MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome six students from Marystown Central High School in the District of Placentia West. These Level II and Level III students are on their way to representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the Youth Links Summit in Kingston, Ontario. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms Vivian Rose. Welcome to the House of Assembly and good luck with your trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Gander; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to another former colleague and friend who recently passed away.

Patricia Cowan, Pat as she was known to everyone, was an educator, a colleague and a friend of many of us here in the House of Assembly. She was a past President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association - in fact, the first woman to hold that position - a former MHA and Cabinet Minister, and is well known to many in this Province. Pat also ensured that the voices of women throughout the Province were heard in the various roles she held, especially as a Cabinet Minister.

While many will remember Pat as a colorful politician who worked tirelessly for the people she represented, she will always be remembered by her students as a person who gave her life to shaping their education. Whether it was at the Cabinet table, serving on committees representing children's interests or in the halls of Confederation Building, Pat was a constant advocate for the young people of our Province. She was a constant lobbyist for the improvement of our education system and strived to develop programs that would provide new opportunities for our students.

Today we mourn her passing, but we know that her life helped shape the lives of many in this Province. It was a pleasure to have known Pat and to have had her friendship. On behalf of our caucus, and I am sure this entire House of Assembly, I want to extend our thoughts and prayers to her son, Alex, and her family during this difficult time. Pat will certainly be missed.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of my colleagues, I realize it is a members' statement, I would like to, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, join with the hon. member and the Official Opposition, I am sure all of us, in acknowledging the tremendous contribution that Ms Cowan made to public life in this Province. I knew her as President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. I knew her as a colleagues in the House of Assembly. I knew her as a minister. She certainly made a tremendous contribution to the public good of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is sad when a person of her age, I believe sixty-two years old, is struck down by the ravage disease of cancer which many of us, in our own lives, have had to deal with. So, it is a tremendous loss to the Province.

On behalf of our colleagues on this side of the House, we want to acknowledge and pay tribute to her and the efforts that she has made to improve the public good of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think I can say without fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, that this place is a better place because she was here.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join in recognizing the passing of Patricia Cowan. She had a very successful career as leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and also an important political career in this House as a member of government and member of Cabinet. We would like to join with other members in recognizing her contribution and asking that condolences be sent to her family on behalf of us all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak of the tremendous effort shown by the Glovertown Volunteer Fire Department. On Thursday, May 4, a forest fire broke out in Glovertown. The fire was mistakenly started by a town's resident who was burning brush. The fire quickly got out of hand. Within minutes the fire had engulfed a large area, and had begun moving towards a number of houses.

The local fire department was dispatched and quickly began fighting the blaze. They were soon joined by the Gambo and Eastport Volunteer Fire Departments, as well as the staff from Terra Nova National Park, the Department of Forestry and the RCMP. Shortly after noon, two water bombers and a helicopter were dispatched from Gander.

The fire reached the property line of two houses and within 100 metres of any others. Mr. Speaker, if it hadn't been for the speed of the local fire department and the combined efforts of all those involved, this could have been a devastating result.

About three or four hours after the fire had begun, it had been brought under control and no personal property had been lost.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join with me today to commend all those who were involved in this event last Thursday, more specifically the fire departments. Each and every one of us should be appreciative of the work that the firefighters do in our communities. They certainly deserve our thanks and praise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a fantastic group of community volunteers. I am speaking of Chief Glen Hann of the Burgeo Fire Department and their Burnettes.

I had the pleasure of attending their annual ball on Saturday evening and, along with the Town Mayor, Mr. George Reid, paid tribute to the fire department. It has been difficult these past few years to keep a full contingent because many members have to leave town for employment purposes, but those who stay behind do an admirable job.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make special mention of fireman Calvin Hare, who received the Fireman of the Year Award. Despite being stricken with cancer and undergoing extensive treatment for several months, Calvin continued his full slate of duties with his brigade, and I am pleased to say he is making a steady recovery.

Mr. Speaker, Volunteer Fire Departments are an essential part in keeping our communities safe, and I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to acknowledge our support for them. Hats off to the Burgeo Fire Department, and may they have another successful year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize one of Gander's strongest citizens: Grade 8 student, Mr. Kyle Murray. Kyle is the son of Kathy and David Murray of Gander who, upon Kyle's birth on March 2, 1992, were informed that their son had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. The parents were told that there was a very good likelihood that he might never walk or talk as a result of his condition, of the complications that were present at birth.

Mr. and Mrs. Murray persevered and worked constantly with Kyle to develop his strengths. Today, Mr. Speaker, Kyle is an active member in his family's church and this past January joined the Special Olympics and will be competing in the shot put, standing long jump, 100m dash and the 400m dash. Kyle most recently competed in the Knights of Columbus Free Throw Championship, placing second in his age group, and was the only competitor with special needs.

