MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are particularly delighted to welcome to the visitor's gallery a very special group of visitors from the Department of Veterans Affairs Pavilion. We have some members who have looked forward to this day for many, many days. This afternoon I would like to welcome them and I would like to introduce them individually and welcome them to our House of Assembly.

We have Leading Air Craftsman from the Royal Canadian Air Force, John Adams. We have Wireless Operator, from the Royal Canadian Air Force, Wilfred McLennon. We have Ms Madge McLennon, the wife of Wilfred McLennon. We have Gunner, from 166^th Newfoundland Field Regiment, Reginald Penney. We have Quarter Master, from the Royal Navy Rescue Unit, Eli Rogers. In the gallery to my right, as well, we have the Co-ordinator from the Pavilion, Tracey Howlett.

To my left in the east gallery, we have Leading Seaman from the Royal Navy, Joseph Clarke. We have Private, from the 166^th Newfoundland Field Regiment Royal Artillery, Alexander Murray. Leading Air Craftsman from the Royal Air Force, Leo Bishop. Master Warrant Officer from the Canadian Army, John Good. We have volunteers Louise French and Madge Lannon..

On behalf of all members of this House, this makes a very special time for us, welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank members for showing their appreciation to you, and through you, to all veterans in Newfoundland and Labrador who have served so valiantly for our country and for the efforts that we put forward everyday, even today, in the various fields of conflict, particularly in Afghanistan right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Mahalla Reid of Old Shop, Trinity Bay, who was named Branch 39 Legionnaire of the Year.

The first ever award presented by Branch 39 recognizes the effort and continued commitment given by a volunteer to the organization. Mrs. Reid became involved with Branch 39 in 1977 as part of the Ladies Auxiliary when her husband Arthur, a war veteran, was a member of the Legion.

The Ladies Auxiliary provides financial and volunteer support to the Legion programs. Mrs. Reid was involved with the Branch 39 Ladies Auxiliary for nineteen years. During that time, she held many offices within the organization, including 1st Vice-President, Secretary, and finally President. Her years of service earned her numerous awards. When the Branch 39 Ladies Auxiliary folded in 1996, she joined the Legion and continues to support the veterans and the area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Branch 39 Legionnaire of the Year, Mahalla Reid of Old Shop, for her continued commitment and support to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 39.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

On April 1, 2006, I, along with my colleague for Conception Bay South, attended the thirty-third annual Firefighters Ball in Conception Bay South. Mr. Speaker, it was indeed a pleasure for me to meet with a group of men and women who hold devotion to duty above and beyond their concern for their own personal lives.

The firefighters of Conception Bay South, along with the rest of the volunteer firefighters and career firefighters in our Province, sometimes go unrecognized for the commitment they make on a daily basis to our families. When things go wrong, be it fire, flood, hazardous materials incidents, motor vehicle accidents, or search and rescue, the firefighters are first to respond to do the best they can to protect life and property.

Mr. Speaker, Chief Richard Murphy, Deputy Chief Dennis Morgan, and Assistant Chief Ralph Fagan of the CBS Fire Department have accumulated a total of ninety-three years of service to the residents of Conception Bay South. At their annual ball, recognition was also given to a number of firefighters who have completed five, ten, fifteen and twenty years of service. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank them and the thousands of other men and women of the volunteer firefighting community who protect us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House of Assembly to join me in recognizing the Conception Bay South Fire Department and all the fire departments, volunteers and career firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador for a job well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Carbonear's Wesley Saunders, who earned a bronze medal in the 100 kg Men's Individual at the 2006 Juvenile Wresting Nationals held in Edmonton, Alberta, April 6 through April 9, and for earning honours during the Atlantic Freestyle Wrestling Championship held in New Brunswick on March 26.

Wesley was part of Team Avalon, which won the Atlantic Freestyle Wrestling Championship in Oromocto, New Brunswick, on March 26. The team placed first with 152 points, a whopping thirty-eight points ahead of the second place club. Wesley defeated New Brunswick's national medalist Zack Nixon.

Mr. Speaker, Saunders was offered a scholarship from the University of New Brunswick during a strong convincing showing at this competition. He also won the right to take part in the 2006 Juvenile Wrestling Nationals, where he earned a bronze medal in the 100 kg Men's Individual.

Wesley was also favoured to win in the Greco Roman portion of the competition, having already grappled with and beating the competitors in this division; however, he refrained from doing so due to a wrestling injury.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Wesley Saunders of Carbonear, who won a bronze medal at the 2006 Juvenile Wrestling Nationals and the Atlantic Freestyle Wrestling Championships, and on earning a scholarship to the University of New Brunswick. We wish him well in his wrestling and university career.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Beothic Maple Leafs hockey team of New-Wes-Valley area. This past April, the team went undefeated on their way to capturing the gold medal in the Provincial Midget E Hockey Championships. The tournament, held at New-Wes-Valley, was extremely well-attended and the home squad treated their fans to some exceptional hockey.

After posting a 4-0-1 round robin record, the Maple Leafs skated to a hard-fought final victory over a very capable squad from Marystown. A well-balanced offensive attack led by Victor Gates and Greg Gill, combined with sound goaltending from Travis Boland, resulted in a 3-1 final score in the well-contested gold medal game.

In addition to the Maple Leafs and Marystown, the tournament included squads from the Southern Shore, Port aux Basques, Fogo Island and Botwood. The overall result of the event was a truly tremendous display of teamwork and sportsmanship by all those involved.

I also want to take time to acknowledge all of the parents, local business owners, and everyone else who helped make the event such a remarkable success. Minor hockey has long played a major role in bringing together communities from across the Province. After taking in this tournament, I am happy to say that it continues to serve that purpose with the same passion and vigour that it always has. I am happy to report that minor hockey is indeed alive and well in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the Beothic Maple Leafs on their recent gold medal performance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize and congratulate all volunteers within the communities of Milltown and Head of Bay d'Espoir.

April 23 to April 28 was National Volunteer Week, and I recently had the opportunity to attend the town's second annual volunteer night. The event was organized and sponsored by the Town of Milltown and Head of Bay d'Espoir. It was a relaxed evening of fun, and an opportunity to recognize and to say thank you for the contributions the volunteers have made to their communities throughout the year.

This year's theme was "Volunteers Grow Communities" and saw approximately 120 volunteers from the area attend the event held at the Lions Club in Milltown.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make special mention of eighty-three year old Clyde Sutton, who attended the event and was presented an award in recognition of his forty-plus years of volunteering in Milltown in Bay d'Espoir. His involvement was with the church, the fire brigade, the Legion and the list goes on.

After the presentation of awards and prizes, the group was entertained by Level III students of Bay d'Espoir Academy. They sang and performed skits and, let me say, Mr. Speaker, their talents were very impressive and it is great to see youth of the community being involved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing all volunteers of Milltown and Head of Bay d'Espoir and to congratulate Mayor Gord Kearley, councillors and staff and, of course, the volunteers for putting together an event that recognizes the hard work and dedication of individuals in their community. Volunteers do, indeed, grow communities.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to one of this Province's greatest hockey legends who passed away suddenly in Labrador City on April 7.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Dawe was known for his great speed, determination and love of the game. He was born in Grand Falls and began his career playing with the Grand Falls ANDCO's team, and finished with Labrador's Carol Lakers. However, he was best known for the many years he played with the Conception Bay CeeBees. Many hockey fans today still say that Jimmy Dawe was the most exciting hockey player they have ever watched.

During Jimmy's hockey career, he won five Herder Memorial Trophies and completed his career as the fifth highest goal scorer, sixth highest assist record and fifth in games played. His playoff record is equally impressive, and in 2000, Jimmy was inducted into the provincial hockey hall of fame.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Dawe was a household name in our Province during the 1960s and 1970s. In other teams' rinks the crowd would be on his back each time he was on the ice. Nobody could excite the fans and bring them to their feet as he could. Knowing Jimmy, he probably enjoyed working them into a frenzy, whether they were cheering for him or razzing him, more than he enjoyed scoring goals.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Dawe will be missed by many people all around this Province, especially in Labrador West, a place he was proud to call home and where he lived in retirement.

I ask all members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in expressing our sorrow to his long-time partner, Lillian Lane, and his two sons, Peter and Trevor.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to statements by ministers, I note that in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, we have the former Member for the District of Placentia and currently the Mayor of the town, Mr. Bill Hogan, and Edward O'Keefe, the Town Manager. Welcome to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, with this being North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, I visited Holy Spirit High School in Manuels this morning. This is the tenth year that employers, government, labour and workers in North America will promote a greater awareness of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

In January, the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission launched its SAFE Work Newfoundland and Labrador Red Bracelet Campaign, with a focus on youth. Bracelets were mailed to the senior high school students enrolled in Workplace Safety 3220 throughout the Province. These red bracelets can help increase public awareness on the importance of occupational health and safety. Wearing these bracelets will be a visible reminder that safety on the job and in every area of life is everyone's responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, Workplace Safety 3220 students were also encouraged to enter a contest to develop radio advertisements promoting young worker safety.

From my point of view, all entries were winners. Mr. Speaker, an honourable mention went to Laval High School in Placentia. Second place went to the Exploits Valley High School in Grand Falls-Windsor. The first place entry was Holy Spirit High School in Manuels. Their radio advertisements have started airing this week on stations throughout the Province, as part of the Commission's ongoing SAFE Work Newfoundland and Labrador public education campaign.

I applaud all the young worker safety participants. As well, I encourage others to learn from their example and strive to make the same commitment to safety in the workplace, and I am very proud today to wear my red bracelet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. The members on this side of the House applaud the winners and all the young worker safety participants who participated in this project.

Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day in response to the minister's statement on a similar issue, the school is the right place to start to promote a greater awareness of preventing workplace accidents and industrial illnesses.

There were twenty-five industrial related deaths in this Province this past year. I certainly encourage the government to make a more concentrated effort in promoting occupational health and safety in the schools of this Province so that our young people have a better start and a better chance of survival when they do enter the workforce.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement and I, too, would like to congratulate the winners and the participants that she speaks of here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue and it targets young people as the focus of being consciously aware of safety in the workplace. I say to the minister, it is also a bit timely, because this is the time of the year when a lot of students will be looking for summer jobs pretty soon and this has to be at the forefront of their attention. I have been involved for a number of years prior to coming to this House of Assembly and delivering at the schools in Labrador West, health and safety videos and messages to the graduating and high school classes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: We found it quite informative and the students did as well, and there needs to be more of that done, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, there are many incidents across this country, in the programs that I was involved in, that talks about the number of young people who get injured and killed, sometimes on the very first day of their very first job. A tragedy indeed and one that need not happen, but safety is like a lot of things in life, Mr. Speaker, education can go a long way to help eliminate a lot of the things that happen and cause tragedies to young people in the workplace.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize May 1-7 as Mental Health Week in Newfoundland and Labrador. This year's theme is: "Take control of your health - take care of your mind."

Mr. Speaker, as part of marking Mental Health Week in the country, the Canadian Mental Health Association has developed a Mental Health Meter to help people to better understand what it means to be mentally healthy. I am pleased to distribute these today to my colleagues in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join the Newfoundland and Labrador Division of the Canadian Mental Health Association earlier today for the official launch of the Changing Minds project. Changing Minds was created in order to address a community need for mental health education, reduction of stigma and to promote a better understanding of mental health and mental illness. In particular, the program helps to inform front line staff on how to detect the signs and symptoms of mental illness and how to communicate more effectively with a person experiencing a mental health issue. Our government is pleased to have provided over $150,000 over the last three years to fund this important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, one in four Canadians will experience a mental illness over their lifetime. Government recognizes that mental health is an important component of overall health, and when we have good mental health we are able to enjoy life to its fullest and be more productive, creative and capable citizens. To this end, government has committed $2 million over the last two years for mental health services, demonstrating our commitment to strengthening resources for mental health consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to announce today that our government will provide coverage for the drug Risperdal Consta for persons suffering from schizophrenia. This drug will be available starting September 1, under special authorization, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, as a result of recommendations provided by the Atlantic Expert Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the importance of new mental health legislation that is truly responsive to the needs of our people. My department has completed provincial consultations with stakeholders on a legislative framework, and I look forward to standing in this House this year to introduce this act.

I would like to ask colleagues to join me in recognizing Mental Health Week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I and my colleagues are certainly pleased to join with the minister and the government in recognizing Mental Health Week, Mr. Speaker.

If you go back to the Reid/Power Inquiry that was launched, I think, in 2000-2001, and completed a couple of years later, I think it was a very harsh reminder, no doubt, of the gaps that exist within the mental health system within our Province. I am pleased to see that one of the recommendations, the Changing Minds project, was implemented, but there were a lot of other recommendations in the Reid/Power Inquiry that have not been implemented, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

While it is good to recognize weeks like this, and while it is good to sign proclamations, it is always a responsibility of government, Mr. Speaker, to do the work that is necessary to fill those gaps in our society.

