The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in his hon. House today to recognize Hampton Academy's graduation class of 2008. Mr. Speaker, they held their special graduation ceremony in their school gymnasium on Friday, May 9. The graduating class consisted of nine members: Robert Burton, Mark Langford, Amanda Pynn, Renee Regular, Bradley Ropson, Robert Vincent, Chad Warford, Nicole Warford and Mark Wells.

Mr. Speaker, the entire event was first-class and my sincere congratulations to the organizers which included students, parents, teachers and the community. The attention to detail and the overall quality of this graduation experience was second to none. The decorations were exceptionally well done and I extended my accolades.

Mr. Speaker, all the graduates had an active role at the event. Renee Regular was the valedictorian. She did an exceptional job. Her parents, grandparents, and all those present were quite impressed with the quality of her presentation. Renee has been accepted into the School of Nursing and will begin her studies this fall.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the nine members of the graduating class of Hampton Academy and extend best wishes as they embark on their individual career paths and road to lifelong learning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate St. James Regional High School's theatre group from Port aux Basques on their excellent performance at the thirty-second annual provincial theatre arts festival held recently in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, more than 200 students representing ten schools throughout the Province participated in the three day event. Students rehearsed and performed for enthusiastic crowds. They also enjoyed workshops in movement on stage by Tonya Kearley, warming up before a show by Rory Lambert and standup comedy by John Sheehan.

Mr. Speaker, along with learning theatre essentials by the Province's top professional performers, students of the festival enjoyed two social events as well. Professional comedian/actor and playwright Amy House guest adjudicated the affair. She helped students by offering constructive criticism; albeit, the provincial theatre arts festival is non-competitive. This offered students a relaxing and supportive atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, in order for school theatre troupes to qualify for provincials they first have to compete against other schools in their region. Therefore, these young thespians demonstrated exceptional talent and fantastic technical skills.

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to see a determined theatre interest in our high schools and I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating St. James Regional High School and the nine other regional finalists on their outstanding performances.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 9, I had the pleasure, along with my colleague from Conception Bay East & Bell Island, to attend the Town of Paradise Annual Municipal Awards Banquet. This event recognizes residents who have made a significant contribution to their community and are also recognized for their individual achievements.

Volunteer of the Year Award went to Ms Kimberley Crocker to recognize her involvement with figure skating, her school grad committee, Real Time Cancer, and many other community activities.

In the category of Volunteer Group of the Year, the winner was the 30Plus Club of Paradise. This club has contributed to the residents of Paradise, providing medical assistance for travel, treatment expenses, assistance to schools and other worthwhile causes.

This year's Youth of the Year was Ms Rebecca Sheppard. She has been involved with the Guiding movement in Paradise for many years. She participates in several sports, in addition to school and church activities.

Ms Nicole Clancey received the Coach of the Year Award. Nicole has coached many soccer teams for the past four years, including the Under 14 Girls team which won a provincial silver medal.

The Female Athlete of the Year was awarded to Ms Sarah Davis for the second year in a row. She was the first female to play in the Triple A Midget League. Her sports include hockey and soccer. Later this month she will be receiving the Premier's Athletic Award.

Mr. Jason Picco was selected Male Athlete of the Year. His achievements were in hockey and rugby as a member of Canada's Under 23 Rugby team.

Mr. George Sheppard was selected as Citizen of the Year. His involvement includes education, Holy Innocents Church, Rotary Paradise Youth Centre, sports, and fundraising for the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all of the award winners as well as those others who were nominated for their contribution to their community, the Town of Paradise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate an outstanding volunteer in my district, Ms Melita Paul.

Mr. Speaker, Melita Paul is a recipient of the Regional Volunteer of the Year Award by the Canadian Diabetes Association. Her commitment and dedicated personality have certainly afforded her this recognition.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, volunteers are special people and they all deserve honouring. Melita Paul is no exception. She is a native of Charlottetown, Labrador, and she has significantly contributed to raising diabetes awareness in that part of our Province. She started as an eager member of the Diabetes Strategy Committee, while the provincial diabetes strategy was just being developed in the Province.

Over time, she has recognized and co-ordinated annual diabetes walks throughout the Coast of Labrador. Her commitment to the Canadian Diabetes Association is admirable and many members would have met her recently at the diabetes dinner and information session that was hosted for MHAs here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note the significance of advocating diabetes awareness, for over two million Canadians have diabetes, and this number is expected to increase to three million in the next decade. Educating the public on preventable measures, the prevalence and cost of diabetes, is essential.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Paul is currently a devoted member of the Diabetes Advocacy Committee and I am grateful that her efforts are being recognized by this society.

I ask all my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating her on receiving this award, and wish her all the best in her future advocacy efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, May 3, during National Volunteer Week, I attended the Maddox Cove and Petty Harbour Volunteer Appreciation Night at the Community Recreation Centre in Petty Harbour. This town has the unique distinction of being adjacent to the largest city in our Province, yet holds firmly to all the charm and beauty of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that of a vibrant fishing community nestled on the Atlantic Ocean. The spirit and goodwill of the people indeed make it a special place.

The people of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove give freely of their time and efforts to serve and build their community. In 2007, the town was awarded the Tidy Towns Green and Beautiful Award, held a Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove Come Home Year celebration, which was a rousing success celebrated over a ten-day period, and, as well, had volunteers serving and involved with recreation activities, town councils, churches, youth groups, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention particularly the winners of the 2007 Volunteer Awards for Petty Harbour–Maddox Cove. They were: Mr. Ronnie Doyle, Male Volunteer of the Year for 2007; Ms Jackie Williams-Connolly, Female Volunteer of the Year 2007; and Ms Jordan Chafe, Youth Volunteer of the Year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the volunteers of the Town of Petty Harbour–Maddox Cove for an outstanding 2007 and no doubt what will be an even better 2008.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all the volunteers for the efforts and wish them well in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, today, May 14, is Municipal Awareness Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the local municipalities in my district.

I encourage all residents to say thank you to their councillors and I, personally, would like to thank the municipalities in my district, namely Upper Island Cove, Bishop's Cove, Spaniard's Bay, North River, Bay Roberts, Clarke's Beach, and the Local Service District of Makinsons for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, we often take for granted the services that are provided by our local governments, such as services providing communities with clean water, sewerage disposal, streets and recreational services, to name a few.

On this special day that has been set aside for Municipal Awareness Day, I ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in thanking our councillors for a job well done in making each place a better place to live for all residents here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon. colleagues and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is achieving great success throughout the Province.

To date, more than $600,000 has been approved under the program to assist with the development and implementation of numerous innovative initiatives in all corners of Newfoundland and Labrador. About a dozen proponents are currently benefiting from this initiative. These include companies, independent inshore harvesters, and organizations such as Memorial University and the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, commonly known as CCFI.

Mr. Speaker, funding for projects relating to all sectors of the seafood industry, including harvesting, processing and marketing, have been approved. It is indeed clear that representatives of all these sectors are taking advantage of the program for the benefit of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry.

I am also pleased to note that this program is available to the very important and growing service sector of the industry. Our industry now boasts an extensive array of marine electronic firms, fabricators, boat builders, marine architects, gear manufacturers, packaging firms and transportation specialists. The entrepreneurial drive of those involved in these aspects of the industry has created a very significant fisheries manufacturing and service sector that is enjoying both domestic and international success.

The Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is one of the many provincial initiatives identified in our three-year $15 million Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Other aspects include enhanced marketing efforts, occupational health and safety initiatives, the implementation of fish auctions, an estimated $100 million loan guarantee program and approximately $25 million to fund the Province's share of the capital games exemptions for fish harvesters. In total, Mr. Speaker, the Province's undertaking for the complete strategy is about $140 million.

The provincial government has allocated $6 million over three years to fund the program, which includes $2 million in Budget 2008.

The program is indicative of our commitment to ensure that fishing industry participants in Newfoundland and Labrador have access to capital to assist with the development of new and innovative technology for the purposes of diversifying and enhancing their operations.

I encourage all industry participants to continue to take advantage of the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program and wish those who have participated to date all the best in their new endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

I do not think there is any parliamentarian in this Province who would not applaud announcements of investments of new technology and new opportunities into any industry throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and more particularly into the fishing industry. This program will allow harvesters and processors and manufacturers and developers out there in the fishing industry throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to cost share with the government on innovative and new technologies up to what I think is $100,000 per proposal. That is what is being considered.

We have seen examples, Mr. Speaker, of where technology has enhanced this industry in our Province, an industry that has become very globally competitive for us and one where we have had to enhance technologies right from our fishing vessels to our fish plants in order to improve the quality of product that we are exporting into the various markets around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we would certainly support this and we would encourage those people out there in the industry to take up the program and to look for opportunities under this program, because we have seen programs inside of government, like those in the Department of Business, that for two years now have had running budgets of investment dollars for businesses that have never gotten spent. I think that this is an industry, Mr. Speaker, where-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - money can be spent and where people want to spend it in terms of being able to invest and upgrade the quality of their businesses and in turn invest in the quality of the product that is leaving this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I too am quite pleased to see the efforts that are happening under the strategy program and I applaud them. I would encourage the minister though and the government to look at the issue of our collapsing stocks, stocks that have collapsed or are threatened. It would be really good if we were to put that into the renewal strategy as well.

The issue of marine protected areas is another issue that I think would be good. I think it has been proven that marine protected areas can help stocks rebuild which would be really good and they can also play a role in tourism.

I would encourage the minister to look at both of those areas as well.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize May 15, 2008 as International Peace Officers' Memorial Day. It is important that residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of the important role that peace officers play in our communities. They work closely with members of the community to make our residents feel safe. I was pleased to speak on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador during the Peace Officers' Memorial Day Service, held earlier today at the Seventh Day Adventist Church in St. John's. This memorial service is held each year in honour of police and peace officers killed in the line of duty.

I would like to bring special attention to the Police and Peace Officers' Memorial which is located on the grounds of Confederation Building, just outside these Chambers. We are proud to have such a memorial that pays tribute to the seventeen uniformed officers who have paid the ultimate price in service to Newfoundland and Labrador. The monument serves as an important reminder of the often dangerous work that peace officers carry out each and every day.

As we all know, the choice to dedicate one's life as a peace officer is a selfless one. It often carries risk, but also the potential for tremendous reward. This reward, service to others and the protection of our communities, is what drives these officers to continually perform at such high standards.

I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the week of May 11-17 is National Police Week. Since 1970 Police Week has been dedicated to increasing community awareness and recognition of policing services while strengthening ties between police and the community. Police Week reminds us that police and community co-operation is the key to safer home and communities.

Through Budget 2008, our government will provide an additional $4.5 million to ensure that police have adequate resources and are able to make residents and families in our Province feel safe.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful to acknowledge in this House today the dedicated service, superior efforts and the sacrifice that our police and peace officers have given, and continue to give, to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister of an advance copy of his statement today.

We, as well, as the Opposition members, would like to recognize and pay tribute to all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We certainly commend them and the jobs that those who currently work in those endeavours provide to us as a civilized society. We certainly all sleep better, and feel more safe and secure in our homes and in our communities, as a result of the actions of police officers and peace officers.

As well, community safety, of course, is grounded. You can have as good a citizen as you like, but you certainly need to have police forces that make sure we are all safe and secure. There are a lot of dedicated and courageous men and women involved in our policing agencies.

It is a tough job, it is a very stressful job, and at times a very dangerous job, so it is nice to pay tribute to those who have certainly felt the full effects of that and made the ultimate sacrifice.

I must say, as well, I am very pleased to see that in the past few years government, as a result of being in better financial circumstances, have made a substantial contribution to our police forces in the Province, both the RCMP and the RNC, in terms of better training, better wages and better working circumstances.

Again we, as well, would like to commend all those who have paid the ultimate price, and encourage and commend all of those who are currently involved in policing services as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for his advance copy and I am very pleased to be able to stand as well with the minister and the Official Opposition in recognizing those who have given their lives in service to the community.

I am sorry I could not attend the service this morning, but we truly appreciate what our women and men in uniformed service do for us.