Kyle is involved with the Boys and Girls Club of Gander, and takes part in all activities and fundraisers for the club.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of his hon. House to join me in congratulating Kyle Murray for his achievements thus far, and wish him well in this summer's Special Olympics in Mount Pearl.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Exploits Valley High Grade 12 student Ryan Dean, who recently won the Grand Falls-Windsor Rotary Club Adventure in Citizenship Speak Off. Seven high school students from the Central and South Coast regions took part in this year's event at the Mount Peyton Hotel.

Mr. Speaker, eighteen-year-old Ryan Dean's winning topic was health care. For his efforts, he wins a trip to Ottawa for a week-long Adventure in Citizenship. The Rotary Adventure in Citizenship program, now in its fifty-sixth consecutive year, was instituted by the Rotary Club of Ottawa in 1951. This spring, 220 of Canada's outstanding senior high school students will spend four days in the National Capital in a program designed in developing and being potential leaders in their communities and in Canadian society.

Ryan Dean and other participants will take part in presentations at the National Library Archives of Canada, visit the Canadian Museum of Civilization, tour the House of Commons and meet with MPs. The group will also engage in group discussions, meet with Canadian and foreign diplomats, and tour the RCMP Tactical Training Centre, all of which will be an exciting experience, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ryan Dean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members about an important national campaign, Emergency Preparedness Week, which runs from May 7-13. This week is dedicated to raising awareness among Canadians of the importance of planning for potential emergencies.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador our extreme weather is the cause of many of our emergencies. Our most recent example was the flooding along the Northeast Coast. Some thirty communities were impacted, with damages estimated in the millions of dollars. In the community of Middle Arm, more than 200 millimeters of rain fell, causing severe damage to homes and infrastructure. Then there are the devastating flooding events that occurred in the Stephenville area last September and in the Town of Badger in February of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, in our ongoing efforts to prepare for emergencies, this government is committing substantial resources. As announced in the recent Budget, $4.7 million will be invested to ensure the Province is prepared to respond to and manage public health emergencies, including pandemic influenza, should the need arise. This investment includes funding for three additional staff and new vehicles in my department's Fire and Emergency Services Division.

Mr. Speaker, this government takes emergency preparedness and response very seriously. This is clearly demonstrated by these investments.

I note the recent appointment of a deputy minister for emergency planning. The deputy minister is tasked with developing a comprehensive approach to emergency preparedness within the provincial government, as well as making recommendations on legislative changes, financial and organizational requirements for more effective emergency preparedness.

While federal, provincial and municipal governments work to ensure they are prepared when disaster strikes, emergency preparedness begins with the individual. We must all be prepared. That means keeping an emergency supply kit in our homes and cars, making a family emergency

plan so that all family members know the proper response, and learning about past emergency events so that we can be ready if they happen again.

I encourage municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that their emergency plans are up to date. For those municipalities that do not yet have emergency plans, I strongly encourage them to start developing plans immediately.

Knowing the risk you face is the first step to being prepared. It is up to each of us to learn about and prepare for potential emergencies. Prepare now. Learn how.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

There is no doubt about it, that emergency preparedness is very important, and the week from May 7-13 highlights the importance of this again. As the minister said in his statement, over the last number of years we have experienced many of these, flood damages and storms in our area, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think about the one, Gabriel, in St. John's. Then, of course, there was Stephenville and, as the minister already indicated, Badger, and then also on the Northeast Avalon.

It is good, in a sense, to see that government is putting more money into emergency preparedness so that when these things happen we can seriously respond to them.

I also want to say to the minister, probably many of the larger municipalities do have their emergency plans in place. I think of September 11, when the planes were stranded because of the destruction of the World Trade Centre. The St. John's emergency preparedness plan, and that of the Northeast Avalon, kicked in, and it was really, really great. I would think that many of the larger municipalities do have it, but what we do find lacking is that many of the smaller communities do not have their emergency plan in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Probably the minister might consider helping the smaller municipalities, financially or technically, to have plans in place so that when emergencies do occur then they are prepared for it.

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

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

This, indeed, is a very serious issue and one that the minister and his department need to pay attention to, there is no question about that, particularly with the weather patterns and storms that we have seen in the past that create havoc for our communities; and, by all measures, Mr. Speaker, they are predicted to become more common in the future.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to not only have a plan, but that plan has to be communicated to all residents of the communities. I know, in January, 1982, we were hit with a very serious situation where we had wind chills that exceeded 130 below. We had lost all power throughout the community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: We have to get over this one of those days.