I think we only have to look around our communities and look at the news coverage of the courtrooms every evening to realize that there are a great deal of gaps that still exist in the mental health system and for those people who are patients of mental health.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very disturbing for me when I see people who are mental health patients who are suffering from such a terrible sickness and illness in our society that often find themselves ending up in penitentiaries and not necessarily in hospital rooms, and that I find very disturbing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I, by leave, just clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to the legislation that will be brought forward by the government opposite. I have to say that I hope the legislation will also address the mental health needs that exist all over our Province, because we have places in this Province today where we have mental health nurses who are serving large geographic areas - one nurse and up to 5,000 and 6,000 patients - and that, Mr. Speaker, is inadequate and needs to be addressed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to join in recognizing Mental Health Week, and the important focus on this type of disease that is very badly and poorly understood, not only by the general public but by people whom you would think actually knew better.

I am very glad to hear that we are finally, this year, going to have a new mental health act. I believe for almost twenty years now there have been government officials and politicians working on a new mental health act and we have yet to see it. I am glad to hear the minister make a commitment that we will see new mental health legislation this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to congratulate the Canadian Mental Health Association on the very important project that they have launched today, with the support from this government and the Government of Canada and others, that will provide information for police, ambulance attendants, paramedics, emergency room nurses and teachers, in basic understanding of the nature of mental illness and how it presents itself.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, not only is there poor understanding amongst the general public but apparently, as identified in the Luther Inquiry into the deaths of Norman Reid and Darryl Power, there is a lack of training and understanding on the part of front line workers, so any progress that can be made in this field is certainly appreciated.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today my questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier indicated that the government has a duty to respect the shareholders of FPI and not be too heavy-handed in its dealings with that company.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn't he standing up for his shareholders, the people of this Province, many of whom work for FPI and find themselves today unemployed through no fault of their own?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Leader is paraphrasing what I have said and putting his own words to it.

We have stood up for the people of this Province. We have stood up for the real shareholders of FPI, who are the people of the Province. What I did point out was that there is corporate structure there that has to be followed, and a corporate structure that we have to acknowledge and we have to recognize. Otherwise, we become a Banana Republic and people will not come in here and do any business. However, our primarily concern here is the people of the Province and the people who actually own the resource. That has been our policy all the way through, and that will continue to be the way in which we behave with regard to that company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, if I am paraphrasing, CBC radio or TV is also paraphrasing, because that is what is on their Web page today.

Mr. Speaker, FPI is telling the fisheries union - as we speak, and told them yesterday - FPI is telling the fisheries union that, for some of its workers to return to work, certain conditions have to be met. One of those conditions is that the FPI Act must be amended. The second condition is that they be permitted to ship more fish unprocessed to China. The union cannot meet either of these conditions, I say to the Premier, because that authority rests solely with the government in this Legislature.

I ask the Premier: Why are you shirking your responsibility and putting the union in this position? When are you going to tell FPI that the act will not be weakened and that fish will no longer be allowed to be shipped out of this Province for processing in China?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in government, or government as a whole, shirking their responsibility. The company, FPI, put certain propositions before the union. Nobody is saying to the union that they have to be coerced or agree to those. If the company wants anything done with the FPI Act, they have to deal with us and deal with this House and deal with this government. That has been made abundantly clear to them. Nothing has changed in that regard.

It has also been made abundantly clear to FPI that in their first round of proposals in terms of the Burin Peninsula they were proposing to ship two-thirds of yellowtail flounder out of this Province for processing. I told them, in no uncertain terms, many times since then, including when they first put it out, that it is not on. It is a non-starter; it is not going to happen. Go away, pound rocks, get out of our hair, it is not on - and it is not on today, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if they have some kind of other proposal that is less than that, that makes sense, that we can all buy into and become part of, that is one thing, but today they put nothing different on the table than what I saw a month or two ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is reminiscent of what happened in the Stephenville mill, exactly what happened in the Stephenville mill, where this government left the union and the company to duke it out. As a result we see now, today, nearly 900 direct and indirect jobs lost on the West Coast of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, up until 2004, the government policy stated that shrimp harvested in the Gulf of St. Lawrence had to be processed in plants on the Northern Peninsula or in Charlottetown, Labrador. That policy changed when the Raw Material Sharing plan was implemented; but, as this plan no longer exists, I ask the minister: When are you going to revert to the old policy and force companies to leave fish on the Northern Peninsula to be processed there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that this policy actually goes back to the early 1990s when FPI approached the government of the day and said: Look, we want to invest several million dollars in Port au Choix but we are not prepared to do that unless you give us exclusive access to 4R shrimp. At that time, the government agreed to allow 4R shrimp to be accessed only by Port au Choix and Anchor Point. Following that, when the hon. gentleman was minister, I believe it was in 2002, St. Anthony, Black Duck Cove and Charlottetown were given permission to access 4R shrimp.

He is correct, in 2003, in 2004 there was a raw material sharing agreement reached on shrimp, so therefore there was no need of any requirement. In 2005, the same situation existed, so there was no need of any restrictive requirements. Today, that is a different matter. We are still very cognizant of the fact that we want to do everything possible to ensure that plants on the Northern Peninsula and Charlottetown have access to 4R shrimp. We are discussing that matter now with both sides of the industry and, since neither one of the plants are open yet, I anticipate that we will make a policy decision in that regard very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the explanation of what is happening, but, I say to the minister, the plants would be open in Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point if companies were not permitted to take the fish that is landed from the Gulf and ship it to plants elsewhere in the Province, because that is exactly what is happening today. As a result, we have hundreds of workers in Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point who are calling us and asking us for the government to interfere and revert to the policy that was always in effect so that they can go to work. Because as long as that policy is not there, these people will not see work on the Northern Peninsula in those two plants this summer because it is more profitable for those processors to ship that fish to other plants, that they have in the Province, than it is to process it up there. So, I say to the minister, you do not have to procrastinate. You do not have to do a lot of thinking about that, implement the policy that is already on the books in the Department of Fisheries. When are you going to do it, Mr. Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, nobody is procrastinating. Nobody is dragging their feet. All that is happening here is the Leader of the Opposition wants to find another soapbox to make another political statement on. Well, that is fine, Mr. Speaker. Those plants are not open. Daley is not processing any - I do not know about Port de Grave, but if he is, that is the only place. He operates the plant in Arnold's Cove. There was some shrimp sent off the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to address that matter. So far those plants are not open. They are not open for a whole bunch of reasons, Mr. Speaker. We are very cognizant of that situation but we want to talk to people before we make unilateral decisions that imposes our will on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say that I do not need a soapbox. I am asking the questions because people in that area are calling me daily and asking when you are going to intervene. You do not need a soapbox either because you prefer to do your speeches from the pan of a truck, I say to the minister.

Final question, and a very simple one: Has FPI been charged in the last twenty-four hours?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I wonder if the Government House Leader can help me up from that socko, Mr. Speaker. I can see the Leader of the Opposition on an ice pan facing a dog hood, Mr. Speaker. I will speak in this Province from whatever platform is available to me to speak on matters that are important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when I am asked to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: And if that is the pan of a box, if it is up in the galleries of this House, if it is on the tower of Confederation Building, Mr. Speaker, so be it.

Mr. Speaker, the question: Has FPI been charged in the last twenty-four hours? No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the people who worked at the fish plant in Fortune are trying to come to grips with the inhumane way that they have been treated by FPI and they are not sure what the future holds. The government has led them to believe that there may be jobs for some of them with Cooke Aquaculture.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Is Cooke still interested in the FPI plant in Fortune? If so, when can we expect to see some activity by Cooke in that community?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member and the people from Fortune who depend on the Fortune plant, that Cooke Aquaculture is still very much interested in Fortune. As a matter of fact, some personnel from Cooke were in town earlier today - I do not know if they are still here - carrying on discussions with the Province.

When will we see activity related to Cooke in terms of Fortune, in terms of the plant? That is not yet certain, Mr. Speaker. It is not yet certain whether Cooke is going to be in a position to start to get their aquaculture projects up and running within the next couple of weeks, but we are certainly working very diligently on that. Then what happens in the interim between when the fish are put in the water and when they can begin processing fish is another matter that we have to address.

All of those matters, Mr. Speaker, are being addressed as we speak between Cooke Aquaculture, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, and I hope that we will bring it all to a finalization in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, Cooke Aquaculture has also said that accessing a quota would be part of the plan for Fortune if anything is to happen there before eighteen months.

I ask the minister: Will a quota be made available to Cooke? If so, where will it come from?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question whether or not a quota will be made available to Cooke. I can say this, as I have said before publicly, when FPI, in discussions with us a number of weeks ago, told us that it was unequivocal, they were no longer interested in Fortune, in pretty well the same breath they did say that they would be prepared to offer up some quota for availability to Fortune if we were successful in attracting another operator. That will continue to be pursued.

In terms of quota from other sources, from other areas; the Province, as a matter of public policy, Mr. Speaker, like we did in Arnold's Cove, is continuing to look to access quota and repatriate it to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for use in fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, which would include Fortune. Can I guarantee that there will be offshore quota available for Fortune? No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker, because it is not within our constitutional jurisdiction to make that kind of decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has also said that Bill Barry is interested in acquiring the assets of FPI, the fish plants and the boats. Are the FPI assets in Fortune included in Mr. Barry's plans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I said some of the boats, but as to the question regarding Fortune and Fortune assets, the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: I guess my question then, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is: How will the Cooke Aquaculture initiative be impacted if Mr. Barry or any other party interested in buying the assets of FPI, how will that be impacted if they are successful in acquiring those assets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, if we have an operator who is prepared to go in and operate in Fortune in terms of raw fish, in conjunction with raw fish and farm fish, then that is the ideal. That is where we want to be. If that is Cooke, if that is FPI, if that is Barry, if that is somebody else, well that remains to be seen. When we get to the point that we have all of this together, we have all of the information, you can be sure, the hon. member can be sure, that the people of Fortune represented through their town council and other groups, and also the workers represented through their union, will be consulted. We won't be imposing, or attempting to impose our will on the Town of Fortune or any group in the Town of Fortune. We will seek their advise, we will consult with them, and hopefully, collectively together, we will all make a decision that is best for the future of Fortune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador, who are part of the delegation attending the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas for the past few days. These people are extremely disappointed that neither the Premier nor the Minister of Natural Resources would attend this year's event. We have also been told that Minister Ottenheimer is trying to leave the impression, with the delegation and industry officials, that negotiations are still ongoing with Hebron-Ben Nevis. Earlier this week, the Premier stated in the House, in response to a question from myself, just the exact opposite, that it wasn't ongoing.

I ask the Premier: Which of these versions of events is correct, those being spread by your minister in Houston or the statements that we get here in the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is interesting, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken to Minister Ottenheimer every day since he has left. He is leading the largest delegation ever in the Province, a senior minister in the government, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He opened up the Newfoundland reception, he was at the Canadian reception, he was at the international reception last night, he has been down to our booth right in the show, which has significant presence, and word from him is that the show is going extremely well.

Now, to the point that the Opposition House Leader has made, really what he is standing on today amounts to hearsay. I certainly am not under the impression that Minister Ottenheimer has said that negotiations are still ongoing. The member opposite is getting it from someone in Houston that he has talked to. If he would like to put a handle on that ax, so we can grab a hold of it, maybe we can deal with what is as opposed to the hearsay being brought forward.

The Premier has been very clear, our door is open. The Premier has been very clear on behalf of the government on what we expect.

We also understood, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite, on CBC, told the Premier to keep the oil companies' feet to the fire; point blank. That is my understanding.

The fact of the matter is, that we need not be worried about disappointment because the Premier is not there. He couldn't be there for a number of reasons, including FPI. From my perspective as House Leader, this is where my job is when the House is open. For anyone to try to leave the impression that they need to be upset that we are not there, simply, Mr. Speaker, is not the way they should be thinking. The largest delegation led by a senior Minister of the Crown, supported by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what is important, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny; the Premier managed to get there last year when every plant worker and fisherman in this Province was on the street.

Mr. Speaker, each year the Province goes through a process of asking oil companies to make exploration bids on parcels of offshore land. These bids lead to significant exploration investments that take place in the Province each year. This is the time of year that government begins to receive the initial interest in what parcels of lands should be put up for auction in this year's Call for Bids, and it is usually discussed at places including the OTC Conference in Houston.

I ask the Premier: What level of interest has been indicated to date, and how does government feel this year's Call for Bids investment will compare to prior years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The premise of the member's question is really off base. Really, this process is run through the joint Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. It is a closed process. Neither the federal government nor ourselves have any advance knowledge of what the bidding process is, because it could circumvent and prejudice. If we had that knowledge, that could get out anywhere else, or if members had that knowledge, so it is a Call of Proposals and a Call for Bids.

Over the last twenty years, we have had bids each and every year that have ranged from $1 million to - when we became the government - $673 million. That process is ongoing and you cannot predetermine the outcome. There is interest. For example, this year, for the first time, we have called for bids on the West Coast, to open up the West Coast play and the basins associated with the West Coast, so we are extremely optimistic about the bidding process. We are optimistic about the companies who are interested in coming here. In the next three years, over $750 million to $800 million must be spent in exploration.

If the member does not believe that is reason enough to be optimistic, then I would like to know what amount would satisfy him, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Saying that companies are spending money they have already committed in prior years does not do much to answer the question about what the intention is going to be and what our level of enthusiasm ought to be for next year.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has recently requested a rate application to the Public Utilities Board for a 5 per cent rate increase. When in Opposition, this government criticized the previous rate increase brought forward by Hydro and stated that any rate increase would negatively impact the poorest people in society. They also stated that the profits from Hydro should be used to prevent rate increases. However, in this year's Budget, they bragged about, they will be allowing Hydro to keep $54 million in profits.