I was glad to see the statement referring to the importance of police-community ties. One of the things that strengthens police-community ties is the presence of foot patrols. Being a representative for a district that has a big downtown area included in my district, I would really encourage the minister to continue looking at the possibility of foot controls in the downtown area. It not only makes things safer; it makes for a better atmosphere as well, because the police and the community become more connected with one another through foot controls, as does the presence of the recent addition, Fraize, and his rider, Constable Jason Coombs. This is another thing that adds to a good relationship between police and the community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This may sound familiar to some people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to inform my colleagues that this past week has been an active time for municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On May 8, 9 and 10, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador held its Annual Municipal Symposium in Gander. The focus of this year's symposium was waste management, municipal sustainability, the gas tax agreement, municipal planning and the potential for regional governance.

I had the opportunity to speak at the dinner on Friday evening, at which time members of the MNL again committed their support of the provincial government and the valuable work we are completing. Their group remains committed to advancing the development of our communities. Their aim is to provide safe and nurturing environments through sound infrastructure and efficient services for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; so too is this government's.

Mr. Speaker, today is Municipal Awareness Day. All too often – it sounds familiar – the work done by mayors, councillors and municipal administrators in this Province goes unnoticed. The dedicated people go about their daily business - so familiar – quietly and efficiently. They ensure that residents of the Province have clean drinking water, that their local roads are plowed and maintained as efficient and effective as possible, that needed infrastructure is developed, and that their communities are planned and well managed.

Mr. Speaker, the focus of today is not only for awareness. This is a genuine opportunity to educate the public on the role of municipal governments in Newfoundland and Labrador and the services they deliver. It is an opportunity to involve residents in activities which increase community pride and understanding. It aids in the recognition of the many volunteers in communities that help them grow.

Municipal Awareness Day is a joint project of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators, the Department of Municipal Affairs, and the many municipalities all across this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our government and the entire House of Assembly, I commend the dedicated individuals who dedicate their time each day for the betterment of the communities in our Province. I congratulate Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador on another successful symposium. I remind everyone that without our mayors, councillors, municipal administrators and many volunteers, our communities would not be the wonderful places they call home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not have said it better myself.

On a serious note, I want to congratulate all of the municipalities that took part in the Annual Municipal Symposium in Gander over the weekend, and to know that they are still dedicating their time to our communities and looking after some serious issues that we take part in.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Municipal Awareness Day, I can assure the minister there was no ill intent to try to scuttle his Ministerial Statement. My Member's Statement went in at 11:00 this morning and I got his at 1:00 this afternoon.

I want to join the minister and government in congratulating all those administrators, mayors and councillors throughout this Province of ours on the wonderful job they do to make each and every community a better place to live.

Because I upstaged the minister, I want to say this sincerely: I want to congratulate the minister because he deals –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he is a minister who deals one-on-one with the communities, on a first come basis. I know that. I saw it through Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador this year. He is a minister who deals with each and every council. Because I did that, I want to say congratulations to you, sir, as well as all the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister too for the advance copy of his statement.

This must be a day for congratulations to the minister. I will follow-up from my colleague. I was pleased to see, in the Estimates meeting the other evening, the openness of the minister to say that he was waiting on the various regions before final decisions are being made with regard to waste management and Robin Hood Bay. I think that is a sign of the spirit that will succeed because it means you are working, as my colleague said, with the municipalities.

I also want to recognize those people who work for their municipalities, who work a pretty thankless job really in a lot of ways. There are very few who actually get remuneration for the work that they do, yet their dedication to the communities is intense.

I am happy to be able to stand here today to recognize them and to say thank you to them for all the work they do, both for their communities as well as for the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks we have asked questions in the House of Assembly regarding fire safety inspections in schools. The current process involves a checklist that custodial staff complete on a weekly or daily basis. Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's statements in the House that there are no concerns around this issue, there was a fire yesterday in a classroom at Memorial Academy in Botwood.

I ask the minister again today: Do you feel that this checklist process that is in place is sufficient in identifying potential fire and life safety issues in our schools?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, fire safety in our schools is very important and the checklist is only one part of our way of checking fire safety in schools. The particular school that had a fire yesterday is a school that had the local fire department do an inspection in October of 2007. It also had an independent company in checking the extinguishers and the alarm systems in both December of 2007 and in March of this year. The daily checklist is also done at that school. This particular school had an unfortunate incident where a piece of bristol board was laid against the heater and was not removed and therefore caught fire. Mr. Speaker, this particular school is inspected daily. It has had the fire department in this school year and it has had an independent company in as well on two occasions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that there are also other similar situations that can cause fires in schools and that are going unnoticed and certainly not contained within the checklist process that she has in place now.

One of the significant things that the fire inspector recognized and recommended on when he inspected hospitals in this Province was that the officials in the hospitals that were responsible were not trained in fire code standards and what to look for. I suspect the same exists in the schools.

I ask the minister today, if she would commit to ensuring that there is proper training in fire codes and life safety issues provided for these custodians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, previous to today and as a result of issues that we have been addressing here in the House of Assembly, I have already requested that the school boards ensure that all staff are aware of the fire safety regulations and the rules pertinent to their particular school. That would include all staff not just teachers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of this particular situation - and I think it is a wake up call for you, minister - in addition, will you look at putting in place a proper inspection process that is required and follows protocols within the schools in this Province on an annual basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this was a very unfortunate incident in Botwood and I certainly do not want to be pointing fingers at anyone, whether it is a student or a teacher, but fire safety at some level becomes everyone's concern. When a person leaves a room at the end of the day, at the end of classes, you know there is some common sense that needs to be applied. If there are things left on the heater, particularly paper or other things, they need to be removed. In fairness to the staff who work at the schools and the people who are in our schools, we do not have these fires every single day. This was an unfortunate accident where somebody had left something on the heater and it was not removed at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to reiterate here again today that we do have processes in place, not just that daily checklist. We do have independent companies that go in and inspect the equipment. Mr. Speaker, the Fire Commissioner's Office and the fire departments have a right to inspect these buildings. We will never prevent the fire departments or the Fire Commissioner's Office from going in to the schools, and I have said that here in the House of Assembly before as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with the minister, that fire safety is all of our responsibility, including yours, minister, when it comes to these schools.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that not all regions of this Province have active fire commissions or fire brigades to do those inspections on a regular basis.

I ask her again: Will you put in place, in this Province, a proper process with protocols to ensure inspections are done in all the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that there may not be a volunteer fire department or a fire department in every community, but I will acknowledge that we do have the safety checklist done on a daily basis. All schools also have the annual inspections by an independent company. Further to that, if the school board or the principal has any concerns outside that process they also have managers of operations in each school board and they also have the right to request that the Fire Commissioner's Office come in, which we will never stop. Mr. Speaker, there is a process and a procedure out there in place in our schools.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 11, over two months ago, I asked the minister to table information related to the inspection reports in our Province's schools. She said she would collect the information and do so. You have had two months, minister, when can we expect to see those reports?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate that I would table that information. I have requested that information. I do not have the full information in yet. As soon as it is in, it will be tabled in the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two months?

MS JONES: Two months, Minister. Hopefully it will be soon, before the House closes down.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is also for the Minister of Education, and it is regarding an issue I raised in the House of Assembly yesterday, a serious matter of possible criminal misappropriation of funds from this Province under the International Student Education Program, and why she did not bring this issue to the attention of the police.

Mr. Speaker, in March of 2007, according to the information she gave yesterday, which was ten months before the minister herself turned any information over to the police, discussions were taking place between the Eastern School District and officials in the Department of Education.

Can you tell me today, Minister, who those officials were within your department, and who were the officials in the Eastern School District?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, in March 2007 I was made aware that the Eastern School Board was dealing with an issue of a possible misappropriation of funds. I was also advised at that time, they had sought legal advice, they were following the collective agreement, and they were referring the matter to their elected trustees.

Mr. Speaker, the elected trustees, under the Schools Act, have the authority to deal with the operations of the school board\, and HR functions within the board. I was assured, at that time, that the appropriate process and legal counsel was being followed. I reported it to the police later, Mr. Speaker, not based on the information that I received in March, but information that I received on August 30, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when I had gotten information above and beyond what I had in March, I certainly made sure that it was referred to the RNC at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again, because she did not answer, who were the officials in your department and who were the officials in the Eastern District? Can you name them, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Mr. Eric Snow from the Eastern School District, was in consultation with Mr. Rick Hayward, the assistant deputy minister. It was through Mr. Rick Hayward, the assistant deputy minister, that I learned of the issue at the Eastern School Board District.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Eastern School Board became aware of the possible criminal activity which involved fraud and the misappropriation of funds in November of 2006, almost one year before the minister provided any information to the police in this Province.

Can you tell me, Minister, in the House today: What actions were taken at that time by the Eastern School District to recover the money that was involved and to investigate the full extent of this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the fall of 2006 the Eastern school board sought legal counsel has to how to move forward with this issue and at that time they also requested a forensic audit to deal with the issue. It took a number of months for them to deal with the issue and it was in March 2007 that I was updated on the information. Although, I was not told the information because the decision rested with me, I was updated that the school board was dealing with this issue, and that was certainly well within their responsibility to do so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the minister told us that the Eastern School District had sought legal advice.

Can I ask you minister who they obtained the legal advice from, and also if you can provide a copy of that legal advice, if it was provided to you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am able to table the legal opinion because I know there is an active police investigation, but I will certainly look into the matter.

I also understand that Stewart McKelvey was the law office that provided the legal opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would assume that the minister had an opportunity to review that legal opinion.

I ask her: What was the opinion that was given? Can you tell me the contents of it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I had just indicated, that this is a matter that continues to be under police investigation. There was a legal opinion.

If I am at liberty, and I am not breaking any laws under information, under privacy or under any legal restrictions or police investigation, I will check and see if these reports, these legal opinions, are something that we can put out publicly, that will not be breaking any particular laws. I absolutely have no problem with tabling those opinions in this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also said there was a forensic audit done. Was that audit done in-house or externally? If it was done externally, who did that particular audit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the name of the firm or the individual who did the forensic audit, but it was done by an external contractor as opposed to in-house at the board office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when this audit and the legal advice was given to the school board, did you ask for that, Minister, back in the spring when your department became aware of the issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for the information at that time, because at that time I was advised that there was a matter that the school board had been dealing with. They had sought legal council, they were dealing with it according to the collective agreement and it was being referred to the board of trustees for a decision.

Mr. Speaker, under the Act, that is if I had any further information, I would have advised anyone from the board who spoke to me or was looking for my opinion, I would have advised them they had to work within the collective agreement, they should seek legal opinion and they would have to refer the matter to their trustees.

As I understood it, that would be the process that I would expect them to follow, that is the process that would have been their responsibility and that is exactly what they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, at that time, the director of education with the Eastern School District, would be the individual who is the current member for Grand Bank today.

I ask you minister: At that particular time, were there any discussions between yourself and the director of the Eastern School District?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I can say unequivocally, while the Member for Grand Bank was the director or CEO of the Eastern school board, at no point in time did I ever, as the minister, have any verbal conversations, any e-mails, or any letters with that person regarding this matter.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question for the minister has to do with the fact that she was contacted, she received information, in fact, she received information in person from the student recruiter and she knew firsthand that there was strong evidence of criminal activity.

I have to ask minister –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Why did you, yourself, acting in your capacity, not go directly to the police on this particular matter?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when I received the information on August 30, 2007, and subsequently met with Ms Lisa O'Neill on September 6, 2007, at all times I considered this information absolutely serious; and, just based on my review of the documents on August 30, I asked for a number of things to happen.

I asked for an official program review, and the Request for Proposals went out after that, and an independent assessment is being done. I also asked for a financial assessment of NISEP, that program. Following that, we wrote the school board and asked for that information. I also, at that time, asked for a legal opinion as to whether or not the school board should be involved in this type of business.

In addition to that, I also advised that the matter had to be referred to the Director of Child Protection, which I personally did myself at that time, and I asked the officials to refer it to the police.

They referred it to the Department of Justice, and at that time we got an opinion back that the board had dealt with it appropriately and in their legal requirements.

I took that one step further -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is extremely important because, after that, I specifically met with an official in the Department of Justice and said I was not comfortable until I knew that we, as government, and me as the Minister of Education, made sure that was turned over to the police.