Mr. Speaker, there are serious situations that do develop.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity, if I could, to impress upon the minister the need for a 911 service throughout this Province, and not just in the major centres. I hope that is something that the minister will concentrate on over the next year or so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the great accomplishments of our artists. I had the pleasure of attending the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards show on Saturday night. I am pleased to report that the 2005 Arts Achievement Award went to Paul Pope, who has been a dynamic force in the film industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for well over twenty years. Most recently, he produced Above and Beyond, a mini-series set in Gander during the Second World War.

Beni Malone received The Arts in Education Award. Mr. Malone has almost single-handedly introduced and developed professional clown theatre and circus skills in physical education classes, particularly in Innu communities along the Labrador Coast.

This year's Patron of the Arts went to Dave Hopley. As an artist and through his small business, The Living Planet, Mr. Hopley sponsors a large variety of arts organizations and has hosted many visiting artists.

Michael Coyne and Ken Livingstone were jointly inducted into the Hall of Honour for their vision and role in the development of the acclaimed Fine Arts Program at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

Musician, Duanne Andrews, was named Emerging Artist. Mr. Andrew's self-titled CD - a blend of jazz and folk music - won best instrumental in the 2006 East Coast Music Awards.

Finally, writer Lisa Moore won the Artist of the Year award. Her most recent novel, Alligator, was short listed for the prestigious 2005 Giller Prize.

During her acceptance speech, Ms Moore spoke for many artists when she said, if it were not for the support of the Arts Council, she would have had to stop writing.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council is the key vehicle by which we support the creative process. Under Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Developing and Investing in Culture, our first cultural provincial plan, we will double the budget of the Arts Council within three years, bringing its total budget to $1.8 million.

As a government, we recognize by creating conditions to nurture the growth of our artists, we are fostering the creative vitality of this Province. By increasing our support to professional artists, we are not only keeping our talented artists here but we are providing more opportunities for the next Lisa Moore or Paul Pope.

I invite all members to join with me in congratulating the recipients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. We, too, want to join the minister in congratulating all the recipients of these awards.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if there is one thing in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are all proud of is our artists. I am sure many of us over the years have gone to different Christmas concerts and seen our youth perform different arts and, as the years went by, to grow and foster into artists who are known, not just across Newfoundland and Labrador, but right across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in our artists, and all members on this side of the House join the minister and his government in congratulating the recipients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Arts Council Award on Saturday night showed once again that high standards of artistic achievement are alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, we basically had a cultural revolution or cultural renaissance in the last twenty-five years, and support by the Arts Council certainly helped that.

People like Paul Pope, Beni Malone, and Lisa Moore, Artists of the Year this year, obviously have shown the talent that they have and their commitment to artistic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am especially pleased to see that Michael Coyne and Ken Livingstone were recognized for their fantastic work in getting the Grenfell College Fine Arts degree up and running and providing a terrific educational service, not only to Newfoundland and Labrador, which was done for the last twenty-five years, but also in providing opportunities for international artists and students who like to learn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave for a moment, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: So, we are very pleased with that and we are certainly pleased to see government increase its support for the Arts Council. We do have a ways to go in per capita funding, Mr. Speaker. Some provinces are way ahead, but we certainly recognize that the Province's commitment within three years of $1.8 million funding for the Arts Council is a step forward. Other provinces have support in the range of $7 to $9 per capita, and we look forward to the day when artists get that kind of support on a par with other provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier campaigned on a slogan: no more resource giveaways. We have heard that from the Premier and those opposite for hundreds of times in the past two-and-a-half years, yet, yesterday we read in the Independent newspaper, one published here in St. John's, that the Premier is not ruling out buying fish quotas from Fishery Products International.

I ask the Premier if he sees the irony in his statements, that we are not going to have anymore resource giveaways because we are going to be buying those resources back from those who would otherwise rob it and take it elsewhere?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I find the irony in the statement coming from the hon. member opposite, when, in fact, he knows very well that by buying a quota we saved the community in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, how he can disagree with that policy, at the time, when we were doing it, when we were stepping up for Bellevue, for the member's district and saving the community of Arnold's Cove, we saved, I believe, over 300 jobs by taking that particular action. Our intention is to make sure that these quotas are held in Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot take it for granted that the federal government will take them back and, basically, pass them over to us. We cannot allow a situation to happen where FPI takes those quotas and sells them off to somebody else outside the Province and then somebody else has control over them. So, we are prepared to entertain all options. We very flexible on this. We are very open-minded and we are going to try and find the best solution that we can.

I would ask the hon. gentleman opposite, if we are going to talk about giveaways, read the Lower Churchill announcement this morning and see if that is a giveaway?