I ask the Premier: Using the logic of your words in Opposition, why is government refusing to use these profits for the benefit of the people, and prevent this rate increase from becoming necessary?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You have to show up, and I would encourage people to tune in every day, to see which end of the spectrum the members opposite are coming from.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. There was no bragging about letting Hydro keep dividends. We had absolutely no choice, as the Minister of Finance outlined in the Budget, because Hydro was nearing bankruptcy because this hon. opposite crowd, when they were government, milked Newfoundland Hydro to the point where there was no equity but all debt, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The second point is simply this: We have allowed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to keep their profits this year - not profits - their dividends this year. Do you know why? Because we are going to expand the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are going to expand the mandate so it can get into an energy corporation and the models associated with that. For what purpose? For the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to the public utilities process, Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, that is a quasi-judicial process. We are monitoring that process. It is a legal process that Hydro will go through. Once a decision is made, we will evaluate it, but let me say this: This government has put forward the best, and put the most money into a rebate program for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians year over year since we have been the government, far in excess of what that hon. crowd did opposite, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the seniors of this Province get a real warm and fuzzy feeling after hearing that non-answer.

Mr. Speaker, while we wait for government to bring forth their Energy Plan, our natural gas industry is on hold, oil companies are questioning their future exploration and development expenditures, and the people of this Province are being asked to pay more for electricity while Hydro makes millions of dollars in profit. In addition to these issues, Ventus Energy, a joint venture with the Metis in Labrador, are being prohibited from evaluating or developing a wind power project near the Churchill River.

I ask the Premier: After three years in office, and so many important energy issues on hold, why are you still dragging your feet on this most important plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, well, well. We have the member opposite on one day telling us, yes, Premier, keep the oil companies feet to the fire, and today he is saying that we are dragging our feet. Now, you cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is dragging their feet. We put forward the Discussion Paper on the Energy Plan. We outlined the public consultation process. We told the public and the companies when that process will begin and when it would end. They know that. There is no dragging the feet, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite talks about the Metis Nation and Ventus Energy. I can say this: We are treating the Metis Nation and Ventus Energy no different than we are treating everybody else with respect to wind energy. We are not going to give away a wind resource to any individual company without the benefits coming to the people - in this case to Labrador - until we have a plan in place that deals with royalty, fabrication and assembly, and a long-range plan that benefits -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and not the people of Bay Street, who the member seems to be sticking up for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Minister of Environment. Perhaps we might get some answers from him.

The Ventus Energy proposal has been approved to go through a full environmental assessment by the federal government; however, the provincial government is refusing to allow this environmental assessment to take place.

I ask the Minister of Environment: Why is the provincial government refusing to allow an environmental assessment process to take place that will have no impact on the results of the Energy Plan and would provide valuable environmental data regarding this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the member should ask about the other fifteen to sixteen wind proposals that we have before us as well, that came in unsolicited by the private sector. Maybe the member should be asking the question: Why is it that the private sector is so interested in our wind resource? Because they know that they can reap significant profits from it.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: Every proposal with respect to wind that has come before the government, we have not said no to, we have put on hold until the Provincial Energy Plan is released. We have announced to people when that plan began and when, Mr. Speaker, it will end. Until that time, Mr. Speaker, people are going to have to patiently wait, because what we are up to is in the public interest and for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not for the benefit of the private sector, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, and it concerns the shortage of doctors in the Province, particularly in rural areas.

We have a medical school at MUN that graduated over thirty students a year for more than the last thirty years. Given the fact that this is over 900 doctors who graduated from the School of Medicine, can the minister explain why we still have a problem, and what is his government's plan to address it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The number of people who apply for medical school in this Province, the vast majority of those students, are local registrants. The vast majority of people who graduate, obviously, are local registrants. We have a relatively good retention rate on graduates from Memorial University, from the medical school, in doctors staying in this Province. We do have reciprocal agreements with other universities and other provinces to allow for registrants from other provinces to enter the medical school in this Province, just as medical students in this Province are able to access schools in other provinces.

We are working on the recruitment and retention of doctors in this Province. Right now, we have the highest rate of doctors in this Province that we have ever had, and that number is significantly higher than it was in previous years. It is an issue that we are working on. Do we have enough? We probably never will have enough, but we are working on the recruitment and retention of doctors in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, some of the people who we have been talking with cite one of the major reasons for not staying in the Province as being the financial debt that they incur while going to medical school, whereas other countries and other places can write off their debts. I want to say to the minister, if many of these med students never had this debt maybe they would be more inclined to stay in our Province, because if we look at other professions and trades, if there are job opportunities in the Province most would rather stay and work than move away, and I think the same would hold true for med students.

Does the minister have any plans for local residents who enter med school in this Province, to reduce their debt load so that when they come out of university they will be able to stay in this Province rather than have to leave to try to pay off the tremendous debt that they incur.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the member for his question again.

Mr. Speaker, the tuition fees at Memorial University are amongst the best in the entire country. We do have loan remission programs at Memorial University and we also have bursaries for some of the medical students at Memorial University. I would guess that our tuition rates and the loans that are owed by the medical students at Memorial University are probably amongst the lowest in the entire country.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Yesterday, the new federal budget confirmed that Ottawa will no longer be honouring the current child care agreements that are in place with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed because our government did not stand up to the federal government to protect this nationally applauded child care agreement that was there.

I ask the minister: Has the government done any analysis of what this will mean for child care in our Province? Will it mean that centres will close? Will there be less spaces available? Will we be looking at long wait lists for people who want to access child care come September? Can the minister tell me that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We are still analyzing the announcements under the federal Budget, but what I can say is that the Early Learning and Child Care program in this Province will receive no less money this year, or next year, or the following year, than it has received in previous years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are developing our own Early Learning and Child Care program in this Province. We are in the process of developing a multi-year program that is now before Cabinet for consideration and we hope to be making an announcement in the very coming days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, outside analysis in our Province are already indicating that we could lose up to $30 million in new money over the next couple of years for child care, along with several thousand child care spaces. If the minister has information, I would like for him to certainly release it to the public.

Under the current child care agreement with the federal government the Province has already received an amount of money for child care. Can the minister tell me what amount that is and how it has been invested into the children of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

After yesterday's Budget announcement, I guess the total that we will have received from the federal government is about $21.6 million. We did have $11.6 million or $11.5 million up until the Budget announcement yesterday. Having said that, the annual investment in this Province in Early Learning and Child Care, to date, is about $12 million or $13 million, of which $3 million comes from this provincial government. The rest of it comes from the federal government. There will be no decrease, Mr. Speaker. Again, there will be no decrease. There will be no loss of spaces as a result of the Budget yesterday, the federal government Budget. In fact, we are coming out with our own Early Learning and Child Care plan, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, it is before Cabinet. We are deliberating on that. We will be making an announcement on that when the decision is made by Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of people in the District of Grand Bank, but in particular, people who were employed at the fish plant in Fortune. Actually, there are people from about ten different communities who were employed at that fish plant, and it is sad to have to say were employed. The petition says:

WHEREAS the people of the District of Grand Bank primarily depend on the fishery for their livelihood and prosperity; and

WHEREAS these same people have an historic attachment that dates back hundreds of years to this renewable resource;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to recognize and respect the importance of the fishing industry to the area, and to take whatever action necessary to ensure that the quotas traditionally processed by Fishery Products International for this area remain within the region for the benefit of the people and their communities.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has been signed by hundreds of people who really are at a place in their lives now where they really do not know what the future holds. Hence, my question today to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. They know that Cooke has expressed an interest. They really do not know where that is going. I think, as the minister said today, they are in discussions, but that is not very much information for me to share today with the people from Fortune and other communities who, in fact, depended on that fish plant.

Then we know about the Barry proposal and another proposal by another interested party, but at the bottom of all this, and the crux of the matter is: What will, in fact, be left that will be able to be of benefit to the people who worked at that plant in Fortune? Will there be quota? This is the question that I am asking and this is what the people who have signed this petition are asking and insisting on, that the quota that was traditionally processed by FPI in that area continue to be processed in that area. I am not sure when the minister talks about the possibility of buying quota, I understood that quota was a common resource. Therefore, under the constitution, it was not owned by FPI and that you really did not have to buy the quota. I would expect that it would be seen to be a common resource and owned by the people. That is certainly my understanding and that is what I have heard others say.

So the issue, I guess, for us, is that if the fish that we have been harvesting and processing are, in fact, a common resource, then why is it that we should not be able to keep that quota and be able to harvest it and process it where it has been traditionally processed? That would be, of course, in this case, in the fish plant in Fortune. We have hundreds of people, many families -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Wednesday, under Standing Order 63.(7), at 3 of the clock the Speaker is obliged to move to the private member's resolution.

The member has about half a minute left in her petition, if she chooses, but she would need leave to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to proceed with the petition.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the importance of this is such that I am glad that leave has been granted, because we really do need to get the point across of the importance of doing everything we can, as Members of the House of Assembly, having access to a piece of legislation that governs FPI, to ensure that the quota traditionally harvested and processed, in particular in Fortune, continues to be processed in that community by the employees who used to work for FPI.

This is a serious situation. We really need to address this. We cannot see that quota go somewhere else, to the benefit of somewhere else, whether it be in China or some other part of the world. This is fish that has been processed in Fortune, should continue to be processed in Fortune, and this why the people who have signed this petition are calling on the government, and anyone else who will listen, to make sure that continues to happen, whether it is Bill Barry who is in there or some other party, or Cooke Aquaculture. I know Cooke Aquaculture is on record as looking for a quota and, again, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we should make sure that a quota is made available to Cooke Aquaculture and/or to whoever else ends up there governing that particular fish plant in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we are debating a resolution put forward with notice by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I call upon him now to introduce his private member's resolution.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that this issue of the coverage for prescription drugs is probably one of the most important health care issues facing many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have a circumstance in this Province where some people have available to them a drug card provided by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those people who are in receipt of Income Support, or seniors who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, automatically get a drug card provided by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the provincial drug care program.

We have other people in the population who have workplace plans that they pay for themselves, sometimes shared by their employer, and this covers all teachers, all public servants, all Members of the House of Assembly, and people whose workplaces have a plan.

Then there is another group, and the size of this group is estimated by the Canadian Diabetes Association to be 34 per cent of our population under age sixty-five and 8 per cent over the age of sixty-five, who have no source of drug coverage except their own resources or their own pocket.

We have circumstances where people in this Province who go to a doctor and get a prescription will go to the pharmacy and, instead of asking to get the prescription filled, they will ask the pharmacist how much does the prescription cost. If they are unable to pay for it, they turn around and put the prescription back in their pocket or purse and do without it.

We have individuals, Mr. Speaker, who have prescriptions - and they will tell you this; I don't know if you have heard these stories, but I know many people have - they got this prescription that is good for a month and it is supposed to be three pills a day, to last for a month, and the person will tell you: I only take one a day, to make them last longer, because I can't afford to fill the full prescription. Well, that person is likely to be back in the hospital being treated by the public for the disease that they had, that was unable to be treated by drugs.

Drugs have become as important to our medical system as hospital care and physician care. In terms of cost, the most recent statistics that I have seen, Mr. Speaker, is that 16 per cent - in fact, over 16 per cent - of health care costs are now consumed by the cost of prescription drug therapies. By contrast, the cost for doctors with physician services, all physician services within our medicare system, take up 12 per cent of the cost, so we see how incredibly important that is.

I have physicians telling me, Mr. Speaker, that when they first diagnose a new diabetes patient, the first question they ask the patient is, do you have drug coverage, because that determines what treatment they get, what treatment they can afford. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. We have a system that is fundamentally unfair to the people of this Province. When we have a system which says to you, if your employer doesn't have a plan, if you are not lucky enough to be a public servant, if you are not a senior with GIS, that you have to pay as you go, that inflicts considerable hardships on people.

It doesn't really matter whether you are well off or middle class or on the borderline of the plan that the government announced in its Budget, it can impose a severe and serious hardship. Over the years I have met numerous people who have confronted medical challenges and medical crises and ended up with medical costs or drug costs of $300 a month or $400 a month, money that was, in fact, imposing serious and severe hardships on them. They don't qualify for a government plan, they don't qualify for a drug card, they won't come near to qualifying for the plan that the government announced in its Budget that provides up to a 70 per cent co-pay for people who have a family income of less than $30,000.

You can get an individual plan. You can go to Blue Cross and buy an individual plan, but make sure you don't have any expensive drugs when you go, because they will tell you: We will give you a plan, we will charge you a premium, as an individual, but we won't cover any of the drugs that you are now receiving. We won't cover any of the drugs you are now receiving! This is a fundamental unfairness, Mr. Speaker. A fundamental unfairness!

I have had constituents, Mr. Speaker, come to me with newly diagnosed, life-threatening diseases, with the need for a drug that is enormously expensive, in some cases $2,000 or $3,000 a month. They applied to the government for a drug card and were turned down, with a family income of $36,000; turned down because they had some savings, they had some RSPs. Mr. Speaker, this is a family with children, no pension plan, no extra money lying around - but they had some RSPs because they were concerned about their future down the long road - turned down for a card, after writing some anonymous person in the government, after not being able to talk to an individual, and finally got turned down.