So, it was not just turning it over to the police; I asked on a number of fronts to make sure that program was assessed and analyzed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of those actions do not negate the fact, Minister, that you did not report a criminal activity ongoing under the auspices of a board contained as part of your department, to the police.

Let me ask you this question, Minister. You consulted, you said, with the Department of Justice. What was the advice that you were given by the Department of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. On August 31, I asked my officials to make sure the matter was turned over to the police. They consulted with the Department of Justice; however, at that time, the question and the legal opinion came back to us that the board had acted appropriately and legally in their actions.

I was not satisfied that that was the question that I wanted to go over to the Department of Justice or the action that I thought was necessary.

I followed up. I met with an official in the Department of Justice, and I specifically requested that this matter be turned over to the RNC and they also be notified that any information that we have in our possession would be made available to the police.

I absolutely followed up to make sure that would happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows she followed up only after the recruiter have flown halfway around the world to St. John's to report this incident to the police in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot believe that the Department of Justice would have advised you not to go to the police on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services confirm with me that he met with the same recruiter as well, and was provided with evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing but did not take that information to the police on any occasion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is trying to suggest that a minister of this government had the information and did not act on it, or did not take it seriously, she is absolutely wrong.

This matter went to the Minister of Business at the time because it was felt it may be a business matter. Upon reviewing the information and the documents, the minister felt that it was a matter for the Department of Education.

The information, in totality, was handed over to me on August 30, and it was at that time and that date that I reviewed the documents. I set up a meeting with the person who provided the documents and I asked for certain information - as I had indicated in the House today - to make sure that was provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, my question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Can he confirm for me that the matter was referred to him, when he was the Minister of Business, by the Premier's office? Can he also tell me who in the Premier's office referred that matter to you and brought it to your attention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon when somebody makes a referral to government that either they start with the Premier's office or they start with a department that may not necessarily be the appropriate department to take action.

Mr. Speaker, this was a matter that was referred to the Premier's office. Because it involved a business agent, and related to the business of this particular individual and an international business, it was referred to the Department of Business. The Department of Business followed up, as they would with this information, however, felt that the most appropriate department to deal with this was the Department of Education, and it came over to the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, at no time was this information ever reviewed, or Lisa O'Neill interviewed and information taken and not passed on or put to the person who they felt was most appropriate to take action in this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, the skilled trade workers with Eastern Health demonstrated at the front of Confederation Building. These tradespeople are the carpenters, electricians, plumbers and others, all certified Red Seal workers who keep the buildings and equipment they contain operating when things go wrong.

The starting salary for the skilled trades at Eastern Health is $19.29 while their counterparts doing the same jobs at MUN is $25.71. The workers were protesting this basic injustice and are seeking parity with their colleagues at Memorial University.

I ask the minister: What is government going to do to alleviate this injustice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as President of the Treasury Board I have had the opportunity to meet with the skilled trade workers who have the Red Seal certification, both here and in Corner Brook. I have met with two different groups here and in Corner Brook. We discussed their issues. We discussed their desire for parity with other workers who do similar work, both in the private sector and with the Hydro and at Memorial.

We are presently in negotiations and I am optimistic that, as we have done with CUPE, at the end of the day we will negotiate a collective agreement that is fair and that is reasonable and that is in the long-term interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, these tradespeople are in very high demand. Any of them can walk out the door at Eastern Health and get double the pay here in the public sector, or they can travel to Alberta and get twice or even higher wages. Over the next seven years, Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that 92 per cent of them will be retiring and Eastern Health has no hopes of fully replacing them at the current wage levels.

Government is proud, and rightly so, of the millions of dollars that they have put into the new infrastructure and new hospitals, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Who does government expect to maintain those wonderful buildings if this wage gap is not corrected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we are presently in negotiations and I think the appropriate answer is that we look forward to the completion of those negotiations, and hopefully we will have a collective agreement that is fair and reasonable to all parties concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: My final question, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told that every Monday morning a power test is conducted at the Health Sciences Centre and MUN joint power plant. At 7:00 a.m. an electrician from Memorial University and an electrician from Eastern Health, together, as a team, test the power system. These two people hold the same classifications, have the same certification, have the same training and have the same education; however, one individual makes $6.43 more than his counterpart. This is more than unfair, Mr. Speaker. This is unsustainable for the health system as a whole.

I ask the minister: Is government going to take steps to rectify this inequality and ensure that our health system's infrastructure continues to be maintained at an acceptable level by highly qualified workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the answer to the last question, and as I said in the answer to the question before that, we are at the table, we are negotiating, and these questions are part of collective bargaining and should properly be dealt with there. I believe that the hon. Member has heard from very respected leaders in the labour movement who have suggested that these questions should be dealt with at the collective bargaining table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a clarification issue, and I am not certain if it should be the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Government Services. It involves the insurance tax, 15 per cent, that was cut by government in the recent Budget. We have had numerous inquiries from those persons who would have renewed say in November of 2007, paid their 15 per cent, which was based upon the policy existing for a full year, but of course everything was retroactive to January 1. Those persons are wondering, will they get back, on a prorated basis, the 15 per cent that they paid from say, January to October of this year. Because that tax, legitimately, the insurance companies have that in their pockets, when everybody else is getting a rebate, and they want to know can they get the refund on that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, the 15 per cent tax on insurance and the removal of that is based on the calendar year, because most families base their expenses on the calendar year. So to capture everybody once in that particular year, it was removed from January 1 onward, and that is why it was retroactive. Anybody paying their insurance previous to January 1, 2008, would, in turn, if they have a payment plan – as I understand it, the insurance companies will make an adjustment in regards to that tax. If they pay by cheque or they pay by bank withdrawal, that tax will not be applied for future payments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last year this House passed amendments to the Mental Health Act. The new legislation requires Assertive Community Treatment teams to follow up and support seriously mentally-ill residents after hospitalization. St. John's now has a team, but the other regions do not. Given what is still happening with seriously mentally-ill people, as was experienced in Piccadilly, the other regional health authorities really need to get these teams sooner rather than later.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When will all the regions have the assertive community treatment teams in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will need to clarify with the other authorities exactly where they are in their process and report back to the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, just to clarify then: what you would report back I hope would be the steps they are taking and when they hope to have them in place? Thank you very much.

You may have to get information on the next one too. They are all on the same thing.

The Mental Health Act, Mr. Speaker, now requires community supports for seriously mentally-ill people when they are released from hospital. We understand that in the Western Region there are not enough people to do the assessments of individuals detained under the Act, to assess whether they can be released to the community and that they will take their medication and not be a risk to the community or to themselves.

Mr. Minister, I am wondering: When patients are released are all hospitals ensuring that the community supports required under the Act are actually in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is yes. Whether there might have been an individual circumstance where there might have been some delay I am not certain of that, but as a matter of course each of the authorities would have the responsibility to ensure that that is in place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I follow-up then, Mr. Minister, and ask: Do you know if there have been training sessions done in all of the facilities that deal with patients with mental health illnesses, if all of them have been trained with regard to making sure that that part of the Act is followed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I appreciate the line of questions from the member opposite. They are important questions and I think it is important that she know the answers. I just want to make sure that there is an understanding within the House that, like the line of questions we had earlier about our school authorities - as a government we have established health authorities and we have mandated them the responsibility to deliver programs and services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. At an operational level, either officials in my department or myself as the minister would not necessarily be involved in orientation, training programs for staff. That would be a responsibility of the authorities, and as we give them that authority and we give them the funding to provide those services and programs, the assumption we are making is that they are following through with that. On an exception basis we may need some time to intervene and to verify something or check something out, as I will do here today. Ordinarily the line of questioning being posed by the member opposite is not something a minister would know on a day-to-day basis. Very clearly, the operational responsibility is of the authorities and one that, as a minister, we would have to get that kind of insight directly from an authority on any given day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again it concerns the decorum. I raise this point and we have raised it earlier in earlier sittings. I do not normally like to rise on this point of order. I understand, and certainly in Question Period, that tempers sometimes flare and people get boisterous and it is an emotional occasion. I understand that and appreciate that. In fact, that is part of the exercise here and we have no difficulty with that.

We pointed out, Mr. Speaker, when the seating arrangements were first noted in the House, that it might in future cause some difficulty because nine of the government members sit immediately opposite us here. Today was another example, and the Leader of the Opposition, who was up extensively in Question Period today, just brought it to my attention again. I noticed it and she just confirmed to me, that she is concerned because throughout the questioning today there was constant heckling and chuckling from the left of her, these nine members. Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader to make his point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think my point is proven by exactly the reaction we just got from government. We just appeal to the Chair that maybe because it is so physically close by the members of the government who sit over here, maybe if they could restrain themselves a bit during Question Period, at least we could get a proper question and flow going.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader to that point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly grace that alleged point of order with a brief response. First of all, there is no Point of Order, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member in his presentation with the reaction from this side tried to point that out as proof of what he was saying. Well, it was, because the proof of what he was saying is, as I have observed pretty much every day in Question Period since this House opened in March, if there is one corner of this Legislature that is like a mouse it is over there. Hardly, Mr. Speaker, do you hear a sound or a moan or a groan or a twittle or anything out of them. They are almost, Mr. Speaker, like we have got to go over and wake them up. I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

To the point of order, decorum is always a very important issue in the House of Assembly. I have, many times, called on members for their co-operation when members are asking questions and when ministers are answering questions, but the Chair has to admit that he has not heard anything disruptive from members sitting to my immediate right in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

It being 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the Chair calls on the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to present her resolution.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise and present the motion which is on the Order Paper for today, dealing with the need for an external review of our health care system.

The import of the resolution is that we should have an external review of our health care system and that this Assembly call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct an independent external review of the integrated health regions.

What I want to do first when I speak today, Mr. Speaker, is give my rationale for calling for this external review.

We have had a number of regionalizations go on with regard to our health care system over the years where probably the two most significant ones were, first of all, the one that took place in 1998 when quite a number of boards, I think around fifty-two, were changed into fourteen Health and Community Services Boards. That was when we had the move to Health and Community Services coming together. Then, in September 2004 the current government, in its configuration at that time, after less than a year in office, announced that they were going to do another regionalization, and this time the fourteen boards would come down to four boards. What we now have, as a result of that regionalization, which was put in place in January 2005, is the current system of four regional health boards, or four Regional Health Authorities.

My concern is that, both in 1998 and especially in 2004-2005, these moves were made without an analysis of our system at that moment. There was not an evaluation. There was not time taken to look at, in an in-depth way, how our systems were working. The decision was made based mainly on a restructuring that was required or looked for to meet fiscal needs, or to take part in decisions that were based on money matters, not based on the needs of the people, not based on the needs of the health care system.

I would like to refer to the press release that was put out on September 10, 2004, by the Minister of Health and Community Services at that time, when the minister announced that this regionalization was going to take place. What the minister said at that time was, "Fewer regions mean less administration and more opportunity for collaboration. Integrated boards will have the ability to focus on the full continuum of care, from community care to acute and long-term care resulting in better service for clients."

That is a wonderful goal, and I am really happy that was in the press release, but then it goes on to say, "The new governance model implements government's Blue Book and provincial Budget commitment to avoid unnecessary costs and create more efficient, smaller administrative structures."

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that in that press release and in the backgrounder that went with that press release there was nothing to show what the unnecessary costs were, there was nothing to show how and why the smaller administrative structures were going to work, and there was no explanation as to how you were going to get smaller administrative units when you were bringing all the boards, the fourteen boards, down to four regional authorities and you were actually going to have facilities that were going to be either closed or brought together, integrated, throughout our Province.

So, without giving any explanation of how money was going to be saved, and explanations of how we were going to get smaller administrative structures without any rationale that was based on a plan, on a review of our system, government made this decision and began, throughout the fall of 2004, to put its plan in place so that by January 2005 it was in place.

I have heard personally from many people who were involved in that process, and we have all heard, if we listened, the former CEO of the Eastern Authority talk about what it was like when that change took place. What we hear is that there was no big plan; that those regional authorities were given instructions of what to do. They were even told, in some cases, according to the CEO, that it would be good to have cuts in personnel here, cuts in personnel there, without rationale. What they had to do was to come up with those cuts.

It is my sense, in everything that I have observed around this, and people I have talked to and things that I have been told, that we did not have a rationale for this except to save money. No review was done of the system that they were coming out of, and we did not have a transition team put in place to co-ordinate how this might happen.

