colleagues for hearing me out on that one.
This concludes my marks on Bill 72, and my colleagues may have additional questions or comments. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 72. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't really have anything to add to what my colleague has already expressed, which I think she did a very good job on capturing how the discussion went through the committee and noting, in particular, the concerns of Indigenous governments and organizations around their expenses and their costs. And while I do wish we could expand the scope of the bill to include all the social and indirect costs that we are paying as a territory, it's unfortunate that that is not something we can go after these opioid companies or these pharmaceutical companies for. However, I do also agree that there is a way within this to ensure that we could recover their costs through just the legislation as it is, and I do also want to stress that I hope the government thinks really creatively here, when they are rolling up all the costs and taking this forward, that they do work with the Indigenous governments to include theirs. It's been my sort of experience now in this role that, you know, obviously governments put forward bills, legislation, policies, etcetera, and it's only by the testing of that or someone else looking at that that a new idea or something that's been unthought of comes forward. And so I think while maybe it's not totally in the scope here, perhaps just trying to get it in there might spur someone at a higher level, and I'm not a lawyer and I'm looking at lawyers in the room and I'm sure they probably think this might be tough but, you know, maybe it'll spark something at a higher level where they will acknowledge what the price is to Indigenous governments. And I think a really tangible example of this is with the loss of the Poundmaker's contract from the Department of Health and Social Services, I am aware of instances now where Indigenous governments and organizations are footing the bill themselves to send their members to treatment, which is great. Any way that anybody can get into treatment, I'm all for, but that's where, again, like my colleague said, worry that that cost, because they are filling the gap for our government, won't be then recouped. So just want to say the same things. I do think we need to work with that. I really want us to ensure that we are fulsomely evaluating these costs and that I hope that committee would have an opportunity to continue to weigh in on this as it moves forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So as I understand it, committee received a written submission from the Deline Got'ine government, and I'm sure the committee will find a way to get that posted to their web page, to make that submission public. But they were asking for revenue sharing with regard to any settlement that might be made. And I guess I want to ask the Minister and his staff how they intend to interpret this: "health care benefits" means item (c) found on page 2 of the bill. Do they actually intend to try to recover costs where they have reimbursed Indigenous governments for health care benefits that have been reimbursed in some way to an Indigenous government? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. So the legislation covers costs that would be incurred by the Government of the Northwest Territories. Those could include costs that were contributed to Indigenous governments, flowing through Indigenous governments. But if Indigenous governments incurred costs on their own and tried to bill back the Government of the Northwest Territories, those types of costs are not included. I can hand it to Ms. Zimmer for a response. I knew her first name; her last name escaped me for a moment. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Zimmer.
Thank you. I don't know if I have a whole lot more to add; I think that was a good answer. Just looking at (c), it does include any situation where the Northwest Territories would have expended cash through a contract or some other arrangement with an Indigenous government.
Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. So what is the current practice if an Indigenous government covers someone's health care one of their member's health care costs in some way with regard to an opioid issue or, say, travel for treatment or whatever, does GNWT make reimbursement to the Indigenous government upon request; is that the practice right now? And are those costs tracked? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. So that would be a question for the Minister of health. I don't have an answer. But I don't believe that is the case. And I don't believe that, you know receipts are submitted and then the GNWT reimburses, I don't believe that's the practice. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, thanks. If that's not the practice, what's the purpose of this section? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
So this is for instances where perhaps for example, I believe, that money is flowed from the GNWT to the Tlicho government so that they can then pay for their members to go to Poundmaker's. So that's an instance where the GNWT has incurred costs. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay. So just so I understand this a little bit better, is this going to work just retroactively to the date that this bill is passed, or is there sort of a proactive aspect to this bill where it could be used to cover future costs? And I'm sorry, I just don't know that answer so maybe I'll go to the law clerk and ask the law clerk that question. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
That is for the law clerk, I believe the Member said?
Law clerk.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So there is a provision in the bill "cost to health care benefits" which is in the definition section and deals with either the present value of total expenditures by the Government of the Northwest Territories and the present value of estimated total of future expenditures as well. And so the cost of health care benefits that have been discussed here could be included in those amounts sought to be recovered. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, thanks. So this could be used, moving forward, for health care benefits that are incurred related to opioid damages and the GNWT can, and perhaps should, start tracking these costs that are covered by other agents? I guess that's a question for the Minister. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Justice.
Thank you. So the question is whether the GNWT can and should start tracking these costs? Perhaps for a discussion of part of the reason for things like this class action are that we don't have to prove damages for every individual, don't have to prove that an individual became addicted to opioids due to, you know, the actions of a company and then prove the number. So what we are doing is looking at damages on an aggregate basis. Perhaps I can hand it to Ms. Zimmer to maybe explain things a bit more concisely. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Zimmer.
Yes, so part of the purpose of the bill is to create some evidentiary shortcuts through the litigation and doing that through the calculations, and you'll see the formulas in there in order to prove aggregate harm, and that would be based on a population basis and the overall expenditures. And so by creating that, you're not sort of looking at it at that granular level and it allows the government to move forward and to better recover costs for the harms that have been incurred.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, so, yeah, I get that there's a formula in here and that it's some kind of pro forma calculation then of what the damages are. But will GNWT then include costs that have been incurred by Indigenous governments in seeking damages as part of this class action suit? That's my first question. Thanks.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. This is costs that are incurred by the GNWT only. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, then what's the purpose of, you know, (c) here which does cover through one or more agents or in other intermediate bodies. Does that potentially include Indigenous governments and why wouldn't we roll those costs into this if there's a way to do that? So, yeah, thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister of Justice.