Mr. Speaker, guess what? The day after they were turned down the drug company, the international so-called money grabbing drug company, turned around and gave the individual the drug for free. A drug, without which the prospects of this person staying alive were pretty slim. The government said: No, you do not qualify for our plan. There is nothing we can do for you. You make too much money and, by the way, you have investments. They did not call them savings. They did not call them registered retirement savings, you have too many investments. So you have to get rid of them. You have to impoverish yourself. You have to turn yourself into someone with no resources whatsoever.

This is the situation that we are facing in our Province. This is the situation faced by, according to these figures, up to 35 per cent of our population under, say, sixty-five. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. This resolution calls for something pretty simple, Mr. Speaker, something which, I would, in my imagination cannot see how anybody could not support.

What this resolution asks for, and I will read out the resolution. I will not read out all the whereas, some of them I have touched on today already.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a Select Committee of the House of Assembly be struck to inquire into and report on the feasibility and options with respect to the development of a Province-wide comprehensive system that would ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to a prescription drug plan.

Let's look into it. Let's see what it would take to make sure that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador had access to a prescription drug plan that was organized by the government, that made it possible for everybody to participate. That is what I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, and that is something that I think is pretty straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces have plans. In fact, every province has some kind of a plan, whether it be for catastrophic drug costs, whether it be a comprehensive one like Quebec. This is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a prescription drug insurance plan. People without supplementary health benefits coverage must join the public insurance program to which they pay premiums according to income, as well as a charge for each prescription. So, there is a fee. Even people on Blue Cross have a fee. The amount of the premium varies from zero dollars to $460 per adult, depending on that family income with a maximum contribution. It provides free prescription drugs, dental and optical services for children under eighteen and some adults, which means there is no deductible and no prescription charge for children's prescription drugs. That is the plan in Quebec. Available to everybody, with a premium.

Mr. Speaker, when I raised the issue in the House of Assembly being critical somewhat of the government's existing plan and the plan that was being proposed and said, why can't we have a universal plan? The Minister of Finance shot back and said: Mr. Speaker, the member asked for the moon, we give him the moon and then he wants the sun and the stars. Well, Mr. Speaker, of course I do. If it is available to the people of Quebec, if the sun and the stars are available, if they are within reach, if we can work together to make it happen, if it is something that the people need, if it is something that is possible, of course I want it, Mr. Speaker and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be entitled to have it, if it is within reach.

The minister said in this House: The member wants people who are making $100,000 or more to have a drug plan. Yes, of course, I do. Of course, I do! Members in this House who make over $100,000 as Ministers of the Crown have a drug plan, Mr. Speaker. They have a drug plan. They have access to it. We all have access to it. Teachers have access to it. Public servants have access to it. Why shouldn't ordinary people who are self-employed, why shouldn't the small contractor who is out there earning a living fixing houses or building houses or doing renovations, why shouldn't he or she and his family have access to a drug plan? Why shouldn't that be possible, Mr. Speaker, under an organized plan made available through the auspices of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why shouldn't that happen?

So, I am putting forward this motion, Mr. Speaker, because it is something within reach. It is something that people need. It is something that is important for people to have. I have constituents and people - we all know people who are in circumstances like this, and it does not really matter whether you are well off or better off than others or not. People who go into hospital, the drugs are all paid for. All the prescription drugs that you have in hospital are paid for but when you are being discharged: I have good news for you Mr. So and So, you are being discharged from hospital. The bad news is all these drugs that you have to take, you have to pay for yourself unless you have a plan.

Mr. Speaker, what this resolution calls for, and I hope I will have support from hon. members opposite and on this side of the House, is that we get together and we have a committee that comes from members of this House, members on that side of the House, members from the Liberal caucus, members from the NDP caucus, and we have a committee that looks into this, that examines the plans across the country, that has the advice and the expertise provided to it that government can provide through the Department of Health or to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information so we can examine these plans, examine the possibilities, consider the costs and see if we can have a plan that ensures that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can have access to a plan that they can afford, to drugs that they will need to keep themselves alive, keep them out of hospital, allow them to have access to health care without a cost.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the same kind of motivation that led the people of Canada to demand and insist on a medicare system, is the same motivation that is behind this expectation, that in our modern time there be available health care for all that involves drugs. Initially, medicare started talking about hospital costs and doctors costs but drug therapies are now just as important, perhaps more important in some cases, to keeping people alive than a doctor who is treating them because the drugs, themselves, can help to keep people alive. Access to drugs on the basis, without recourse to an individual's ability to pay, should be available to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I urge hon. members in this House to support this resolution, to put together this committee and, at the end of the day, just come up with recommendations: Here is what is possible, here is what it might cost, here are the options. Then a decision can be made afterwards by government, by people in the Province who can make up their own minds as to whether something is practical or doable or feasible. That is the idea of this committee, Mr. Speaker. That is what we would like to see happen because this is something that not only can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador afford, because of our increasing prosperity with respect to the oil revenues, but something that should be afforded in any event because we do have a need and the desire to have greater quality in access to health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. Drug therapies are an important part of that, and I ask for all members' support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for putting his resolution forward. It will raise debate and it will raise discussion around a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, the member's resolution is well intended. In fact, it is a laudable resolution but perhaps a little bit premature. As the member acknowledged in the prayer of his resolution, government recently announced an expansion to the provincial drug program which will increase coverage and give access to affordable drugs to an additional 97,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Currently, the provincial drug program in this Province costs $118 million every year. We are adding almost 30 per cent to that budget by increasing the amount which was announced in the 2006 Budget by an additional $32 million. We are going to increase the number of people in this Province who receive access to affordable drugs from approximately 100,000 to approximately 197,000, almost 40 per cent of the entire population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Expanding eligibility under the provincial drug program to allow low-income families and residents who do not have drug coverage at the moment will help reduce the financial burden on those 97,000 families and individuals. More importantly, providing them with affordable access to needed medications will contribute to better health outcomes.

Mr. Speaker, government recognizes that more needs to be done to ensure that all residents have affordable drug coverage. That is something that not only the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would like to see; it is something that this member would like to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is something that every member, I would suspect, in this House, representing each of the forty-eight districts in this Province, would like to see, all people in the Province have access to affordable drugs.

The reality is that we have to do this in an organized fashion. We have to do it as the Province can afford to do it. We would love to be able to announce in this year's Budget, or next year's Budget, the fact that 100 per cent of the population of the Province is going to receive affordable drugs; but, in reality, we will supply affordable drugs to the percentage of the population that government can afford to supply drugs to.

That is the best that we can do. That is the best that any province can do. There is not one province in this country that is supplying drugs universally to every individual living in that province, because even the wealthy provinces cannot afford to do that. We would probably all love to be able to do that, but none of the provinces can afford to provide that kind of coverage.

What the member's resolution is asking for is a multi-party committee to be put forward in this House of Assembly to examine options and the feasibility of a provincial drug plan to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and, as I have said, that is a very laudable ambition. It is an ambition that, if we could afford to do it, as Health and Community Services Minister, that would be something that I would be driving to achieve.

The reality again is that there is already a multi-party committee put in place. In fact, it is a multi-jurisdictional committee that is put in place to look at the very issues that are put forward by the resolution by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, officials in my department have been working continuously, based on a direction given by First Ministers in Canada in 2004, to have the Health Ministers of the provincial governments, the territories and the federal government, report back to First Ministers by this summer with a report on how we can move forward. The main features of the strategy are: catastrophic drug coverage, expensive drug coverage for rare diseases, common national drug formularies, improved drug approval processes, and national drug purchasing strategies. So, what the member is asking for in his resolution is already taking place in Canada. It is already taking place by every Health Minister on the provincial, territorial and federal level in Canada. It is a direction that the First Ministers have asked for, and it is a strategy that we hope to deliver this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is understood by all members of this House that this government has taken a huge step forward in Budget 2006 by announcing that an additional 20 per cent of the population will have access to affordable drugs. I believe it is also understood that, in addition to the 40 per cent of the population who will have access to afford drugs, there are also private drug plans, such as the plan that each member of the House enjoys through Blue Cross, which is provided as one of the benefits to all public servants. There are many other private plans.

Is that enough? Is every resident of the Province covered? Absolutely not, but that is part of what a National Pharmaceutical Strategy and a national catastrophic drug strategy will aim to address, some of those issues.

Mr. Speaker, the debate around the appropriate proportion of an individual's or family's income that is spent on drugs before it becomes an undue burden to that individual or family is part of what all Health Ministers in Canada are looking at under the catastrophic drug plan. In the richer provinces there is a broader drug coverage because they have the financial resources to be able to do so; but, again, none of the provinces, none of the jurisdictions, have a universal program that covers all drugs for all people.

This year, and only this year, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, because of our growing economy and because of the Atlantic Accord, was this Province able to move forward in the same sort of direction by increasing the number of people with affordable drug access from 20 per cent to almost 40 per cent. It is only this year that we have been able to afford to do that. If this Province could have afforded under this Budget to increase that to 30 additional per cent or 40 per cent or 50 per cent, we would have done that, but we have to put forward plans and programs, Mr. Speaker, that we can afford to maintain on a sustainable basis. There was very careful thought and very careful consideration put into the announcement in this year's Budget, because it is something we believe we can afford to achieve on a sustainable basis.

Mr. Speaker, our provincial drug plan is designed to provide coverage to residents on Income Support, and seniors who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, as well as other residents who meet an enriched needs test to qualify for coverage.

With Budget 2006, Mr. Speaker, we will assess individuals with an income of up to $19,000. We will assess families with children, with an income of up to $30,000 on a co-pay basis. The total again, Mr. Speaker, will bring the number of residents in this Province with access to affordable drugs up to approximately 197,000 people, or 40 per cent of the Province's population.

Mr. Speaker, is there a gap? I will be the first one to admit there is. I have received questions from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. We have heard presentations from people in the general public. There is a gap, absolutely, and government recognizes there is a gap in coverage for some families, especially for those who need drugs for things such as MS, especially those with incomes that are higher than the threshold that will allow them to qualify under the extended drug coverage that we have announced in this year's Budget.

Are we sympathetic towards this? Absolutely. We understand, and we believe that there is a need to expand that coverage even further. We have great sympathy for the people out there right now, Mr. Speaker, who cannot afford all of their medications; but, again, we must proceed with providing coverage that we can afford to maintain on a sustainable basis.

Mr. Speaker, until the national discussions are complete and a report is provided to the First Ministers by the Health Ministers throughout all jurisdictions of this country, it would be premature for this House to support this particular resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the work of any special committee would be repetitive of the work that is already taking place through all of the Health Ministers throughout Canada. We are playing a critical role, this Province is, as co-chair of this particular group looking at the catastrophic drug coverage. This Province, and officials within the Department of Health and Community Services, have been playing a very key role in reviewing and addressing the need for catastrophic drug coverage on a national basis.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as it is put forward, would also duplicate the national consultations currently underway. I will add, as well, that one set of the regional consultations will be taking place in St. John's, and key stakeholders in this Province, as well as key stakeholders throughout the Atlantic region, will be attending this set of consultations which are taking place in St. John's on May 8 and May 9.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the member's resolution is laudable. I respect what the member was hoping to achieve, but it is simply a duplication of a process that is already taking place. The member's objective, if we were to reach that, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote from his private member's resolution, "...that would ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to a prescription drug plan", would require an active and financial role by the federal government. That is not something that this Province can achieve on its own, which is why the process that is currently underway with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers is so important.