Now, I would like to point out that in that same press release of 2004 the backgrounders says: Other Canadian jurisdictions have recently moved to regionalized governance structures. In 2001 British Columbia moved from fifty-two to five, in Saskatchewan it went from thirty-two to twelve, Alberta went from seventeen to nine, and Manitoba created eleven regional authorities in 1997.

What the backgrounder does not say is - I know two provinces in particular that, when British Columbia and Manitoba moved into the new format, when they restructured, when they regionalized, they had teams in place that were called transition teams, and those transition teams had the responsibility to co-ordinate how the regionalization was going to happen.

I have had the honour and the pleasure to speak with two individuals who have worked here with Eastern Health who had worked in B.C. and Manitoba and who had been part, actual members, of the transition teams in those two provinces. Now, the two people I spoke to here, one is retired and one resigned from Eastern Health but they both had exactly the same experience: that the new regionalization restructuring that happened here in this Province did not get off to a good start, because very little resources were put into helping the four regional boards coordinate what was going to happen, and coordinate not just what would happen within one of the regional authorities but how the four regional authorities would also have to work together. We have two people who served on two transition teams in two other provinces who have regionalized successfully telling me that that was their experience.

I want to look at Nova Scotia, because Nova Scotia was not part of the big move of regionalization during that period, in the early 2000s that is referred to in the press release, but Nova Scotia in 2006 decided that they wanted to look at their health care system and see how efficient it was. They began what they called an efficiency study in 2006 and they hired an outside consulting firm, outside consultants, to help them assess their efficiency. Now, they were pretty open to whatever it was this firm was going to find, and what resulted was that the efficiency analysis grew into a comprehensive review of the provincial health system.

What they wanted: they did want to look at where they were going as the health care system in Nova Scotia. They wanted to restructure, they wanted to transform - and that is what the title of their review is: Transforming the health care system for Nova Scotia. They did the efficiency assessment and then the review to help them see how they could transform the system.

What happened here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we did not have a vision for where the restructuring would go. We did not seem to have a clue about how the restructuring was going to happen yet we said we would put it in place and then we did not put money into helping a transition happen. It is no wonder to me that people are coming to me and talking about the problems inside of Eastern Health. The problems that they are talking about are massive; they are throughout the whole system. Not just Eastern Health, I am talking about the whole health care system, Eastern Health and the whole health care system. Each of the regions would have different realities. I will say, that the people who are coming to me have been mainly people from Eastern Health though not only.

The people who are coming are doctors – as a matter of fact, I had a doctor in my office this morning – nurses, social workers and administrators; key people from inside the system. Some of the ones I have had come, and this is very sad to say, have made decisions that they have to resign, they have to leave. The reason they have to leave has nothing to do with money, in the case of people I have been speaking to, it has to do with the climate and the culture inside of their working situation, inside of Eastern Health in particular. They do not want to leave. Some are actually going to other jobs outside the Province so that they can do the work that they believe in. They do not want to leave the Province, they want to stay here, yet they find themselves in the situation where they have to leave for their own mental health.

That is really sad because I have met, and I do not want to exaggerate, but I have met, I would say, between five and ten really qualified, dedicated, committed health professionals who have come to me, who are having to leave their positions here in this Province. They are doing it because of their own health, their own well-being as individuals, their own mental health. They feel that they have no choice, because if they stay, or if they had stayed inside of Eastern Health, number one, they would not be able to be the professionals they are, and number two, they would not be healthy individuals.

This is really sad. They have spoken to me about everything from the poor communications system within Eastern Health itself, also poor communications between each of the health authorities. They have talked about a lack of coordination of services, everything from the ordering of supplies right through, that there is a lack of coordination and there is poor communication. They have told me that the new management model they now have in place means that there is a disconnect between top management and front-line workers and patients, that programs are not consistent throughout the whole system, and these are all serious issues.

Now, over the past year or more, since I have been in the House, there have been times when the Minister of Health and Community Services has stood and has said that things are happening, things are taking place, things cannot happen overnight. I realize that, but I am suggesting that things are taking way too long here and that we have problems that we have to deal with immediately.

What I am suggesting, by having this review, an external review kike they did in Nova Scotia, is that we actually go back to square one. I do not mean go back before the four authorities, I mean go back to square one. The authorities have been in place, they have been put in place, and we say: Okay, what do you need to make the system work? Let's do what wasn't done in 2005. Let's put in place what needs to be put in place. However, because we have had so many problems, because there is a problem with morale under Eastern Health, because people outside of Eastern Health are losing faith in how things are being run, I am suggesting that we need to put in place an external review that brings in consultants the way they did in Nova Scotia. Where those consultants work closely, hand-in-hand, with the management of the four regional boards, and that those consultants also open themselves to input from the outside, from the community, from those who use the system, from those who use the services, and they come up with recommendations that everybody has worked out together, and then we start from square one.

I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, so that is my presentation. I will get a chance to speak at the end and I will make the rest of my points then.

I look forward to hearing what I hope will be a fruitful discussion now in the House with regard to my motion.

MR. SPEAKER (T. OSBORNE): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) meaningful and fruitful discussion, but I have to admit when I read the motion as proposed by the member opposite, it is probably the longest motion that we have ever heard introduced in the House. As I go through it, there is an array of things being talked about with respect to the state of our health facilities. We talk about the bad news, we talk about diagnostic services, we talk about the quality of care, we talk about tests, we talk about an array of things in this motion and they are calling for a review.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of comments: As I listened to the member opposite share with us her thoughts and her views on where we were as a health system, you would think that our health care system today is collapsing around our ears, you would believe that there is not a single soul out there today having emergency surgery done, you would believe that there is not an ambulance running anywhere in the country, you would believe that we did not have any physicians doing anything at all today, you would believe that we would be locking doors, shutting OR's and shutting down buildings. That is the state the member opposite is trying to depict here in this Province today, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Let me remind the people in this House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that there is nothing further from the truth, I say, Mr. Speaker; nothing further from the truth at all. All you need to do - just look statistically for a moment. Look at the Budget we just released, another whopping increase in the provincial health budget. The provincial health budget today is $2.3 billion. When we formed government four years ago, the provincial budget for health was one point six. We have taken it from one point six up to $2.3 billion a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If you look across the country, look at any jurisdiction across this country, and ask any Minister of Health and Community Services in the entire country what has been the average rate of increase in your provincial health budget in the last five years, and do you know what they will all tell you? Two per cent, 3 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent, that is the kind of numbers you will hear around the country.

If you asked me today, as the current Minister of Health and Community Services, what has been this Province's track record, what I will tell you is that we have been up 9 per cent, 10 per cent, 8 per cent, outstripping the growth in our provincial health budget by any other jurisdiction in this entire country.

If you look at the Province's expenditure on health, we have the second-highest investment per capita than any other province in the country, second only by Alberta. Alberta has the highest investment per capita in health than any other province in the country, but look at their great wealth. Look at the great wealth and prosperity that they have enjoyed for many years. In this Province we are the second-highest investor on a per capita basis than any other jurisdiction in this country.

Mr. Speaker, from a budgetary perspective, that is exactly what we are doing as a Province, but if you listen to the member opposite we are doing nothing. Just look at the investments in this year's Budget. We have announced a new hospital for Corner Brook. We are in the process of building a new long-term care home in Corner Brook. We are in the process of building a new long-term care home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We are in the process of completing the construction of a new long-term care home in Clarenville. We are in the process of renovating a long-term care in Lewisporte. We are in the process of looking at what we are going to do with long-term care in St. John's. We have $1 million in the planning budget this year to plan for long-term care services in the City of St. John's. We have $1 million in this year's Budget to plan for acute care services in the City of St. John's.

Now, is that a sign of a government that is doing nothing, I say to the member? Is that the sign of a government that is doing nothing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Far from it; that is the sign of a government who is putting its money where its mouth is and investing significantly in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second thing, we talk about the shortages of nurses, the shortages of doctors, the shortages of social workers. That is all we hear from the member opposite, about the shortages, the shortcomings. Well, let me tell you about some of the investments that we have made.

Just look at the number of positions we have created in the last four years. I am looking at a list here that says 192 new positions: thirty-nine public health nurses, eighty-eight social workers, twenty-six home support nurses, and twenty-one family practice physicians. That is an increase of 192 positions over and above what we had four years ago when I could stand in this House and talk about what we are doing with health care. I say again, is that the sign of a Province that is doing nothing? I say not, Mr. Speaker, not at all.

As I listen to the member opposite talk about other jurisdictions, two she has cited as being the gold standard, ones that we should model ourselves after, ones that we should watch what they are doing because we should do the same. One of those provinces was Manitoba. Let me tell the people of this House what Manitoba actually did.

The member opposite is standing today calling for an immediate review of our health system because we went through a regionalization process, but the Province of Manitoba went through the same thing that we went through ten years ago. Do you know what they did? They decided that we need ten full years of boards going through a consolidation before we would do our review, because the Province of Manitoba said consolidation of health authorities takes a period of time to complete the transition. They understood what was involved in bringing together several health authorities. They recognized that there is a period of transition, there is a period of consolidation, and if you are to do an accurate assessment of the success, you need the process to conclude.

The Province of Manitoba waited ten years, and the member opposite is standing in this House today, as she has been standing for the last twelve months, saying we should undertake a review immediately, whereas we in this Province only went through this exercise in 2005, three short years ago. Three short years is a far cry from what she touts as being the gold standard in Manitoba, which was ten years, I say, Mr. Speaker.

How she can stand in this House today and criticize us for not undertaking a process three years into an exercise, whereas her gold standard, her standard of measurement, is Manitoba and they waited ten years. What a contradiction, I say, Mr. Speaker. Again - once again, I say - totally ignoring the significant amount of work we are doing but it reflects the lack of understanding of the nature of our health system.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the issue of our human resources, I have said in this House many times and I will say it again today, for the first time in our history we have more registered nurses in this Province today than we have ever had in our history. We have more physicians registered to practice in Newfoundland today than we ever had any time in our history. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a reflection of significant investments in human resources, significant investments in recruitment and significant investments in initiatives to retain people in this Province, the kind of capable, competent people we need to do the kind of work that we do.

Mr. Speaker, I think many members of this House just recently - and I just want to share a couple of things. I want to share a couple of things, Mr. Speaker, about the level of activity that is going on in this Province. I am looking at some data here that tells us that we are admitting some fifty-six, fifty-seven thousand people a year into our hospitals in this Province. Every one of them, I say, Mr. Speaker, having an encounter with our health system that they can walk away from and talk about the quality of care they received from the well qualified, very capable, competent people we have working in our system. We are looking at having over 350,000 visits to our emergency department, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I acknowledge and I think this government would acknowledge, that periodically you will hear of complaints about people going to emergency departments and having a long wait, but I do not think we have 350,000 complaints. Do you know why we do not? Because there are 350,000 people going to our emergency departments each and every year in this Province and being taken care of in a very capable, competent way. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, there will be people who will be waiting an inordinate amount time because emergency departments are there to respond to emergencies and they prioritize, so non-emergent cases sometimes have to wait. If you look at the volume, 350,000 visits a year and only having a handful of complaints, that is not a bad average I say, Mr. Speaker; not a bad average at all.

When you look at the number of inpatient surgeries we do, close to 25,000 inpatient surgeries a year being done in our hospitals throughout this Province - I say, Mr. Speaker, yes, we may get some complaints but for the most part it is only a very small percentage of those people who go through our health system each and every day. They are quite satisfied with the service they get, quite satisfied with the calibre of the people who provide services to them and take care of them and they have absolutely no complaints about the service they get.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if you start looking at our health system as zeroing in on some of the problems that you might hear about - I am not going to stand here in the House today or any time and tell you that every single thing that is happening in ever single one of our health authorities each and every day is running perfectly smooth and there are not issues to be dealt with. I am not going to tell you that, I say, Mr. Speaker, but fundamentally each and every day in this Province there is quality care being provided by capable and competent people; and I cannot repeat that enough. I cannot repeat that enough, Mr. Speaker, because it bears repeating. The people of this Province, the people of this House, need to fundamentally understand and appreciate that.

You know what I believe, Mr. Speaker? I believe that most people do. When they look at the televised debate that takes place in this House, if you were to listen to the members opposite – I am reminded of Buddy Wasisname, the arse is fallin' out of her, but nothing is any further from the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's gone boy.

MR. WISEMAN: Nothing at all. She's not gone. We have a capable, competent group of people running our health system; a capable, competent group of people, I say, Mr. Speaker. All you need to do is look at the statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are not allowed to make references in the House, but I will just try to paraphrase this. The members of this House attended a function sponsored by the Diabetes Association very recently. One of the things that I have repeated time and time again, since I have been minister, just a little over a year, we have done a lot of things as a government, as did previous ministers, as our government has done as a whole in the last five years. One of the things that I have reflected on personally, any number of times, is what we did last year with investment of insulin pumps.

I just want to read just one short sentence from a young man who provided a commentary about the effect of our investment last year in insulin pumps. He says: since getting the pump I can be a normal kid again. Counting carbs has even helped me with my math. I only have to take one needle every three days, compared to five needles a day. Now, that's awesome!" Those are his words.

I listened to the member opposite today talking about our health system as if it is falling apart. All you need to do is take those one or two sentences I just read, add that to the other numerous testimonies that we have gotten about the quality of the investments we have made and the quality of services being provided in our health system, and that is what we take comfort in, I say, Mr. Speaker. Each and every person in this House can stand and tell a story about something that has been shared with them about a problem in our health system. When you ask, can you also stand and tell a good news story, many more people will be to their feet faster, and that is what we need to focus on.

We do not need to be focussing on the negative tripe being raised by members opposite continuously in this House, trying to leave an impression, trying to create an impression that our health system is falling apart. They are attempting to undermine the quality work being done by physicians, nurses, social workers and technologists in this Province out there every single day. The comments made by members opposite in this House only serve to undermine the work that they are doing each and every day in this House, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is something we need to be mindful of; mindful of the quality of work being done and looking at the investments that have been made in our health system.

I only have a minute or so left, Mr. Speaker and I just want to wrap up if I could.

Fundamentally, I acknowledge that the member opposite has raised some issues that she believes are a concern. Each and every day in our health system we are looking at making improvements. That is why we have quality assurance programs. That is why we have people in our health authorities throughout the Province looking at quality initiatives every day. They are looking at what it is that is being done on a daily basis with a view to understanding it better, with a view to improving it, whereas the member opposite stands in this House trying to criticize what is taking place with the view of destroying, demoralizing and tearing down the good work that is being done by people throughout the Province.

I will not stand in this House today and suggest that I am going to support this motion. In fact, inasmuch as members opposite might think it has merit, I will not be standing later in this House - and I will ask my colleagues on this side of the House to join with me and not support this motion put forward by the member opposite, because I think it reflects a lack of understanding about our health system. It reflects a lack of understanding about how the health system works. It clearly reflects a lack of understanding of what is needed today to stabilize our health system, what is needed today to rebuild the health system and what is needed today to support our regional health authorities in the transition that they are going through to align themselves with good quality care. The whole notion of bringing health authorities together was not simply a mathematical exercise to save money. We have four health authorities brought together to create a seamless health system across the community, across long term care, across our acute sector, with a view of having a seamless health system, an effective and an efficient delivery model for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In the long term it will serve all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians very well. I think we just need to be patient and focus on the good things that are happening, Mr. Speaker.

I think my time is up, and thank you for the opportunity to make a couple of comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and use up my time on behalf of the motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.

I listened with great interest to the Minister of Health and I have to say, regardless of what he thinks and what I should focus on, and advising me what I should focus on, I can assure him that I was elected to come to this House to bring the concerns of my constituents and others throughout this Province to the floor of this House of Assembly. For the next fourteen minutes and thirty seconds, that is what I am about to do.

Let me begin by saying: you will never see me stand in this hon. House and say that in this country and in this Province we do not have a good health care system. That does not mean to say that everything is perfect with it. I can stand here and give good testimonies about kids in my district who received insulin pumps. That is all wonderful, and I commend the government for that, but do I sit down and keep my lips closed because someone told me a good story and I can't get up here and tell what is really going on in this Province?

The minister might stand here and lecture us and whatever, but we do have an opportunity to stand and present what we believe. I heard him make a comment to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi with regard to we stand on this side of the House, on our feet, for twelve months going on with the same rhetoric. Twelve months! You would want to be here for fifteen years before you would be able to stand on your feet here and talk for twelve months, because the House of Assembly has not been open, for glory sake, for the last eight or ten months!

Mr. Speaker, all too often we hear examples in the health care system, and I have heard it back and forth across the House from time to time that this is what we inherited. That is all fine. I can remember when the former Administration took over in 1989. Probably the same comments were made; because, when they took over, they took over from a former Administration when the Premier of the day said: I cannot do what has to be done.

No doubt, they did not have the finances to carry out the work that we can do today. Mr. Speaker, that is fine to say that one or two years into your term, and possibly you can get forgiveness in the third year, but when it comes to the fourth or the fifth year I think things can be done and should be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I do not only stand here today and say this to this Administration. I can assure you, in my years as a politician, prior to being elected - there are letters on file, if the hon. ministers of the former Administration kept their documentation, letters from me complaining about issues that were in the health care system. More than once Minister Matthews, when he was in his seat, got letters from me complaining about the same issues, probably, that I am dealing with on a daily basis with my petitions now. The same thing when Minister Smith was there. When it came to the dialysis unit, we went in and took on that Administration at that time in full force, got their listening ear and, whether fortunately or unfortunately, the administrations changed before it could come into effect. Thank God for the former Minister of Health, the Member for Topsail; when she was there she took the advice that was there, proceeded with it, and that facility and that unit is operating in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time in the member's statement she lists quite a few issues, and I guess you have to if you are referencing that you want a total review done of the health care system. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that she spoke about here is the infrastructure. I have been standing on a regular basis with regard to the long-term care facility in the Conception Bay North area.

I heard the minister today going through the list that is being done, or what is planned to be built in this Province. That is all wonderful. I commend the government for that. I commended them to the people who are getting those facilities; but, I say to the minister, one of the reasons this motion is coming forward, I hope that he can put back on the tracks the recommendation that was put forward a few years ago for a long-term care facility for Conception Bay North. I call on my hon. colleagues who represent the districts next to mine. I know they cannot stand here today and probably support this motion, but I would like for them to stand up and say what we are saying is correct. They know the situation, what is happening in the Conception Bay North area. They have heard it before about the long-term care facility. Mr. Speaker, they have also heard it about the shortage of doctors in our area.

When I started presenting my petitions back some days ago, or weeks ago I should say, I was probably the lone one in the wilderness crying out about the shortage of doctors in the area. Mr. Speaker, since that time we have heard from the medical profession itself, saying there is a shortage of doctors. We hear from the Joint Councils in our area, both on the Trinity Bay side and the Conception Bay side. We see letters on a daily basis in the media, people calling on the Open Line shows about a shortage of doctors in their area. We hear the specialists themselves crying out.

Only today in The Compass, our local paper in the Conception Bay North area, the Mayor for Carbonear, on the front page, crying out, and this is what his comments were, Mr. Speaker. The headline was, "Stop the bleeding! Doctor shortage needs treatment before it becomes crisis". That is the Mayor of Carbonear crying out, crying out to government and whomever with Eastern Health to step out, look for new doctors, and try and bring them to our area.

Another lady, Victoria Harnum, noted in the paper, said how she sent letters to Eastern Health, she sent letters to her MHA - and I am not sure who her MHA is because I am not sure where she lives - but she said all she received so far is a runaround.

There are more people coming forward, major concerns. When the Mayor of Carbonear speaks out about the shortage of doctors in the area, and he is saying it is going to hinder the process of people moving to the area - with the new development and the wealth that we experience on the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, the other issues that the hon. member brings forward in her private member's motion have to do with, I guess, medication and what have you, and different issues, and seeing that everything is brought forward on a timely basis.

One of the main issues I have been bringing up from time to time is when doctors, specialists, prescribe various medications to patients and, lo and behold, when they issue the prescription to them they go to the pharmacy, and the drug program here in this Province, for whatever reason, they just turn the people down.

I have had people in my district and adjacent areas, cancer patients waiting for their medication, being advised that you do not qualify. What happens? They have to get a special authorization form to go back to that specialist.

We all know how difficult it is to get to see a specialist in this Province because of the times and the limits and the number of patients they have to see on a monthly and yearly basis. Sometimes it could take eight to ten months before you can get in to see a specialist. What does that individual do? They have to come in to the office of the specialist, try to get the secretary or their workers there to see the specialist, when he is probably running from one patient to the other, or what have you, and have this authorization form signed, and when they bring this back they get their medication. Now, what is the difference in a little piece of paper, four by four, than a full sheet of paper with the same specialist's name on it with regard to that drug program?

I have had other cancer patients who went and got their medication approved by a specialist, went to the drugstore, and when they came back they were told they were to take two pills per day. When it came back and said: I am sorry, you cannot get two pills a day; you are only permitted to have one.

What they had to do was take what was prescribed to them by the specialist, but in the middle of that month, or before the thirty days were up, they were out of their medication and had to go through a timely process - people with cancer and other illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, we heard here today some of the questions that I put forward. The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board mentioned about the unions and negotiations. That is not what this was about, those people who came here today. They are people in the back rooms that we do not see. Those people are the concerns after we deal with the doctors and the nurses and all of the specialists. Those are the people who keep the operation going. They did not come here today to negotiate on the steps of the Confederation Building. They came here today to make it known that they have major concerns, and rightly so. They did not come here for parity with someone in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. All they want is to be on parity with the people on the other side of the street where they work. Two people going to work in the morning, doing the same job, with the same qualifications, and lo and behold one is getting six-something more an hour than the others.

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned earlier about spending money, and what increases have been put into the Budget, and that is wonderful. I commend government because the two main issues, I guess, in our Province are health care and education. It is good to see money going in there. It is good to see things being done. That does not mean to say everything is fine and rosy out there. The people who call us, I am sure they are not calling and giving us stories and concerns about wait lists and what have you - even though the minister said this is being corrected and hopefully so, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with it.

Maybe this is where the problem is. Maybe that is why the hon. member's motion means so much, is to have a review done. Apparently, by putting money there it is not correcting the problem. No doubt it helps in certain areas. Maybe it is how the money is being spent and allocated in the various areas. This has nothing to do with the people who operate our health care system, whether it is the doctors and nurses, whether it is the skilled workforce like we had here today. Either way, Mr. Speaker, each and every one of them take part in this health care system, and it is a wonderful health care system. We all admit that. There are other countries that only wish they could have what we have and what we enjoy. There are problems and I think the minister has to stop pointing fingers and saying, we have to focus on the good. I praise the good, but also, I say to the minister, he has to sit back and listen to the concerns of the people, look at the issues that are there, the problems that people have.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying I will be supporting the member's motion for an independent external review. I hope my hon. colleagues opposite, who know the situation in the areas that I represent and they represent, I hope at least today they will stand and confirm that what I am saying is accurate, even if they cannot vote for the motion. There is nothing wrong with that, but just get up and say their piece on what is happening in the area.

Mr. Speaker, with that I thank you for the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I am going to take the Member for Port de Grave's advice, I think I am going to get up and say my piece on this one. I am certainly not going to be voting for the motion, I might add. I have read the motion somewhat in great detail, I guess. Like one of the speakers earlier said, it is probably one of the longest private members' motions I have ever seen in the House. I would say it criticizes just about everything in health care. I do not think there is one thing in health care it misses. I stand to be corrected and certainly I would allow the member to amend it later if she feels that she missed something.

We talk about crumbling infrastructure, we invested $399 million, I believe it was, in the infrastructure this year. She talks about sprinkler systems installed in personal care homes, we insisted that they be done. It certainly was not the politically correct thing to do. I have more personal care homes and community care homes in my district than anywhere else in the Province. However, we believed it was a life safety issue as a government and we dealt with it.