Mr. Speaker, the National Pharmaceutical Strategy, which was recommended by the First Ministers, is to report back to the First Ministers by June 30 of 2006. In September of 2004, First Ministers gave direction to all Health Ministers in Canada to develop this strategy, to put in place a ministerial task force to develop and implement a National Pharmaceutical Strategy. The First Ministers directed the Health Ministers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - to have this strategy put forward by June 30 of 2006. This strategy will include the following nine areas: to develop, assess and cost options for catastrophic pharmaceutical coverage; to establish a common National Drug Formulary for participating jurisdictions based on safety and cost-effectiveness; to accelerate access through breakthrough drugs for unmet health needs; to strengthen evaluation of real-world drug safety and effectiveness; to pursue purchasing strategies to obtain best prices for Canadians for drugs and vaccines; to enhance action to influence the prescribing behaviours of health care professionals so that drugs are used only when needed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - and the right drugs to be used for the right problems or conditions; to broaden the practice of e-prescription through the development of deployment of Electronic Health Records; accelerate access to non-patented drugs to achieve international parity; and to enhance analysis of cost drivers and cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, the working group commitments in relation to this strategy, with a view to reporting back by June of 2006, have put forward focus areas that include catastrophic drug coverage, expensive drugs for rare diseases, common drug formulary, safety and effectiveness, and purchasing strategies, the very issues that were outlined, in fact, even greater than what were outlined, in the private member's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the best way forward - and maybe this time next year, if we haven't been able to achieve anything on the national basis, we can look at a resolution such as this, but it is simply duplication of a process that is already taken. It is something that this Province is unable to achieve on its own without federal help, without a consensus of all jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will say that, while the member's resolution is laudable, while I support the intent of what the member was trying to do, there is a very comprehensive program underway between all Health Ministers. We are to report back to the First Ministers by June of 2006. I would say that the best way forward is to move forward the way we are moving, with this Province playing a very key role in addressing this on a national stage and to look towards the federal government for their involvement in helping with a National Pharmaceutical Strategy, as well as a catastrophic drug strategy for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak to the motion that has been put forward by my hon. colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I have sat in the House of Assembly with the member for the past ten years and he has put forward some good motions here that has caused some very stimulating debate. Obviously, again today, he has been able to achieve that. To put forward a motion, Mr. Speaker, on a very serious issue and an issue that impacts and affects a lot of people in our Province of all ages, and that is the drug coverage program.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. minister speak to the motion and I am disappointed. I am very disappointed because the government is speaking to the motion in terms of saying that they are not prepared to entertain a select committee of the House of Assembly at this time to look at a drug program, the drug program as it exists in our Province and how it can be improved upon. That is basically all this motion is asking, Mr. Speaker. It is not asking the provincial government today to go out and provide 100 per cent drug coverage for every, single resident in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice. It would be nice and it would be welcomed by a lot of people, but that is not what the motion is asking. The motion is asking, based on the fact that there is unfairness and imbalance in the drug coverage that we have amongst our citizens in our Province today, that it is incumbent and the responsibility of the government to look at how that can be changed, how we can strike a better balance and how we can have all residents of the Province be able to afford the medication that they need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House of Assembly on many occasions, right up until the House closed before Easter, talking about people in this Province who cannot access medication today. Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I stood in support of the Alzheimer's Society, in lobbying for drugs for Alzheimer's patients who could not afford to access them. These are people with a terrible affliction in our society who cannot speak for themselves, but need the rest of us to speak up for them and to lobby for them. After two years, finally the government recognized: yes, there is a problem and we will try and correct it. Although they added drugs to the formula, the patients still cannot access them because they say they have to train the pharmacists. Well, when people were down buying their drugs the pharmacists did not need training, but now the government is going to give them their drugs, the pharmacists need training. I have never been able to understand that one.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about a couple of other things. This man on the page of The Telegram, January 18, 2005. His name is Doug and he suffers from liver enzyme deficiency and he has to take drugs through intravenous. Now this gentleman, a resident, a citizen of our Province, who says that he wakes up every morning suffocating. He says that without this drug he will not live to see his two-year-old daughter graduate from Kindergarten. How sad is that? That people in our Province who are not only suffering from illnesses that are fatal, that are not only living day to day with sickness, but they still have the worry and the stress and the strain of how they are going to be able to pay for the medications that they need. How sad is that? Then for the government to say: We don't need a select committee to look at a drug program for this Province. You have people, like this gentleman who is out there in the newspaper, a cry for help, begging the government to have coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed because I really thought that government would have a different perspective because you only just have to go back to the summer of 2004 when the Premier went off to Niagara-on-the-Lake. He went down there to hold the big meetings on health care. He telephoned home in a radio interview and he talked about how a national plan for health care would be a good plan. Why, Mr. Speaker? Not just because it was going to take the Province off the hook a few hundred million dollars, but it was also going to give equal access to health care to all the people in the country. Well, if the Premier can phone home from Niagara-on-the-Lake and support a plan that is going to be paid for by someone else that is universal for people, why isn't he prepared to look at a better plan for the people of the Province?

No one, in this motion, is asking the government to spend any money. No one here is asking the government to spend one single dime, Mr. Speaker. What they are asking is to have another look; look at other options, look at the imbalance that exists in our system, look on the front pages of our newspapers and see the people who are crying for help for drug coverage, and let's see if there is a better way that we can do this.

The minister talks about the national drug program and how the federal government is going to bring in all these benefits under the national drug program. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister of the country yesterday, in bringing down the Budget, committing a whole lot of money for national drug coverage in this country. Maybe someone else heard it but I did not hear it, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister could probably benefit immensely from the advice of a select committee of this House that could advise him on what the public is saying, advise him on alternatives that he might be able to, if not incorporate into the provincial government's own plan and own strategy, as he says, Mr. Speaker, use it to influence the national government if they are going to be looking at other kinds of drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not hear the Prime Minister of the country, or the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, yesterday, in bringing down the Budget, saying that all of our woes, when it comes to drug coverage in this country, are going to disappear. I certainly did not see it, Mr. Speaker, and I did not hear it and I did not see any cheque being written for it. I do not know. Maybe the minister in our Province has a commitment, maybe he has the money in his pocket and we do not know about it, and all of this is going to be taken care of and we do not even need to talk about it anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about it and I will tell you why I am going to talk about. Because there are too many people out there in this Province today going without medication. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Newfoundland and Labrador sends out a press release, after I questioned the minister in the House of Assembly two different times about the coverage of MS drugs - he says: Oh no, people have access to the drugs. They have confirmed it, Minister. There are 600 people in this Province who need drugs, who are MS patients, who are not getting them; 600 people out there today, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why they are going without those drugs? Because they cannot afford them. Do you know why they cannot afford them, Mr. Speaker? Because they are running them $2,000 a month for just one drug. That is the reason.

I have a young women up in my district, a young mother of two children, who is an MS patient. Her total family income, Mr. Speaker, is $2,800 a month. Do you know how much her drugs are? Twenty-one hundred dollars a month, Mr. Speaker. Whenever her income reaches $2,800 a month for her and her husband and her two children, she gets her drug card cut. She forks out $2,100 a month for her medication because her health is important to her and her children. If it means they have to do without all the other benefits that the rest of us can enjoy in life, Mr. Speaker, be able to watch her children grow up, well then that's what it will take.

I think it is sad. I think it is awfully sad. I think it is sad when I get a call from a lady down in Harbour Breton, a women who was on a drug for a number of months, for an extended period of time, but then, Mr. Speaker, at the time when she lost her job in the FPI plant in Harbour Breton and she was told to go home because the plant closed down and FPI took their quotas and ran, not only did she lose her job, Mr. Speaker, she lost her health coverage, and as a result, she lost the medication that she depends upon every single month to look after her illness. Mr. Speaker, do you think that is not a gap in society, that there is not a need there?

Let's talk about people who suffer from diabetes, because it is not always people who are paying $2,000 a month for their medication, but look at the diabetics who are out there in our Province today. I know a lot of them and I get calls from a lot of them. They are spending anywhere from $150 to $200 a month on medical coverage, money that they just do not have, Mr. Speaker, to spend. What do we see? We see diabetes running rampant in this Province, and a lot of it is because they do not have the financial resources to have the medications they require, to have the lifestyle they require, and to be able to access and purchase the foods they require, to help with that particular illness, Mr. Speaker. I know, I have seen a lot of it and I have talked to a lot of them.

Mr. Speaker, when you are a person who is a diabetic, your total income is $15,000 a year, you are twenty-two years old and you have to pay out 25 per cent of your income every month because you are a diabetic, do you mean to tell me that is fair? Do you think that is fair for this twenty-two year old young woman in our Province who will have to do that? Do you think it is fair that any person should pay out 25 per cent to 35 per cent to up to 55 per cent of their income, Mr. Speaker, for drug coverage because they are sick? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't think so, and I don't agree with it.

Let's look at arthritis. Let's look at psoriatic arthritis in particular, Mr. Speaker. I talked to specialists over at the Health Science Centre who told me that today there are 150 patients diagnosed who require therapies, who cannot access them. They cannot access them because they are going to cost them $1,400 and $1,500 a month to access. That is the reason; not because they aren't sick enough, not because they don't need these drugs to be able to function and be able to have an extended life, Mr. Speaker - because that is what it is all about, it is about making people who are sick in our society comfortable, making them well, giving them a longevity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to share with their family and experience that family life. That is what it is about. Yet, we have 150 people with this disease today in our Province, diagnosed by specialists, who are not receiving treatments because they cannot afford them. Then the minister can stand up and say, we don't need a select committee of the House of Assembly or a select committee of any kind, to look at the drug program in this Province. Shameful, Mr. Speaker, is what it is! It is shameful!

I can tell you that the people on this side of the House are going to support my colleague today, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Leader of the NDP. Oh, indeed we are going to support him, Mr. Speaker, because while his resolution doesn't ask the government to bring in a uniform drug rate, what it does ask is that the government and all the rest of us in the Province start paying attention to where the gaps are in our drug program, to start paying attention to the people out there who are going without medications who need to access it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no price tag on that. There is no price tag on taking a closer look at any issue that impacts the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all this motion asks for, Mr. Speaker, and I am disappointed that it is not going to happen. I am disappointed for the number of people - not just the people I have mentioned, not just the people today, the 600 who are not getting their drug coverage as MS patients, not because there are people out there with diabetes who are spending 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the income, Mr. Speaker, for drugs and medications. I am not just asking and supporting this because I know that there are 150 people out there diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis, who cannot access their treatments. No, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this for those reasons but for another reason, and that is that we need fairness in drug coverage in this Province.

We have one, two, three, tiers of drug coverage right now, where we have some people who are on government coverage and they get it paid, some people on private coverage where they get a percentage paid, some people who are on low income, below the $30,000 threshold, as the minister stands up so proud and announces. Where is the standard of government, Mr. Speaker? Because, if I was going down to rent from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, my income, I think, could be up to $39,000 a year and I would still be covered through the provincial government, but if I need medication, Mr. Speaker, my income can't rise over $30,000 a year.

There is a discrepancy there; I am pretty sure of it. If I were to go over to the Minister of Finance because I have hard times and I am one of the tens of thousands of people who have a big bill for school tax from the Minister of Finance, with interest rate compounded over twelve or fifteen years, if I went over there to get him to write off my interest rate on my taxes for the last ten years, and my income is up to $39,000 or $40,000 I will be considered to have my interest written off.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Just a couple of minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon member have leave?

MR. RIDEOUT: To clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS JONES: I would like to thank the Minister of Fisheries for leave, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that, if I went to get drug coverage in this Province and I required a drug that was going to consume about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of my income, or even more of my family income, then I would not be eligible if I were over the $30,000 a year threshold.

MR. HARRIS: You would still have to pay 70 per cent.

MS JONES: Seventy per cent, yes.

There is a discrepancy, even across government departments, in what makes you eligible, financially, on a low-income level, for different programs and services. Mr. Speaker, the first thing the minister could do is probably look at correcting that.

I am going to conclude my comments now. I think it is a good motion that has been put forward. It is asking the government to spend no money, but to establish a select committee to look at this problem, critical problem, in our Province, and I certainly want to offer up our support for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak on the motion that has been forward by the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and his call to have government form a select committee to look at the possibility of establishing a prescription drug program in this Province so that all residents of our Province can benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note, and I think the people of the Province should understand, that what this resolution is calling for here today, that is being debated, is not for government to go out and spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

We listened to the Minister of Health and Community Services, when he spoke to the resolution, and he talked about his government already working on issues like this. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not much for the people of this Province to have a lot of consolation in, because what the minister is referring to is the national pharmacare program that has been talked about in this country for many, many years. Nothing has materialized yet and, to be quite frank, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith that it is going to happen in the near future. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, people of this Province are suffering as a result of not having a plan that takes care of their needs.

The Province of Quebec has such a plan, and it works well there. There are also examples in industry where small employers, comprising of three, four, five and ten workers and each employer, where the employers have gotten together as a group and, because of their numbers at that time, by getting together, they were able to purchase an insurance plan for their employees that they would never be able to purchase as individual employers and buy them for three and four people. So we are talking here, thousands, tens of thousands of people who would be eligible to join this plan - it could even be mandatory to join this plan - and pay a premium that would offset the expense and provide coverage to people when they most need it.

I can assure you, I say to the minister, that anything that the federal government does in the way of a pharmacare program or for catastrophic drug coverage is definitely not going to interfere with the plan that is in the Province of Quebec today, and it will not interfere with the plan that is introduced in any other province of this country.

When we talk about that, Mr. Speaker, let's talk a bit about the different plans that are out there. For catastrophic drug coverage like those required for MS, those required for people with diabetes, drugs required for people who need hormone replacement therapies, we are the only Province, and I say this to the minister, the only Province in Canada, the only jurisdiction, that does not provide some coverage for their residents. What we have that needs to change is a plan that provides zero if you are not on Income Support or meet the test for seniors in our Province.

What I find strange is that people who get up each day, go to work, pay their taxes, making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, asking for not much in return, not much at all, but when they are faced with an illness like this, that they did not bring on themselves, it is not self-inflicted, by any stretch of the imagination, when they are faced with needing a drug for MS, for example, government's position in this Province, which is the only one in Canada, by the way, the position in this Province is that you purchase your drug. If you happen to have any RRSPs saved for your retirement, you spend those RRSPs. If you happen to have money put aside for your children's education, well, you cash that in and you spend that to buy your drugs. Bring yourself from the difference of what you are earning to Income Support level, spend that amount of money on purchasing your drugs that you need.

After you do that, Mr. Speaker, once you have destroyed yourself, you have ruined your family financially, you sacrifice your retirement and your children's education, then government will step in to help.

Well, I say to government, shame on you. It is far too little, far too late, and it is time that we take the appropriate action and put something in place that will protect the people of this Province the same way that every other citizen of every other province is protected in this country.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I know people, and I am sure members opposite and members here know people, who have left this Province, have taken a great reduction in the amount of their salary and have left this Province to move to other provinces and are better off financially simply because they have support from the government in these provinces to help them with the purchase of the drug that they need, and that is unfortunate, very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people in our Province today and many employers, I say to the minister, that if we were to come up with some type of an arrangement, some type of plan through some provider, that there are many out there today who are probably willing to look at a plan of this nature to join. Many are now in plans that belong to multi-national corporations where all the money is leaving, not only the Province but the country. Maybe they are willing to look inward, look around the Province and see what government can offer that they can join as well and provide benefits to the employees that they have who they are now providing to anyway. I do not think government has ever looked at that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they have ever thought that far about this process.