She talks about the trust in our health care system being shaken and refers to the radiology tests and so on, Mr. Speaker, hence we called the Cameron Inquiry. She talked about an ageing population, the problems with an ageing population and the lack of things that we have done. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I could stand here for at least fifteen minutes and talk about what we have done for seniors in the last number of years, going right back to a commitment we made in our 2003 Blue Book and the things we have carried out since. I recently had the opportunity to speak at a lifestyle show and just a couple of things that I mentioned there were: the $26.8 million that was given to single seniors affects 31,500 people in this Province, that $26 million commitment. We have given another $10 million to home support, Mr. Speaker, to enhance the wages in home support. We put another $1 million up just so people would not have to include in their financial assessment RRSPs that they may have. Mr. Speaker, when I see things like this and I know the difference, I certainly I have to vote against it.

She talks about rural and remote areas. This year's Budget is tattooed with stuff for places like St. Anthony, for Clarenville, for Happy Valley–Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker; improvements in the facility in Grand Falls–Windsor. Mr. Speaker, no one has committed to rural Newfoundland when it comes to health care like this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this whole review called for an independent, external review of our integrated health regions, that they be examined by a review panel. Mr. Speaker, the health budget now is $2.3 billion, and I will get to that in a minute. Can you imagine the magnitude of a study to investigate a $2.3 billion operation or corporation? Currently now, with the Cameron Commission, I do not have the exact numbers in front of me and I certainly do not know if I have heard the exact numbers, but I can assure you that Inquiry will take millions of dollars at day's end. It is very well-spent money but for sure it will take millions. Can you imagine what it would cost the people of this Province and the amount of time it would take to do this kind of review? My guess is it would cost probably hundreds of millions of dollars, so instead of having the latest of equipment out around our Province, we will stop doing that and we will take that money and invest it in the reviews.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not understand it. Our four regional health authorities became operational April 1, 2005, and, Mr. Speaker, any time there is a transition like that, that certainly takes time. Even though this is taking time, there are people in this Province – and the minister referenced it earlier – every single day of the week, in this Province, getting good health care. There are forty-four of us on this side of the House – forty-four of us – and I would hazard to say, that every single one of us has had to deal with our health care system, for a variety of reasons. Some of us probably more so than others, some of us less so. However, Mr. Speaker, we have all had to deal with it, we have all gone through it, and we have all had good experiences. I am sure that there are people who have bad experiences. I am sure when you run anything - if we took $2.3 billion tomorrow and invested it in bags of potatoes, and were giving them out on the corner of the street, I am sure that problems would arise.

Mr. Speaker, in an issue, in an atmosphere as serious as health care, in a $2.3 billion budget, yes there are going be bumps in the road, yes, things are going to happen. It is not going to keep everybody happy. We heard a number here earlier – there were 350,000 people who went to our emergency rooms last year. Mr. Speaker, we did not have 350,000 problems in our emergency rooms. Far, far from it.

We are dealing with the issues at hand, as they come up. The health care system in this Province is working as well or better than most throughout the country, Mr. Speaker. This whole motion would lead you to believe that all these problems with the ER-PR happened as the result of the coming together of these boards. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind people out there in the general public that that is not the case. These problems started in 1997, long before the 2005 implementation of the four boards, Mr. Speaker. To leave that impression out there is certainly erroneous, Mr. Speaker. When this was brought to light in 2005, we took immediate action. Like I said, this erroneous testing dates back to 1997, so how that can be somehow related to the amalgamation that happened to the boards in 2004, Mr. Speaker, is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP stood up here last week and said, well, I must be the one from government that has to attack her, that has to go after her. I can assure the hon. member, nothing could be further from the truth. That is not the way I operate at all. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, stand up here day after day after day – every day in the House she asks for endless pots of money. Every issue imaginable, she asks for endless pots of money. Yet, Mr. Speaker, she does not acknowledge the good things we are doing in this Province. Her whole motion on health care is to tear us down, that there is nothing any good happening.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago, just last year, that she complimented the Minister of Health in this Province. She complimented the minister on HealthLine. She was not really sure if it was going to work or not, but she had experience with it and she thought it worked perfectly, I think was her word. She congratulated the Minister of Health and government on bringing HealthLine up and running and was delighted with it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we never hear her talk about that in this House. We never hear her reference the good things that are happening here in health care in this Province. So, I am reminding her that there are good things happening.

Mr. Speaker, I think another thing, do you know what we should have? The members on this side of the House kept making reference to the debt clock that the Minister of Finance was showing as he was going around doing his consultations. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a new clock in this House. Forget about the clock; I think we should have a new machine, a new adding machine, on the wall, so the every time the Leader of the NDP stands to her taps and make a suggestion we should run up the total on the wall. Mr. Speaker, I would say by the end of one session in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - that the NDP adding machine would be long blown off the wall, Mr. Speaker.

Look, Ontario had an NDP government a number of years ago under the leadership of Rob Rae. I am sure he is one of her heroes; Rob Rae was the guy. Now, he just about ran Ontario into bankruptcy, and I fear that if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi ever could get signing authority to the cheque book of this Province, Mr. Speaker, we would be bottom-up in no time flat, I can assure you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: So, Mr. Speaker, here we are again, she wants more money. She wants more money now to do this study, and here we have the health care boards - we as a government will say openly we are still in transition. We are still putting the pieces together of this. It is working well, and we are getting there, Mr. Speaker, but a $2.3 million corporation - that does not go to four regions and happen overnight.

Mr. Speaker, we are not different than anywhere else nationally. We are very comparable to what is happening in this country, Mr. Speaker. To be totally honest with you, I should outline - because another thing that you would get from this motion is that we have the big bad health care boards; we reduced down to four, and this is unreal. There are 293,000 in Eastern Health, Mr. Speaker; this is beyond. There is no one else in world doing anything as crazy as that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to share with you some numbers. Alberta, for example, has what they call Capital Health; it serves 1.6 million people. Now, keep in mind, the biggest health board we have in this Province is 293,000 people. Nova Scotia, Capital District Health Authority, serves 395,000 people; again, way above what we are doing here in Eastern Health, in this Province. In B.C., Vancouver Coastal Health serves 1 million people. Our biggest health board is about a quarter of that size, Mr. Speaker. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority serves 700,000 people.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we hear about the great big health boards, we are not reinventing the wheel here. There are people in this country looking after five times as many people, six times as many people, as one of our boards.

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick, for example, just announced that they have two health authorities instead of eight. So they have gone now, in a population of approximately 750,000, they are going to have a health board with 375,000 people. As a matter of fact, as far as big health boards go, we are on the low end of the scale. We are on the smaller end of the scale when it comes to the size of health boards in this country. When I hear talk, like I have heard recently, about how big they are and they are not manageable and so on, nothing could be further from the truth. Like I said, we are not reinventing the wheel.

Mr. Speaker, seeing we are talking about health boards and we are debating this motion, I would not normally bring this up today but I felt strong enough yesterday - I was totally disappointed. When the Leader of the Official Opposition stood up yesterday - I want to quote her on some of the things that she said. She goes on in her debate and she says, "Then today we had Dr. Tumilty who was the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association in the paper, Mr. Speaker, saying that at no time during the last week's meeting between doctors and the government did the Cameron Inquiry come up." She also goes on to say, "Mr. Speaker, this Premier is out there looking to disparage their characters, looking out there to undermine their professional abilities…." - this is the Leader of the Official Opposition referring to the Premier - "… just like he has done with Dr. Tumilty today. It is absolutely disgusting, Mr. Speaker!"

Well, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be here in this House yesterday and, although I was not at the meeting, when that was said publicly I was in the room with a professional who happened to be in the room, and her line to me was: Terry, lots of times I see this in the paper, or I see it on TV, and I say well, that is only someone's word against somebody else's word, but - she said - I was in the room and I actually heard the conversation.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, talking about the Premier as if he was making this up, there was nothing further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, what should happen in The Telegram - and I want to quote the May 14, 2008, telegram. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read this in its entirety; it is short. "I was quoted as saying that the subject of the Commission of Inquiry into Hormone Receptor Testing was not discussed during the formal part of a meeting between the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the premier to address issues related to the recruitment and retention of pathologists and oncologists. In fact, there was discussion about the commission which I unfortunately did not recall. I wish to apologize to the premier for any upset or damage to his reputation that my inaccurate statement may have caused."

Mr. Speaker, there we have the Leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association withdrawing, apologizing to the Premier, gentlemanly enough to do so, admittedly wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I think it is only fitting that the Leader of the Official Opposition, in true parliamentary fashion, stand in this House and make an official apology to the Premier of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Because what she said yesterday was absolutely false, Mr. Speaker. She was quoting someone who she should not have been quoting, and I feel today she should stand in her place, do the appropriate parliamentary thing, and apologize to the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have many things I could go on about, many, many more issues. Some of the speakers here earlier have highlighted some of the commitments in health care in this Province; but, like I said, we cannot forget a couple of key points. My time is up, but I will just be a couple of minutes to clue up - a couple of key points.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: I just want to make a couple of quick points, and I want to remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi of one more thing before I sit down.

In this Province, 30 per cent of our provincial budget is spent on health care, $2.3 billion. Mr. Speaker, we have gone from $1.6 billion to $2.3 billion in expenses. We are the second-highest per capita of spending in health care in the country, Mr. Speaker, and the highest percentage of our expenditure is in health care in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, to say we have done nothing, to read this motion here today, you would think we were off the wall and nothing could be further from the truth. We are listening.

Before I sit down, I suggest to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that although I did not hear it personally, my understanding is that the leader of the nurses' union was on one of the talk shows today and it was asked: Do you think a review of the system is needed? Her reply, Mr. Speaker, someone who is very familiar with this whole health care system, was: no need for a review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a point of order, a point of clarification, in regard to a question I was asked in the House today. I might have said one word wrong and I want to clarify that in regard to the removal of the tax on insurance. What I meant was, after January 1^st, if you had set up a payment plan with a particular insurance company and there were payments to be made after the point that we announced the tax, then they would get a refund from that point up to January 1^st and then afterwards the insurance company would adjust the payments. If it was paid by cheque, they would return the cheques and you would write other cheques. If it was being made by bank withdrawal, then that would be adjusted as well.

Previous to January 1^st, they do not get any refund. If you did that, a person, say, if their insurance was paid in November and they paid it out over the year, well they would get the benefit twice in one year and that would be unfair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I meant by the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and have a few remarks on the resolution that has been put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party today, a resolution that is calling upon the government to enhance the health care system in this Province through a series of external reviews of health care boards, administrations and services provided under that.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the comments by the member for Conception Bay South but I understand from some comments being thrown back and forth the floor in the House of Assembly right now that he was asking that I apologize for some remarks that I made yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. I have absolutely nothing to apologize for, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly will not make any apologies.

Mr. Speaker, he is referring to comments that I made when I talked about the Cameron Inquiry and the actions of the Premier and the Minister of Justice around this entire issue, and how they were calling into question the integrity of professionals in this Province, calling into refute their reputations, as professionals in Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly make no apologies for that. Anyone who follows the media knows what the actions of the Premier and the Minister of Justice have been in the last few days, and they will stop at nothing - they will stop at nothing! - to prove out the accusations and the allegations that both of them have made. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am hearing today that the Minister of Justice has officials scouring through the dusty boxes of files all over the city that have been stored on inquiries going back for the last three decades, Mr. Speaker, only because he is still digging himself out of that hole. That is the only reason, Mr. Speaker; the only reason.

Today we are paying top dollar to civil servants to scurry around the back rooms and storage rooms that have files stored, Mr. Speaker, for the last thirty years, so that the Minister of Justice might be able - might be able! - at the end of the day to prove a point. We do not know yet, Mr. Speaker. I guess we will find out how many dollars will be spent in the search for information to back up his claims.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I need to talk about another important issue today, and I only have twelve minutes on the clock to be able to do so, and that is the issue around the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, members of the government have already said that they will not support an external review into the health care services in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the way I look at reviews, the way I look at recommendations, the way I look at processes that deal with things like this, I look at it in a positive light in terms of, what good can come of this. What further enhancements can be provided within the health care services in this Province? Where can we identify ways in which we can make improvements? How can we look at delivering a better service to the people in each region throughout Newfoundland and Labrador? Also, Mr. Speaker, it allows for each of us to reflect upon a system that provides one of the most critical, crucial services to the people of the Province. It allows us to take the time collectively, not ‘ad hocly' like we often do, but collectively take the time to look at how our system can be reformed or transformed into a better system of delivery for the people of the Province. That would require asking other people's opinions, whether they be medical personnel, whether they be people who work day to day in the system, whether they be the users of the system, the people of the Province themselves, patients and patient advocates.