This resolution is simply saying to the minister, calling on the government to establish a committee, a Select Committee of this House to study the possibilities that are out there, and they are endless, Mr. Speaker. There are endless possibilities and there are all kinds of compositions of a health plan that you can come up with, any of which - the worst case scenario, I say to the minister, would still be better than what we have today. In the end, it may not cost this government all that much money, because when people do not get the drugs that they require to treat their illnesses, then there is a good chance that they are going to end up in hospital, they are going to end up in institutions, that is going to cost the health care in this Province even more than providing medications for them ever will.

There are many ways of looking at the solutions to the problems that we face in this Province today. I think that government should vote in favour of this resolution and establish a committee that will look at all the different ways. Maybe at the end of it, it will all be for naught, but at least, I say to the minister, the exercise alone will provide you with valuable information that you can use in your meetings with the federal government and at the health summits when they are called. The least that could happen is that you would gain invaluable knowledge and information that you will not get in any other way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the people again, the workers in this Province who have their own business, probably a small employer, probably a painting contractor or a plumbing and heating firm, who cannot afford at the present time to purchase coverage for themselves or their families, who probably have one or two employees that they cannot afford to supply with a plan either. If we use a bit of imagination and try to draw all these people together and encourage employers now to join a new plan that could be developed specifically for this Province, then I believe that is achievable. I believe it is doable. I do not believe that it would cost the government the amount of money that is running through their minds at the present time. Each and every person in this House of Assembly, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, have people in their districts who need the type of assistance that this would provide.

I have stood many times as well, Mr. Speaker, and presented petition after petition after petition on behalf of people who suffer from MS and other diseases. I have presented them that often and raised it in the House during Question Period that I received a letter from the Atlantic MS Society thanking me for work on their behalf, that I did not even speak to before and had no contact with. So, obviously, there are people out there looking and keeping a watch on what governments are doing in this area.

Again, if a little province like Prince Edward Island, and if provinces comparable, like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, can provide a benefit to their residents, than I do not see any good reason, with the resources that government has now, why that cannot be provided to residents of this Province. We cannot wait, as the minister referred to, for the federal government to take the initiative and take the lead on this. When it comes to providing - I think what is going to happen with the federal government plan, if it ever comes about, the most you are going to see is coverage in the area of catastrophic drug coverage. I do not think you are going to see a national program. I do not think we need to wait. I do not think we are going to ever see it in this country, where we have a national pharmacare program that meets the needs of the people that we are talking about for the most part here today, at least not under the current federal government. I think I can feel safe in saying that. I would be greatly surprised if they did, and I would be greatly pleased, but I doubt very much if Stephen Harper is going to be able to even say the words that there will be a national pharmacare program in this country covering each and every citizen. I doubt that very much and I do not put a lot of faith in it. We have to recognize the problems that we have here today and we have to deal with them. We have to look after our citizens, our residents in this Province. That is what we are here for. The main reason that we are here is to try and make life better for the people of this Province and those who get up and go to work each day and pay their taxes and work hard and ask very little in return, and it is our job to do that, Mr. Speaker.

I would encourage each and every member, on any side of this House, that when they stand to vote today, think about the people who have come up to you personally - because I know they have - and told you their stores about how difficult it is to purchase medications that they need for themselves or their children. Talk to the people, as my colleague said, who ask the price first and when they find out, crumple it up and throw it in the garbage or discard it some other place. There are people actually doing that. They are doing that on a daily basis in this Province simply because they do not have the ability to pay. I think it is a sad reflection, a sad reflection indeed, when we can stand in this House today and say in the year 2006, there are still people living among us who cannot afford to buy drugs for diseases that they have, that they were born with, that they did not ask for and we are allowing that to continue. I think it is wrong and I think that government should support this resolution.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, what the resolution is calling for, is for a committee to be struck to inquire into and report on the feasibility and options with respect to the development of a province-wide comprehensive system that would ensure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to a prescription drug program. So, it only calls for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into and report back. I, for the life of me, cannot see how any member in this House would have a problem with that.

The minister indicated that the last committee that was struck in this House cost $200,000. Well, I say to the minister, that $200,000 is a very small price to pay for something that has the potential to benefit thousands of residents in this Province. I do not think we should be looking at it that way. I believe we should take our jobs seriously, take our responsibilities, establish a committee that, at least, will look into the possibility and report back. If it cannot be done, then that is what the committee will report. If it can be done and it can be done in a limited capacity, again, that is what they will report, but I do not see anything to be lost. I see nothing but gains to be made by having this committee struck and looking into the possibilities that are out there and reporting back to the House of Assembly for direction.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is getting short, so with that I will conclude my debate on this very important resolution. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, again I would like to ask all members of the House to think about the people who sent them here, think about the people in their communities who need help from a plan like this, and use those thoughts to guide you in the way that you vote on this resolution today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am quite interested in this debate and the motion that is put forward today. I certainly feel it is a motion that we really need to discuss and have a look at, and something I certainly want to add my comments to this afternoon.

I have listened intently to everything that everyone said here today, and I just have make this minor correction. We are in 2006, we still have poverty in the Province, we still have people who need drugs, and I noticed that you had made some comment on the air and I just wanted to correct that.

Universal drug coverage: what does that mean? Should every person in Newfoundland and Labrador have access to drugs, free drugs, and not have to pay for drugs? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. There could not be a more admirable goal for the people of this Province, that if every individual who has any type of illness and requires prescription drugs could have access to that drug or that prescription or whatever the support they need, that it be there. I do not think there could be anybody in the House of Assembly who would not want that to happen in the Province, or in some way would suggest that we should not provide that. If we had the financial means to provide that type of prescription drug coverage to everyone, I think that we should do it. I could not come up with a reason why we would not cover the cost of prescription drugs if people were sick and needed those drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about health care and about poverty and about drug coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador. In our Budget this year, we have allocated $1.97 billion for health care. That is a lot of money in the Budget of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that Budget this year there has been an increase in spending in health of $180 million. As a government in this Province, we certainly acknowledge and recognize the priority of health care and the needs in the health care system. We are certainly trying to move ahead and address the issues that we see in health care.

In addition to trying to deal with the issues in health care, at the same time this government has also been instrumental in developing a poverty reduction strategy. The issues of poverty certainly take in health outcomes and the health care system, but the issues of poverty go far beyond the health care system as well. When we deal with issues of poverty we also deal with issues of increased violence, because, certainly, people living in poverty are often at increased risk for violence. Mr. Speaker, we also deal with the issues of social inclusion because a lot of times people who live in poverty feel they do not have the ability to contribute to their community. Sometimes we lose the capacity within communities when people suffer the effects of poverty. As a way to address poverty we certainly had to look at it in a comprehensive way and develop a strategy.

Mr. Speaker, we set a goal for this government, that in ten years we would reduce the rate of child poverty from being the highest in Canada to the lowest in Canada. That is not an easy task to do. That is not something, that taking money in any particular year or any particular budget and throwing it at a social issue, that is going to make any progress. It needs to be done, certainly, in an integrated fashion and it certainly needs to be done in a way that gives us measurable results. We need to make sure that as we move through issues to address poverty that we are able to go back and measure the results and see that we are indeed reducing poverty.

Mr. Speaker, when we looked at some of the issues, as we developed the poverty reduction strategy, we did a consultation across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the main issues that came up, through the poverty reduction strategy consultation, certainly was the issue of drug coverage. It certainly came out as probably one of the number one issues as to why some people did not go to work and preferred to stay on the system of income support. It was because they felt if they had to go to work and had to work for low income they would not have access to a drug plan. The Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, or the former Department of Human Resources and Employment, brought in an extension of the drug card so that people who are on income support who went to work maintained their card for six months after they started work, to help with the transition of going from income support into a low income position.

Mr. Speaker, prior to that coming in - which I think was certainly a move in the right direction and had some very positive results - I actually worked with people who had some very serious illnesses, HIV or Hepatis C and had some very expensive drug treatments. They were often faced with a dilemma of being able to find a low paying job or remain on the system. Mr. Speaker, all too often they had to choose to stay on the system because of the cost of their programs.

Before we had a methadon clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor, before it was extended into St. John's - I do not how many members of the House are aware that prior to that, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who accessed the methadon program would fly to Halifax. They would fly up in the morning, receive their methadon, and fly home that afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the stress that was on those individuals, just to make sure they got there - because if there were delays because of weather, if flights were delayed, it certainly interfered with the scheduling that they had for their drug treatment program. The whole idea of drug treatment and the relevance of it is certainly something we need to look at.

When the drug card was extended for people who came off Income Support and went into jobs that probably were somewhat low paying, and they had to deal with the transition of Income Support to work, it was noted that in the six months that they left Income Support and moved into the labour market, their costs and their reliance on prescription drugs actually reduced. That goes back to the fact that they were probably leading a more healthy lifestyle and their health was improving. As we know, people in poverty certainly have poorer health outcomes than the general population. That was probably some of the explanation as to why there was a decrease in their drug cost.

This year, when we looked at the Poverty Reduction Strategy, as I said, one of the number one issues that came forward was the fact that people were living in poverty because of the cost of their drugs, and they were unable to afford drugs for themselves. In the report that was completed, the Report on Workshop Sessions on the Development of the Poverty Reduction Strategy - and this was prepared for the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment by Gosse Gilroy Inc. - it says on page 31 that when we heard from the communities and from the consultations across the Province, one of the recommendations was to implement a universal drug card for those on low income to replace the time-limited extension of drug benefits for people who are coming off Income Support to enter the workforce. That was a priority of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

What we were able to do this year, in the Budget, was introduce a more extended drug coverage program, which not everyone supported because they actually voted against the Budget. We were able to increase our spending this year on drug coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador by $8.3 million, but on an annualized basis that would be $32.8 million. On our prescription drug program here in the Province, we have increased it from $118 million to approximately $150 million. With the expansion that we have been able to bring in on the drug program this year we will able to cover approximately 200,000 residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, or basically 40 per cent of the population.

Is that a move in the right direction? Yes, it is. Does that mean, because we have made a move in the right direction, that we do not provide universal health care by prescription drugs to everyone in this Province? No, it does not. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. As long as there are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who have to suffer because they cannot afford the drugs, or cannot access the drugs, or have to make decisions as to whether they are going to heat their house or pay drugs, is their room for improvement? Yes, indeed there is.

Until we probably reach a level where we no longer hear about drug issues, we no longer hear about people who have to struggle to provide certain types of drugs, until we reach that point in this Province and everyone has full access, I think there is room that we can do more work, and that is exactly where we need to go with this.

Do I feel, at this point in time, based on where we are going with the poverty reduction strategy and where we are financially within the Province, are we doing what we should be doing? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly feel that we are moving in the right direction.

The other side of this is, we can put all of our money into the prescription drug program. If we want to provide a universal program, and that becomes the number one priority, and everything else falls to the side because this is where we need to put our money, if that is the call we are going to make, well, that is the call we are going to make, but we have to look at the other competing demands when we look at poverty and we look at issues that affect people on a day-to-day basis. We have to look at our health care in general. We have to look at education. We have to look at housing. Of course, we also have to look at prevention, because there are a lot of times that a lot of the illnesses that people need to go to the emergency rooms, or need ongoing treatment, are possibly preventable. We certainly need to be able to put some money into the areas, whether it is healthy lifestyle, healthy eating, an active lifestyle, to be able to provide equipment in the schools so that children and students can have a healthy lifestyle, that they can develop early habits, eat healthy foods. Mr. Speaker, as long as people live on very low incomes and live in poverty, they probably cannot afford healthy foods or the healthy lifestyle that everyone deserves.

We have competing demands. If we continue to treat the symptoms but we never deal with the root problem, we never deal with the issues of prevention, we never deal with the issues of healthy lifestyle, we will probably never be able to get a handle on being able to increase the quality of people's lives rather than be completely dependent on medication.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Should we strive for universal drug coverage? As I said before, indeed we should. If we are able to provide full drug coverage for every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador, or if we are able to provide free post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think these are admirable goals that we need to work towards, but do I think we are going to achieve them this year, or in next year's Budget, or probably in the next four or five years? Maybe not. Does that mean we do not continue to work on it? No, it does not. We need to continue to work.

We also need to be able to look at what opportunities or what mechanisms do we have in place right now, as a government, to address the issue of drug coverage for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. At this time, we continue to have an interdepartmental committee and a ministerial committee to address the poverty reduction strategy. That will be ongoing. That is not something that we will do in this year's Budget, we will no longer meet again, and in ten years' time we will measure poverty to see if we have had any inroads. We certainly need to continue to work on it.

I think each and every measure we brought in this year, including the prescription drug program, and including every other measure that we have identified as a measure for poverty reduction, that we have to evaluate that. We have to go back as this year proceeds. We will have to go back when the year is over and we will have to evaluate, because we can come up with some wonderful programs but if they do not have measurable outcomes and they are not doing what they are intended to do, it is not worth our while to bring them in, in the first place, so we need to be very diligent. The prescription drug program was certainly one of the priorities, if not the number one priority, that we covered, as I said, for an annualized budget of $32.8 million, which is considerable money that has gone into the program.

What I also need to comment on here today is: Do I feel we are able to continue to work on drug coverage for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, or do we need to strike an All-Party Committee of the House of Assembly? That is basically the question, when you go down through the motion, that we are speaking about here today.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness right now, as the Minister of Health and Community Services has indicated, he has been working and will continue to work with his colleagues, the other provincial ministers, to see if we can make inroads or improvements into the drug coverage program, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Canada, and certainly while working with the federal government as a partner in that, so I think we have an avenue there.

I also feel we will continue to address drug coverage through the poverty reduction initiative and through the committees that have been established to continue to work on that strategy. It will also give us a mechanism to be able to measure the outcomes, and measure how we are going, and the progress that is being made.

There was also a comment today that it would cost nothing for us to strike a Committee of the House of Assembly to review this issue. I understand that one of the last committees, or a previous committee that was struck, an all-party, to deal with child interests, back in 1994, cost the House about $200,000.

Mr. Speaker, basically, at this point in time, I do support universal drug coverage. I wish we were in a position that right now this is what we could announce, this is what we could introduce. I certainly do not like to hear any stories or any issues regarding people who are suffering of illness, or children, because they cannot afford the drug coverage. Do I feel we need to continue to work on this area as a government? Indeed we do. Do I feel right now that the mechanisms are in place for us to work on it? I think through the Department of Health and Community Services, as well as through the poverty reduction initiative, that we are working on these issues. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily feel we need to strike an all-party committee here in the House of Assembly, but that is not to take away from the importance of the issue and the motion that is before us, and the fact that we need to recognize that prescription drugs and prescription drug coverage is a vital and very important part of health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think, as a government, we have moved ahead. I think that we have made strides in the right direction, and to be able to add on an annualized basis $32.8 million is not just talking the talk, Mr. Speaker, but it is putting the money where our mouth is as well, and being able to show that we are doing what we need to do in this area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Education that her time for speaking has lapsed.

MS BURKE: Oh, really?

That is all I had to say, that I think we are moving in the right direction but I do not necessarily feel there is a need for a committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to rise and support the private member's motion put forward by my colleague, the Leader of the NDP and the MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, a very hon. gentleman and one for whom I have the greatest of respect. I share his views on a whole host of issues, and his philosophy on a whole host of issues. We do not always agree. Sometimes I find that he is a little bit further to the right than I find myself on certain issues, and sometimes he is a little bit further to the left, but generally I think we see eye to eye on a great deal of issues, and what he is presenting to the House of Assembly today is a motion calling on government to establish an all-party committee to go out and review the possibility of establishing a universal drug plan.

I think the key word here is the possibility of establishing. He is not calling on the government to do it, and I could see the government having some difficulty if he were saying today that he is calling upon the government to implement a universal drug plan, but -

MR. HARRIS: They think I am calling for a free drug plan

MR. REID: Yes.

As the member said, they also think that he is calling on government to implement a free drug care plan; but, as the member said in his introduction, the Leader of the NDP, there are a number of people in this Province who already pay into a drug plan. I know I do. My wife does because she is a teacher. I know that all civil servants in this Province do it. Nurses and doctors, who are on the payroll of this Province, also do it. There is a whole host of people who pay into a drug care plan, and as a result of that we get drugs on a very reduced cost. I am delighted that I have it, but I do have a lot of sympathy for those who are not as fortunate as we who are in an organization and can avail of a drug care plan.

I am at a loss today to understand why government members opposite are going to stand and defeat a motion that is simply calling on government to set up an all-party committee to review the possibility of establishing a universal drug plan. I do not think that the Leader of the NDP is asking for additional salaries, because when you establish an all-party committee of the House of Assembly - we get paid. We are already getting paid, whether we are on an all-party committee or if we are not. The fact that we are MHAs and we do the work of MHAs, we get paid already, so there would be very little cost attached to establishing that committee. All I think the member wants to find out is what a universal drug plan would entail and what it would cost, not only government but the individuals who are out there unable to avail of that program right now, what it would cost them as well, if we were to implement that plan sometime down the road, in the future, because there are a lot of people hurting.

I listened to the Minister of Education talking about the money they are putting into health care, and I know, I can remember. When I was elected first, I think health care in the Province, at that time, was around the $800 million mark. That is what we were putting into health care. If I am not mistaken, I think it was $600 million back in 1996, and when we left in 2003 I think it was up to somewhere around $1.4 billion. The fact that you put additional money into the health care budget every year it is not a lot that you can brag about. Every government prior to you has done that, since 1949. The fact of the matter is, we have a lot of people out there who have serious illnesses who are not able to avail of medication because they simply cannot afford it. They fall into that box whereby they are making a little too much money to qualify for a drug card, to put it bluntly, and that is where the government of this Province would chip in and help them pay for their drugs.

I am going to give you a couple of examples, because we do not need to belabour the point. In fact, I doubt if there is a day that goes by that either I or my assistant don't take a call from our district or somebody else's. I am sure all of you have the same thing, you witness the same thing, individuals crying on the telephone that they have an illness, they need a medication, they cannot really afford to pay for it, and they cannot avail of assistance from the government.

I had one just recently from an individual in my district who is a fifty-seven-year-old retired fisherman. The reason he is retired is because he had a heart problem. When he retired, at that time he took a license buyback from the federal government and he received a small amount of money for that, I might add. Since then, he is fifty-seven-years-old and he is living on a Canada Pension Disability. That is his only source of income, and he gets $7,700 a year. He and his wife between them get $7,700 a year on which to live. The poverty level in this country is $23,000 a year, so they are three times below, not above, the poverty level. Seventy-seven hundred dollars a year for a husband and wife on Canada Pension Disability, and a few weeks ago he had the unfortunate circumstance of ending up in a hospital in Twillingate. The doctor examined him and said, you have to go to St. John's, we have to do the balloon test on your heart, or do the balloon thing on your heart. I do not know the correct medical terminology to describe that, but I figure that most of you understand what I am talking about. They put him in an ambulance, accompanied by a nurse from Twillingate, and they took him to the Health Science Complex. They did the procedure on him and they thought he was well enough to go home. Unfortunately, for that individual and his wife, no doctor at the Health Science Complex, I guess, or whoever admits them over there and discharges them, understood. They said he was okay to leave the hospital but they did not call an ambulance for him and he had to find his own way home. As a result of that, he not only had to pay for the ambulance coming to St. John's but he also had to pay the salary of the nurse for that period of time who accompanied him. If that doctor at the Health Science Complex, or the nurse who discharged him, had realized the situation, all they had to do was say okay to the individual, we are going to put you aboard an ambulance and ship you back to Twillingate. If they did that, the ambulance would have been paid for by the government, and the cost of the nurse.

I said to the man: Obviously - I do not want to mention his name here in the House - you are not telling me all the facts, because any individual on $7,700 a year should qualify for a drug card. He said: Yes, you are right. You never asked for the facts, but I will give them to you. He said: When I retired from the fishery and took the licence buyout I had a small sum of money and I put $9,000 of that in the bank to bury my wife and I; $9,000 in the bank to bury his wife and himself. As a result, when he went to social services and asked for help with the drug card, they said: We are sorry, we cannot help you because you have money in the bank.

Being a politician, I suppose, and trying to find a way around something for the betterment of my constituent, I said: I know what I would do, and I am not recommending you do it, but I would go down to that bank today and cash in that few dollars you have there to bury you and your wife and put it in a sock under your bed or hide it away somewhere, and go back to the government and tell them you have no money. He said: No, I do not want to tell a lie. I do not want to tell a lie! As a result, that individual is out there today doing without medication. I am not telling you a lie. You have all heard stories like that, I am sure. You have all heard them.

I have another young man on Fogo Island who is a crew member aboard a crab boat, and not only is he calling me, not only is the skipper of that boat calling me, but I have had numerous calls from Fogo Island about this young gentleman who has a illness and needs the medication, but because he was on a low employment claim, he is not eligible. I have been working on that file now for over a month, sending letters back and forth to social services and the Department of Health. What really frustrates me is the fact that we get comments coming back saying: You are supposed to submit this form and that form. Guess what? He has done it two or three times and they get lost somewhere in the system. The fact of the matter is, I say to those opposite, the man has two choices. He wants to work, he wants to be a crew member aboard that boat, he does not want to stay home on social assistance, but he had to make the choice. He either stays home on social assistance and gets his medication or he goes to work on the crab boat and makes a minimal amount of money and a minimal amount next winter on his employment insurance, hardly enough to put food on the table. If he does that, they will not give him his drug card and he cannot avail of the medication he has. Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that.

What my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, is asking for is as simple as this: Let's go out and examine this stuff. Let's go out and have a look at the number of individuals and what their situation is, and see what kind of a plan and what it would cost for those people to be able to avail of a drug plan. Some of them might be able to contribute a small premium towards an insurance or something, while others may not. If they cannot afford it, then social services will probably look after them. This government is saying no to that. We are not even going to look at it; we are not even going to consider it.

I saw the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health stand up, and it is all about money. The Minister of Education just stood for fifteen minutes and talked about all the money that they were putting into something and we cannot really get into looking at this because of the cost. That is the difference, I say to all of you who are listening today. That is the fundamental difference between a Tory philosophy and the philosophies of the NDP and the Liberal Party. That is the fundamental difference, and that is the fundamental difference between those three parties in Canada, that the Tories put the dollar first. They always put the dollar first.

One of the ministers just commented about what it would cost to bring that committee together and we cannot afford the money to put the committee together. Well, the cost of that committee, I say to the minister, would be very little, because if I am ever picked to go on the committee you are not going to have to pay me a salary. You are not going to have to pay any of us a salary. If there are any expenses incurred, I guarantee you, I will try to keep mine to a minimum, and I am sure that the Leader of the NDP and his other colleague from the NDP would do the same thing. So, I do not understand where you are coming from. I really and truly do not understand where you are coming from. It is just a different philosophical view that you have compared to those on this side of the House, whether it be NDP or Liberal. All the man is asking for is a study, an all-party committee to study it so that we do not have people out there around the Province - we do not have diabetics who cannot afford their insulin, that we do not have people with epilepsy who cannot afford their medication, or we do not have individuals, like the one I just spoke about, who needs blood pressure pills and really cannot afford to buy them.

I doubt very much if there is anyone in this House who can actually tell you the cost of a prescription drug. Do you know why? I take prescription drugs. I do not know the real cost of those drugs. Do you know why? Because I only pay 20 per cent of that cost. But I know one thing, I would rather not pay the 20 per cent. So I can imagine what the people who have to pay 100 per cent of this, what they have to go through each time they go to a pharmacy and get the pills passed over the table and the bill that accompanies those pills because it must be frightening. I do not know how people are going to be able to survive, and those opposite talk about catastrophic drugs and what they are doing for catastrophic drugs. We are not talking about catastrophic drugs. We are talking about normal drugs, something as simple as a blood pressure pill or a cholesterol pill to stop you from having a stroke. I know lots about that because it is quite common in my family.

All we are asking, or all the member is asking for is that you establish an all-party committee to review - at the end of the day, I think that we have to give the Leader of the NDP enough credit to be able to stand at the end of the day and say to the Members in the House of Assembly: We studied it, but the Province cannot afford to pay for it. If that is the case, at the end of the day I think he is going to be man enough to stand up and say that we cannot afford to pay for it. If it comes back that it is not going to cost that much, then you have your options, then you can set your priorities and say: Are we going to pay to have everyone on a drug plan in this Province or are we going to pay for something else? You talked about a lot of strategies that you have here today, but a strategy has never fed anybody, that I am not aware of, and a strategy has never medicated anybody. That is all we hear about, the strategies and where we are going to be.

The minister that just spoke, the Minister of Education, talked about: We are moving in the right direction and we know where we want to go. Well, the fear that I have in listening to the minister and her colleague, the Minister of Health saying today, is that we know which direction we are heading but, unfortunately, while we are moving in that direction there are going to be a lot of sick people who are going to remain sick. Unfortunately, before we get where we are heading in that direction, a lot of these people might die. So I beg of you, those members opposite, when the vote is called here today, that you stand and support the motion that is put forward by our very hon. colleague, the Leader of the NDP and the MHA for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know I only have a few minutes to speak to this motion, but I did want to speak for a few minutes because I do have a twenty-year association with this drug program, so I would like to make some comments on it.

I did work with the program back in the 1980s when I was with the old department of social services. Also, when I was Auditor General, we did several reviews of the program, and again, I was very familiar with the program as Minister of Health.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should all acknowledge that government does have a responsibility to the disadvantaged in our society, and of course, that includes maintaining the drug program to an acceptable level. I think, too, that we also have to acknowledge that there are financial limitations to whatever programs we put in place and that one of the challenges that this government has had since we came to power is to balance our social responsibilities with the money available. I think that it is only this past year that we have been in a position whereby we can expand some of our social programs to further look after people who are disadvantaged. We are no different than other governments in Canada, whereby we are trying to balance our social responsibilities with the money that is available.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a point with regard to this program, and I do not know if anybody has made it earlier, but we have already put a significant amount of additional funding in this program since we came to power. When we took over the government in 2003, the budget for that program was $97 million. This year it is up to $127 million, and some of the changes that were made this year will not kick in until further along in the fiscal year. Actually, next year, Mr. Speaker, this program will be up around $150 million, maybe more. So, really, in a four-year period we have gone from $97 million to over $150 million. I think that is quite impressive for a government that is really a new government in power. That we do recognize that we have social responsibilities to the disadvantaged in this Province and that we are putting a lot of extra money into this program to try to meet the needs of the people in this Province. The reason I am pointing that out is because, as I say, we are a new government but we do recognize that there is room for improvement. When we looked at the program when we first took power in 2003, I can say we were, what I would call, the poorest prescription drug program in the country. We have made significant progress over the last few years.