Mr. Speaker, it is all about being able to afford a better service and a better quality of health care within our Province. It would be an opportunity to look at the human resource sector and how that can be strengthened. If you reflect upon the last two months in this House of Assembly you will realize that many of the issues that have come to the floor of this place for debate have been around health care, whether it was the shortage of human resources within the health care system, whether it was a shortage of beds, whether it was extenuating wait lists, whether it was the affordability of services that should fall under the health care system such as home care, such as home oxygen, Mr. Speaker, drug benefits and drug cards, special authorizations of medications, fire safety, or the infrastructure of building. All of these things fell under the headings of health care within the Province.

This review will be an opportunity to look at how you strengthen those human resources within the different sectors of our health care system. It looks at how we can create more efficiencies. Are there ways that monies could be saved? Are there ways that we could provide services that are more efficient and more effective? Mr. Speaker, it allows us to look at how we can have a first rate, administrative authority within the health care system throughout the Province. It also, Mr. Speaker, looks at the affordability of health care services to people. As I have said, every day we hear of cases and situation where people due to medical illness or long-term diseases or disabilities are unable to access or afford, in many cases, the kind of services that they need.

Mr. Speaker, that would be the real purpose of having reviews. That is the real purpose of looking holistically at any situation, is to look at how it can be improved, how it can be made better, how it can be more effective and more efficient. So, why would you not want to do that? Government themselves, even the government opposite, have done a number of reviews within the health care sector. They have ‘ad hocly' taken programs that they offer, services that they provide, infrastructure that they use, and they have gone out and done reviews and consulted to external agencies and paid good money to have those reviews done, and there is nothing wrong with that, it should be happening.

All the Leader of the NDP is asking today - and we are certainly prepared to support her - is that, instead of going out and continuing to do these ad hoc pieces of work, you need to be able to look at this from a holistic perspective. A lot of that work that government has already done will come to bear in that process, will be effectively used within that process, and there is no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about Manitoba when she introduced her resolution. I think she talked about a number of regions across Canada that had certainly looked at amalgamation of boards. I think almost every province in Canada has done it now expect for the Province of Ontario, in which there is work ongoing I understand. The minister kind of left some comparisons in terms of Manitoba. There was nothing wrong with what he said, that they had been through the process now for ten years and we are just into the third year of this process, but I want to remind him of something, and that is: when Manitoba looked at their amalgamation of boards they had a transition team that guided them every step of the way through that process. These boards had a dedicated team of people that guided the transition, and Newfoundland and Labrador did not do that. In fact, this Administration, when they decided to introduce these new health regimes or health boards in the Province - and it was at a time, I think, when they were reducing the number of boards down to the four authorities that we have today; anyway, it was in 2004 - you have to remember that in the last three decades in this Province we have gone from fifty health boards down to what we have today, currently four.

The difference in Manitoba - and this is important to point out, not just the time frame in which their transition has taken place compared to Newfoundland and Labrador, but also to point out the resources that they had available to do it - they were not told that these boards were going to be amalgamated as part of a Throne Speech, like we heard in Newfoundland and Labrador from the government opposite. They also had a commitment for the human resources, and a transition team to do that work.

In this Province we said to the current CEOs and management teams of these boards: You go out and do the amalgamation. They were expected to do all of the transformations and transitions within those board sectors and still carry on the day-to-day operations of the health care system. It was really an overload, and I think we have heard that as part of the testimony at the Cameron inquiry. We have heard that from the former CEO, people like Mr. Tilley, and we have heard it from others. We heard it from the current acting CEO, Ms Jones, who is down there.

Mr. Speaker, they would be the first tell you that this responsibility was placed upon them, as the heads of corporations, to manage the transition process, to manage the amalgamation, and to ensure that, with the reduction in board size to four boards in this Province, that they would also be targeted with the responsibility of day-to-day operations of the health care system.

Mr. Speaker that was one of the things that did not happen in this Province that did happen in other provinces, and it is not too late to do it in Newfoundland and Labrador either. It is never too late to do it. It is never too late to fix a problem or to make something better. It is never too late. No matter how good you are as a government, no matter how good you are as a minister, if there are problems still identified, be a big enough man or woman in your job and take your responsibility serious enough to go out and admit there is a problem and we need to make it better, we need to make it more effective, we need to make it more affordable.

I am sure there are members in this House today, Mr. Speaker, who would agree, in a private, one-on-one conversation, that home care should become a part of the health care delivery services in this Province. I bet there are a number of them here who feel that nurses should be given higher wages or more benefits in order to keep them in the health care system. I bet there are many of them here who recognize that there needs to be a full review of the health care services in this Province to determine why people today with chronic illnesses, who need oxygen to breathe every day, cannot get subsidized or coverage to be able to have that medication and that therapy.

Mr. Speaker, just because it is not being done now is not a reflection on government in terms of saying you are not doing your job or you have not done a good job. What it means is that it is just one more thing that has been identified that needs your attention, that needs your guidance, in order to make it better and to improve it.

That is just what this external review is all about. It is all about looking through a microscope at the health care sector in this Province. It is not to reflect upon any person that works in that sector in our Province. I am sure there are many members in this House, like myself, who are often in and out of hospitals visiting friends and constituents or using the service ourselves. We know the commitment and the dedication that these people have to their jobs. This is not questioning any of those things. We know, Mr. Speaker, that many of them go above and beyond what is expected of them, to be able to ensure that one more patient, one more family, has a little bit more satisfaction and is being provided with a little bit more than normally they would have gotten if that person was not there doing that job in the caring and kind way that they have; but, Mr. Speaker, in the past weeks and months we have seen tremendous, tremendous, issues uncovered within our health care system, and I do not think we can ignore it.

Just because there are some programs and services that are working fine, it does not mean they all are. When you talk about issues around pathology, it affects everyone who walks in a door in our health care centres who might have cancer or require treatments for cancer. When you talk about shortages of nurses, it affects everyone on the front lines of the system in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, keep in mind that government should look at a review. They should look at it holistically, where they can strengthen it and improve it, where they can make services in health care more affordable to people in this Province, and do not look at it as a negative request but as an opportunity to do something positive to strengthen our health care sector and to make it more effective for those who have to use it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to get up and speak on this motion, and I will be voting against it; however, before I start, I would like to use this venue to respond to a couple of comments, oddly enough, made by the Government House Leader.

He referred to us on this side of the House as being as quiet as mice, and originally that gave me a little bit of concern, but I assume he was probably referring to the fact that this side of the House, in particular these members here, are models of decorum. If he chooses to characterize us as being as quiet as mice, well, we can accept that, as I am sure that was his intention; however, as for being asleep, I would suggest that if the Opposition would refrain from asking the same question over and over, and expecting different answers, what the House Leader took as being asleep was actually glazed looks waiting for something to change.

Today we have seen a shopping list of ills – an inventory, if you will – of ills of the health care system, and fourteen WHEREASes that detail things that people see wrong. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that on any given day we could probably find a lot of issues gone wrong with any particular part of government. Today it is health care, tomorrow perhaps it will be education, then maybe justice, then maybe environment. There is no perfect system in government, yet everything we do is geared towards making the systems we have better, more responsive and more critically sustainable down the road, so that we do not engage in one-time over the top expenditures that we cannot keep in our control as we go down the road; not only for this government but for any successive governments that may come after us.

I would like to assure everyone that this government, the members of this government collectively and individually, have a decent appreciation for the issues that have been outlined. Collectively I believe we have a full picture of what is going on and there is a certain amount of angst that happens because we know we cannot fix everything. We know we would like to fix everything but that is just not going to happen. It does not happen in governments, it does not happen in communities, it does not happen in households. We take the best information we have, we make the best decisions we can and we do what we feel is best in terms of what it is we are trying to do.

These issues that have been brought up today cannot be seen in isolation. We govern as part of a very, very large picture. To look at these particular issues and say, this is a government that has failed, is grossly unfair and I think that to take that approach minimizes the good work that this government has done and will continue to do for years down the road.

This resolution calls for a number of things. First of all, it calls for an independent, external review. I am not exactly sure what is meant by that. How independent would the member be looking for? How external would the member be looking for? Do we have the personnel here in St. John's? Do we have it in the Province? Do we have it in the county? Perhaps we do not even have it in the continent. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have tons of adequate people with good knowledge who can take this health care system and bring it to where it needs to be. An independent, external review to my mind it says we do not have the ability to do it ourselves and I do not think anything could be further from the truth.

The member also calls for strategies. Let's look at what has happened over the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the government of the day did not put together a health care system and put their hands in their pockets and say: that's pretty good, now let's leave that for twenty or thirty years and see how it goes. The government has taken the issues of the day, dealt with them, moved them forward, and in 2005 it would seem clear - and a term that does not seem to get used enough in this debate is what is called economies of scale. We do not need to create multiple versions of the same thing when smaller numbers of administrative structures will do just fine.

Currently, we have four health boards and, as the Member for Conception Bay South outlined earlier, with those four health boards we are dealing with a smaller group of people than a lot of amalgamations right across Canada. In terms of bang for the buck, in terms of the number of people who are dealt with, I think we are pretty much ahead of the curve.

The resolution also calls for opportunities for people to submit their views. Mr. Speaker, there is a opportunity for people to submit their views, not only on health care but on education, on justice, on environment, on municipal affairs, and that opportunity is called an election. To the best of my recollection, the people of this Province made their views quite clear as to who they want to run this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, it is us.

Newfoundlanders are not shy about calling their MHA, about e-mailing their MHA, about walking into their MHA's office, and if they have a view that they hold very strongly they bring it, they bring it in force, and they bring it in numbers. Because of that, I feel, as an MHA, I have a reasonably good handle on what the constituents of St. John's East have to say about these issues. Yes, there are concerns, no doubt there are concerns, but there is also a fair deal of confidence, in fact a very high deal of confidence, that this government is making the right decisions, going in the right direction and this review is not anything that anyone has called me about or I suspect will call me about and say: Boy, I think that is the direction we should have gone in.

Also, the member called for strategies. We do not need an independent review to launch strategies. We have professional development which a fair amount of money is spent on. We have conferences that our health care professionals go to. We have professional associations that they belong to. They have access to tons of information. Whether through magazines, whether it be on-line, whether it be face-to-face, there are many, many ways that our health care professionals can access best practices, best practices for communication, for management, for finance, for procedures. Now the ER-PR has certainly highlighted an area that has not worked well. That is why we have an inquiry. That is why we are making positive strides or at least have put in place a procedure to get at the problem. Yet, here we are having an inquiry only to find out that other jurisdictions are having the exact same problem. We did not invent this, but we will fix it.

What is it about Newfoundland? Why is it that we always seem to find the problems and instead of pushing it under the carpet, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, we deal with it. While we have the scrutiny of the whole country saying, oh, look at Newfoundland, look what they have gone and done this time, when we shed light on these things and the light casts a wider ray, other jurisdictions find out that they have the same problems and they go down the same road we do. Why do we get the attention? I suggest that Newfoundlanders have the tenacity and the inherent honesty to look at problems and address them straight on, and that is what this government is doing with the ER-PR. It will benefit not only this jurisdiction, but jurisdictions all over the country, and, I suggest, the world.

I also wanted to suggest that the fourteen whereases – again, if you want to criticize it is so easy to criticize. Fourteen - I am sure with only a few requests you could come up with tons and tons more problems. The only thing I am surprised about is that the candy strippers were not involved and the lady's auxiliary who is running the gift shop in all of the hospitals. It is easy to find fault when you know you will never be tasked with finding a problem. That is the easiest thing to do. In my own experience, as a volunteer with different organizations, when things needed to be shook up the first response you get is: Oh no, we do not do it that way, it has never been done that way. Well, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. This government is not content to do what we have always done. We are going to do it different, we are going to get different results and we are going to move ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: However, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's credit, I found her statements today to actually be relatively free from rhetoric. I found a lot of suggestions that she made in her comments today to actually be seen as constructive. Yet, when I look at this resolution with the fourteen WHEREASes and the chronicling of everything that could possibly go wrong in a health care system, I suggest that her statements and her words here are two different things. I am probably as red a Tory as you are going to get. I consider myself to be very socially responsible, but there has to be a balance, there has to be an ability to pay for the changes you want to make, and I do not think that this addresses it.

Today, Dr. Tumilty, in some of his comments, also commented on this resolution. He said that there are difficulties with board structures - and I do not think anyone denies that; in any organization of any size there will be difficulties - however, he suggested that an external review would add a huge amount of time and money to the problem and really not bring us any closer to a resolution.

This is in the same group of statements where Dr. Tumilty apologized to the Premier this morning for the comments that he made. Again, to echo the comments of the Member for Conception Bay South, good on him.

Mr. Speaker, the problems with ER-PR happened before the boards were amalgamated. To suggest that these problems were as a result of amalgamation would, I think, be irresponsible. We inherited a situation with ER-PR, not a situation that any government in their right mind would say: I hope I get a crisis like this when I get elected so I can deal with it.

This is a hand we were dealt, and a hand we are dealing with. When we discovered the problem in 2005, we took action. To imply that erroneous testing in a lab that dates back to 1997 was something that this government brought on would indeed be erroneous and, to my mind, ridiculous.

The leader of the NDP stands in this House every day and brings forward many, many suggestions as to how we could improve society. To be honest with you, I do not think anyone would sit here and say, oh, she is terribly wrong; she is way off base.

There are a lot of pie-in-the-sky things we could ask for, but the ability to pay for it is the one thing that keeps us from moving ahead.

Alberta has the ability to pay more than we have ever had historically, and with any good fortune we will get to a position where we could apply those kinds of monies to problems; but, guess what? They haven't got it all solved, either. So, Mr. Speaker, we are managing this as best we can.

Our government is proud of our substantial investments into health care and we believe that spending money wisely and strategically for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is the way to go. Now, I am not going to itemize all of the spending our government has done with regard to health care. The Minister of Health does that quite well, and I would never hope to hold a candle to the manner in which he succinctly and germanely produces the numbers that fit so well into the conversations and discussions had in this House; but, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that people, the residents of this Province, have already decided if this is a good Budget or not. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, they have decided it is a good Budget, and I would suggest to you that they have decided that what we have decided to apply to the health care is a good and positive step and probably even more than they had expected.

Mr. Speaker, my statements today are not going to sway anyone towards the Budget, towards the wonderful things we have done in health care; but, seriously, an investment of $2.3 million, that is a real sign of commitment to health care and a real sign of how serious this government is about health care. When it comes to being serious, I think we have the market cornered on it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the colleagues who have spoken to this motion.

I would like to point out, first of all, that the motion officially is the resolutions in the motion, and the resolutions in this motion are very clear. There is one resolution followed by two further resolutions; I think a very direct and very short and very succinct resolution.

I want to move from there because, yes, the speaker from St. John's East is correct, I could have done a list that was many, many, many more pages long with regard to the issues that we have to deal with, but that was not the point. I wanted to give a context for the resolutions, and I think that is what I did. A context that comes not from me, by myself, a context that comes from people who have called me, from people who have e-mailed me, from people who leave the hospital from having surgeries stopped because there are not enough beds in ICU and who end up in my office, coming across the parkway to my office, to tell me what has happened. That is where the context came from for the resolutions that I have presented here on the floor of the House today. These are not things that I lay in bed by myself and made up because I wanted to have something to put to the floor.

I thank the Member for St. John's East - I really do thank him - for recognizing that I did not present rhetoric. I would like to say I do not present rhetoric, and I would like to say that the WHEREASes in this motion are not rhetoric. All they do is present a reality that we are experiencing in this Province – that is all that they do – and it is not rhetoric; it is reality.

When I talk about a review, and I want to make this clear, I am not talking about an inquiry, I am not talking about something that is looking for blame; I am talking about an evaluation.

When this government decided, in 2004, to present a notion for further regionalization of our health care system - it had been regionalized in 1998 - when it suggested a further regionalization, my question was: Why did it not stop first, like they have done in Nova Scotia, like they did in Nova Scotia in 2006-2007, and do an evaluation of how the first regionalization worked? That is all that I am suggesting.

I would like to point out that the review that was done in Nova Scotia by outside consultants, by an outside firm, outside of the hospital system, that review took only a year and a half, and it resulted in 103 recommendations that the Government of Nova Scotia then started; they are dealing with them over a number of years to put these recommendations into place.

I am not talking about something that is going to happen overnight, but why are we afraid of a review? Why is this government afraid of a review? A review is a positive thing, and I am talking about a review that will help make things better for the people who are working inside of our health care system, our dedicated workers – everybody from maintenance, people who do the cleaning, right through to every health care worker that is in that system. They are committed, they are dedicated, and they want a system to work, but many of them are overworked. Some of them are working under stress. We have some who are underpaid. We have some who are not being paid equitably. This has to be dealt with.

I would like to point out that neither my resolution nor anything that I have spoken to has said that the four regional authorities are too large or that they should not exist. I have not said that. In actual fact, people who have come and spoken to me, a number of them, have said: I believe that the regionalization into the four authorities probably can work, but the government did not put in the money that was needed initially to have a team in place who were separate from the normal management of the systems, to work with those who were in management and to work with others to make the transition work.

What I am suggesting is, what this review would do would bring us back to square one of when the decision was made. Let's think, let's talk fall of 2004. We are there now, we are going to form the authorities, but this time we are going to do it right. The review will help us identify what has not gone right so that we can make it go right. That is what I am suggesting. That is what I am talking about. I think it is very logical. I think it would help us get things on a good track and it would make sure that the pressures that are on people now would be removed and that we will have a health care system that will work both for those working inside the system and those who need the system.

I cannot figure out why this government is afraid of that. All of my colleagues on the government side of this House know the realities that I know. You know that surgeries are being cancelled because there are no beds in ICU. You know that we have overloaded ERs. You are aware of that as much as I am. You know that we should have homecare that is delivered through our health care system. You know that we have seniors who are desperately in need of home care and cannot get it paid for by government. You know that we have seniors who cannot pay for their pharmaceuticals. You know that they cannot pay for all of the prescription drugs. You know that as well as I do. So, why are you afraid to have a review done that would help us get on the correct track so things can work better?

I am not talking about, this means putting more money in. I am not sure. I have no idea if that is what would happen. I would like to point out the government is talking about how much money it has put in and it is true that government is putting a lot of money in, but it is also true that this government has more money to play with than ever before. I would like to point out something about this year's Budget. Not all people get to see the Budget and go through the details. In the Budget itself on page IX, at the back of the Budget - anybody who wants to look it up will see that in this year's Budget the budget for health only increased by $200,000 over last year's budget. The interesting thing is, it only increased by $200,000, it went up a little bit, but in terms of the percentage of the spending that is going to health out of our Budget the percentage for health went down.

In 2007-2008, 37.6 per cent of the Budget was spent on health. In 2008-2009, 36.7 per cent of the Budget is being spent on health. So the amount of the Budget that is going into health has actually gone down. The real number has only gone up by $200,000. Not a lot of difference over last year's Budget and this year's Budget with regard to health. I think people need to know that.

I want to speak to something that the Minister of Health spoke to when he was speaking, when he was outlining some of the things that government has done. One of the things that he talked about was a dinner that was held by the Diabetes Association and that some of us attended. I was at that dinner, as were some of the members of the government side of the House, as were some of the Members of the Official Opposition. Yes, I heard this young man speak at the dinner and I heard the young man talk about how important the pump was to him, how his life changed and how he could not imagine his life now without the pump for his Diabetes, and then he went on and he pleaded with the government and with the minister. It is really interesting the minister did not say this, because what he said was; however, when I turn eighteen you will no longer pay for my pump. That is an important point. The health care only pays for the pump for children. It does not pay for the pump for adults. This young man said: I cannot imagine living under the old regime again, I cannot imagine living without the pump to help my disease, but when I turn eighteen I will no longer have my pump paid for and I will not be able to afford it. He was begging the minister: will you please make sure that the cost of pumps gets continued after the age of eighteen?

I was really disappointed that the minister would only tell half of the story. There was another part to the story and he did not tell it. That is what I find happens with this government. This is what we are dealing with all of the time. You tell half the story, you do not tell the whole story. You talk about the good things that you do, and that is fine and I do not need to talk about them because you have forty-three people to do that. You do not need me to do it. When you do a good thing, I recognize it, but we have to look at what is not working. We have to do that.

With a review, a review will look at what is working. If we have best practices happening a review will recognize that, then a review will point out what the weaknesses are as well. A review will point out what needs to be done to make things better. A review will look at something like the fact that we have home care or we do not have it. We do not have home care universally offered as part of our health care system. You have to be dying to get home care from our health care system or have a disability. Even with that, there are some people who have disabilities who have some limitations in terms of getting their home care. Or you have to have been in hospital and are being sent home from hospital and require some care for a short period of time and then you can get home care. Yet, home care is part of our whole health care system. It should be. The system acts like it is.

I am looking for my notes here, but I will remember. In the news release in 2004, that was done by the then Minister of Health, was very positive and it had a vision. It did talk about having the four boards, or the four regional authorities, would mean that we would have seamless care from community care right through to acute care. Home care is community care. Can we say that we have a seamless delivery of services when you have to either be dying or be disabled or just getting out of hospital in order to have home care? No, that is not home care. That is not a full home care program.

This government needs to listen to the people who are speaking. Yes, people speak when they vote, but a vote does not mean total and complete acceptance of everything that a government does. You know that and I know that. Don't fool yourselves.

When I stand in this House, when others stand in this House and present issues that are being brought to us, I am not speaking for myself, I am speaking for the people who have brought these issues. That is what it is all about. Don't make light of the need of a review, see it as a positive thing. You have all said, or those who have stood up and spoke said you are not going to vote for it and that means, of course, that nobody on the government side is going to vote for it, but you know it is a disappointment that you are not. I heard that the nurses' union says it is not necessary, but I know that the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees wrote the government in July and said they thought that a review was necessary. We cannot get into this game of, this one says no, this one says yes; let's put the whole thing together and look at it.

A review can only benefit us here in this Province, so why are we afraid of it? As I have already said, I do not understand it. I have had one of the speakers, the speaker from Conception Bay South, talk about – laughing almost – mocking the fact that I had crumbling infrastructure in there.

I wonder, has the Member for Conception Bay South been in some of the facilities that I have been in? I have been in the hospital in Labrador West, where you do have walls crumbling; where you pull back the door that is open, and part of the wall is hidden. You open it and there is crumbling plaster behind; where you have big sheets of plastic collecting water, where water is coming in through a roof. I call that a crumbling infrastructure. Yet, when the minister spoke about hospitals that were going to be built this year, I noticed that he did not mention a hospital in Labrador West – but, the review is not about money. The review is about services. The review is about how the system is working. The review is about how communications is going on. The review is about looking at how services are being delivered. That is what the review would be about. That is what I am proposing. That is what I hoped this House would see, would be a logical thing to do, and I have to say that I am very disappointed that the government side of this House did not take this resolution seriously, did not take the proposal seriously, and is saying to the people in this Province that you think everything is just fine and hunky-dory, when they know it is not.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you very much for having the time today to speak to the motion that I presented. I do thank all the speakers, but I do wish that it had resulted in all of us together being able to recognize that we can do things better, and outside consultants who would be free of the daily management of the system could work with those involved in the system and could work with those who use the system to come up with suggestions for making the system work better.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi pass?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the resolution, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair deems the resolution defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before we adjourn, which is automatic today, of course, it being Private Members' Day, I would like to mention the Committee work that is scheduled for this evening and tomorrow, unless there is a change.

This afternoon, I understand that the Social Services Committee will meet after the adjournment, here in the House, to consider the Estimates of the Department of Health and Community Services, and the Government Services Committee will meet in the Executive Boardroom to consider the Estimates of the Department of Government Services.

Tomorrow, the Resource Committee is scheduled to meet, as we know at the moment, after the adjournment tomorrow, here in the House, to consider Environment and Conservation. I understand there could be some change to that, but that is the schedule as we know it at the moment.

Also, tomorrow evening the Government Services Committee will meet in the Executive Boardroom to consider the Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes business for today.

Of course, it being Wednesday, I believe the motion to adjourn is automatically before the Chair until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.