With regard to the program and managing the program, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health does carry out ongoing reviews of this program. Not only the Department of Health, but also the Auditor General's Office has consistently carried out reviews. In fact, I think in this year's annual report the Auditor General did have a number of pages in there on this specific program.

I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we took over the reigns of government, the Treasury Board Secretariat had already commenced a review of the drug prescription program and it was at the direction of the former government at that time. So that review was also carried out. Some of these reviews are leading to the improvements that we are now seeing in the drug prescription program.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am very proud of the government, that we striving to improve health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to stand here though and say that I cannot support the motion that has been put forward by the hon. member across the way. I am not really much for select committees or different kinds of committees doing different kinds of work. I have been in government for thirty years, Mr. Speaker. I have been with both the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and also the government in Nova Scotia. I have seen a lot of reports that were done, a lot of Select Committees of the House of Assembly and those reports have ended up on the shelf, tabled, gathering dust. I think that it is more important that we continue to review this program, analyze it, and make changes as we go along, and that is exactly what we are doing as a government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that, as a government, we are aware of our social responsibilities, we are aware that we have to provide support to the disadvantaged; but, because we are making very significant changes to this program, we are focused. We are improving the program. We have a plan, and we will not be deterred. I do not see the benefit in establishing a Select Committee of the House of Assembly to take a look at this program. We are already reviewing it as a government. We are making the necessary changes, and we are going to be striving to make further improvements to the program. We do not want to be slowed down. We want to continue on with a course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about some of the changes that are going to be made in the program this year. As I indicated, there is about an extra $10 million there to make changes to the program, not only to increase the number of people who can access the program but also there is money there to provide additional drugs in the program. So, there are additional drugs being added to the formulary.

I would like to emphasize that the drug program - I have been familiar with it now for a number of years - has really not significantly changed over the last twenty-plus years, that really this is the biggest change that this program has seen in the last two decades, and I am very proud that was done under this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS E. MARSHALL: That is right.

I would like to say, also, Mr. Speaker, that there are about 100,000 people who currently receive benefits under this program, but, with the changes that are being made this year, the number of people who can tap into this program will effectively double. Of course, this is an estimate. We did do our numbers, and we are anticipating that there will be an additional 97,000 people who can tap into this program and take advantage. So, I think what we will be doing next year, we will be taking a look to see, was it really around 100,000 people extra, or maybe there were more. If there were less, we may revise the program to increase the numbers.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. I think my time is just about out, but I would like to thank the House for listening to my comments on this program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon, the Minister of Health passed out what he called a mental health meter, and it has some tips on the back from the Canadian Mental Health Association. On the front, it suggests that you put your thumb on this card and hold it for ten seconds and look at the colour, and it will tell you the state of your mental health. Well, Mr. Speaker, at about 2:30 or 3:00 o'clock, when he passed them out, I pressed on it and I got calm. The other choices are tense or stressed.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, over the course of this afternoon's debate, I have gone from being calm to being stressed, after hearing comments from the members opposite on what I consider to be an absolute no-brainer of an idea for looking into the possibility of having a program that everybody in this Province can participate in; those who can afford to can pay into by virtue of a premium, those who cannot would be subsidized, presumably, by the government.

I just heard the Member for Topsail speak, and she told us that she had worked for government for thirty years in this Province. No doubt she has, but I want to say this: Every single one of those years, including this year, she had drug plan. She has a prescription drug plan that allows her to take a prescription, go to a drugstore and have the majority of that cost paid for by the drug plan, a part of the premium that she pays.

Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of thousands of healthy people, able-bodied, walking around this Province today and, if they were participating in a drug plan, their premiums would be more than the drugs that they are using.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the individual that my friend from Twillingate & Fogo talked about, who cannot afford to pay for his drugs, he might be able to afford to pay a premium. He might be able to afford to pay $10 a month, or $20 a month, or $30 a month.

MR. R. COLLINS: Or even $50.

MR. HARRIS: Or even $50, but he obviously cannot pay the $250 or the $300 that his drugs cost.

What I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is why members opposite, whether deliberately or otherwise, seem to misunderstand, or want to misunderstand, the motion. The motion is that we have a committee to look into the feasibility, to look into the options, of having a plan that everybody can participate in.

The members opposite have said, well, we cannot afford to pay or have a free drug program for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe we cannot, but that is not what is being suggested, Mr. Speaker. That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that we look into the cost of a plan.

I talked about the plan in Quebec, the plan in Quebec that everybody participates in if they are not already covered by some plan that exists. That plan has a premium. The premium could go up to as high as, I think it was, $465 a year for an adult.

The Province of Quebec, the last time I looked, was not one of the have-provinces. They are the ones who are stepping up to the plate every time looking for the equalization formula because they are one of the ones who benefit from the equalization formula the same as Newfoundland and Labrador, and they have a plan. They have a plan. There are premiums associated with it, and it is a plan that everybody can have access to. That is the proposal that we are putting forth. Let's look into it. How much does it cost? How much will it cost the individual?

The member who just spoke said: Well, we do have a government plan and the cost is $90 million and it is going up to $100 million, and we are going to spend some more and it could be up to $130 million or $140 million. I understand that completely, but they are not collecting one cent of premium for anybody for that plan, and maybe a universal plan would cost more than $150 million. We might have to put in another $20 million. Who knows? They are not even prepared to have a committee to look at the answers, and there are a lot people out there in the Province who do not understand that.

I, for one, do not understand it, and I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, my constituent, who I spoke of earlier, who needed a drug because she had a life-threatening disease, she would not understand it either. I am not sure if people over there understand how people actually feel who are in these circumstances, but I want to give you an idea of how people feel, because this woman, this constituent of mine, wrote a letter to the Minister of Health. She wrote the letter back in January - it was not this minister - and she has not so much as received an acknowledgment, the last time I checked, a few days ago. She has not even so much as received an acknowledgment of this letter, a four-page letter, from a woman with leukemia and a drug problem. She wrote because she was turned down for drug support for a drug that would cost $36,000. Now, this is one of the so-called catastrophic drug plans, but I just want to give you an idea of how people feel who are in these threatening circumstances.

This is another person with some savings, an entire life savings, mostly RRSPs. They have a twelve-year-old car, an eight-year-old computer and a fifteen-year-old television. According to the government rules - and this is what I am going to quote here now - I am too rich to be eligible to get a life-saving drug, while a person who spent his or her money on a house, foreign vacations, a good car, but has an employer pension plan, is not. The government sends a signal that it does not pay to be self-reliant, to save money and live within one's means.

Now, this is a family with a total gross family income of $36,000 and a drug that is going to cost $40,000 a year.

Things were made even worst by the dehumanizing way in which the application process is set up. Your life is in danger, but you do not talk to live people. All contacts are done through mail. You get a form and send it by mail to "document processing unit", and you cannot talk to a live person to check on the progress of your application. You have to wait. If anything in the application is missing or requires explanation, you will not be told; you will be notified by mail. Then you reply, of course, by mail. All the while you know that your clock is ticking; with every passing day your illness progresses unchecked.

The letter refusing my card came signed only with a title and hardly legible signature of the person who are writing to me. No name, no phone numbers to call. Well, I am not a file number. I am a person and, if somebody refuses me my life-saving drug, I would like them to at least have the courtesy to tell that to me to my face.

It feels as though the government has built up a wall to keep off people like me, and this is done to the most vulnerable group, to the people who are already in the worst days of their lives.

Minister Ottenheimer, I would not wish you my experience with your department. After being refused a provincial drug card, I managed to get the drug from its maker, Novartis, for now. It seems that a foreign for-profit corporation has more heart than my own government. I do not know for how long they will be willing to supply me with the drug.

That is how people feel, Mr. Speaker. Their life is in danger. They feel that they are at a loss and they do not have access to a program because the program has not been set up.

I heard the minister talk about this multi-party committee. I do not know who he is talking about, who the parties are. The federal government has a working group looking at what they call, not a national drug plan, a National Pharmacare Strategy, and this is an intergovernmental issue. They are going to talk about ways of perhaps having a group-buying program so that governments who buy drugs for health care plans can buy them together and save money. A good idea, nothing wrong with it. They are going to talk about having a National Drug Formulary - not a bad idea - so every province does not have to go through the process of approving drugs. Nowhere in this so-called national strategy is there any talk of making sure that there is available a universal program for everyone in the country.

I listened carefully to any commentary on the Budget last night - I have not read the whole thing yet - but I did not hear a single word about a single dollar from the Government of Canada for a national drug plan. If it was there, I will guarantee you, they would be broadcasting it from the heights of the Peace Tower in Ottawa. The bells would be ringing: We are going to have a national drug plan. They would be saying, we are going to have a national drug program for dealing with catastrophic drug costs. They did not say a word about it, so don't expect - I do not think members here can expect that the Government of Canada is going to solve this problem. This committee should and could look at the alternatives, look at the program that exists in Quebec, look at the program that exists in other provinces - in Alberta, in Nova Scotia - and see what the cost would be. See what the cost would be. If someone came back and said, boy, it is going to cost a billion dollars and we cannot afford it, then obviously we would have to face the facts, but that is not what we are not proposing. We are not proposing a program whereby all drugs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We are not proposing a program whereby all drugs would be provided for free. We are proposing that we look into the possibility of having a program that people could participate in, so that they would not be denied access to a program at all, so that somebody out there, who has a job or has money or who does not qualify for the existing program, would be able to participate, will be able to pay a premium, and will be able to get drugs when they need them, without having to impoverish themselves or go through a program.

We are not looking for a charitable program. I do not even know if it would qualify as a social program. I do not even know if would qualify as a social program. It will qualify as a program where government makes it clear that they can offer it to all the people in the Province what every member of this House has, and has had since they came here, and what the members who spoke about being in government for thirty years have probably had for all of those thirty years: a plan that they can pay into, that they can participate in, and that they can get benefits from.

You know, yes, we have made a step potentially in the right direction with offering an expanded provincial drug program, but people do not even know the detail of that yet. You know, people do not know the detail of that yet. If you have a 70 per cent co-pay and you are making $28,000 total family income in the year and you have to pay 70 per cent of the cost of the drugs that you are get, that may not be that appealing. That may not be that appealing, and people in those circumstances, who would qualify for that program now, they might be able to pay a premium. We do not know. They might be able to pay $10 a month or $15 a month for a premium that would give them access to a better program.

All we have been asking in this resolution, and all this resolution asks, is that we have a committee to study it, that we have a committee to study it. You know, we studied Members' Interests through a Select Committee of the House of Assembly. We have studied other issues, the FPI Act, through a select committee. The Committee on Children's Interests was another one that was talked about. I do not what they spent their money on, but I know we had an all-party committee of FPI that went around Province and heard representation, and went to Ottawa. I do not think that cost $50,000, speaking to the former Minister of Fisheries, but if we had a committee that could look into this with expertise from the government, from government departments, even from the Auditor General - the Auditor General's Department might have something to say about it. Who knows? Who knows?

This is an issue that affects every single person in this Province who has a need for medical care and who recognizes that the cost of getting drugs is very expensive and can be debilitating. I am not just talking about this so-called catastrophic drug program. There are lots of people who when they need an antibiotic - there are antibiotics today that can cost seventy or eighty or ninety dollars to pay for a prescription, and this causes a burden to people. There is nothing wrong with expanding the plan, but we have to realize one thing, there is a lot of new money in the most recent Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: There is $450 million more in this year's Budget for expenditures then last year. Do you know how much of that is going for this new drug plan? Eight million dollars. Eight million dollars out of this $450 million is directed towards the expansion of the existing program. Now, next year it is going to cost more. I think the total will be $32 million next year. What is the marginal cost of what we are proposing here? We have no idea. It maybe nothing. There maybe no additional cost, because it may be that you could raise, through premiums, enough money to pay the cost of the program, but now we are not going to find out. The fact that the Government of Canada is dealing with this issue should not be a means of preventing this from happening.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this is a bit of a no-brainer of a motion. It is an open-ended motion that asks that we look into the costs, look into the feasibility, to make it possible for everybody in the Province to have what we in this House have, a prescription drug program that they can have access to that would ensure that their health would be treated seriously, that they could have the same access to a drug program as those who are employed by government or who work for government or who have a workplace plan. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that I think that everybody in this Province is entitled to, and I ask all hon. members to support this plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion has been put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

All those in favour of the motion, please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In the Speaker's opinion the Nays have it.

MR. REID: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called, call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the whips ready?

The whips are ready.

Those in favour of the motion please rise.

CLERK (Noel): Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Ms Jones, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Randy Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Harding, Mr. O'Brien, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Denine, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Skinner, Ms Johnson, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. Oram, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Felix Collins.

Mr. Speaker, there are ten ‘ayes' and twenty-three ‘nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

Order, please!

This being Wednesday, the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 4, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 4 at 1:30 p.m.