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, I happen to believe that you and this government has more control over those fish quotas than you would lead people to believe because you just do not want to act.

I ask the Premier: What quotas are you considering buying and where will these quotas be processed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier has already indicated and I have indicated from time to time publicly, that if quota is available for purchase anywhere in waters adjacent to this Province, or anywhere really in Atlantic Canada, then we would entertain the possibility of negotiating a purchase of those quotas. We have not purchased any quotas since we purchased the quota for Arnold's Cove from National Sea, but we are certainly open to that prospect and where that such quota, if and when it happens to be purchased, where it would be processed, that is certainly a far out situation at this moment and one that is impossible to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to both the Premier and to the Minister of Fisheries, I ask them if they see anything morally or fundamentally wrong with buying quotas from FPI after the rape and the pillage they have caused in this Province in the past two-and-a-half years?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier states everyday that only the federal government can control fish quotas and they are saying it again here today. I ask the Premier: What talks have you or your Deputy Premier had with Minister Hearn, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, about forcing FPI to leave quotas in towns like Fortune and Harbour Breton, towns in which these quotas were processed for the past forty or fifty years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we do not see anything morally wrong with purchasing a quota from FPI or Murphy's Seafoods or Torngat Co-op or Tom Rideout or Loyola Hearn or whoever, if the quota is available. I mean we have purchased quota from National Sea to repatriate it to Newfoundland to create jobs or sustain jobs in rural Newfoundland, in Arnold's Cove. Was there anything morally wrong with that, Mr. Speaker?

National Sea was a company that closed down a whole bunch of plants in Newfoundland over the last number of years, probably just as many as FPI have historically. So, the question in that sense bears no basis. Now, Mr. Speaker, where we go from here, if quota becomes available we will have to see and we will make decisions as we go. Yes, we have had discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the minister and the Government of Canada saying that those quotas have to say in Newfoundland and Labrador as of right. I mean, we cannot determine what the answer to that will be but I can tell you that the minister has said publicly and has indicated to us in meetings that he is very sympathetic towards that approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Deputy Premier, you are probably the only one in this Province, you and the Premier, who sees nothing morally wrong about buying fish quotas from FPI. You just admitted that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - you have not had a discussion with the minister about forcing FPI to leave its quota in Harbour Breton or leave its quota in Fortune, so why are you in such a rush to go out and purchase quota from FPI when you have not received that response yet?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Deputy Premier in recent months about the hardball approach that he has towards FPI -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the leader to continue with his question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Works can call me a hypocrite all he likes, and maybe you can rule, after, if that is parliamentary or not, but, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Deputy Premier in recent months about his hardball approach to FPI. Not only has he said that FPI will be charged for illegally exporting fish from this Province, but he has also said he is prepared to amend the FPI Act to force that company to cross-subsidize its ailing groundfish sector. To date, what has happened? Absolutely nothing. That is what they have done about FPI to this date.

On Saturday, the Deputy Premier said that his government has no intention of allowing FPI to walk away from towns, and the responsibility to towns, like Harbour Breton and Fortune. Can the Deputy Minister, today, enlighten us as to what he proposes to force FPI to do for these towns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition tries to suck and blow at the same time. Well, it cannot happen, Mr. Speaker. It just cannot happen. You are either in favour of us repatriating quota from a national sea to sustain a community in rural Newfoundland, in Arnold's Cove, or you are not. You are either -

MS THISTLE: That's crude.

MR. RIDEOUT: What is crude? What is wrong with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker? Was she weaned on a pickle this afternoon or what?

MS THISTLE: Your choice of language is crude.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, it is all right for the Opposition to get up and say what they like, Mr. Speaker, but, for us to reply, there is something wrong with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear that we are not prepared to allow FPI - without consequences - to walk away from Fortune and walk away from Harbour Breton.

We have put options in front of FPI in terms of those communities, and we expect them to respond to it. If they do not respond in a way that we are satisfied, then we will keep at it, Mr. Speaker.

Will we win at the end of the day? I do not know, but I know this, Mr. Speaker: We are not going to give up without trying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: No, you are not prepared to let them walk away. You are prepared to pay them money to keep the quotas in those towns, I say to the minister. You should be ashamed to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on another issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation.

For Question Period, the time allocated is limited.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many harvesters in this Province have already landed their crab quotas and now would like to start harvesting shrimp. The problem that they are running into is that they cannot find a processor, or most of them cannot find a processor, who wants to purchase that shrimp.

Can the minister tell these harvesters if they should simply tie up their boats or take off their shrimp gear and turn to other fisheries, like the turbot fishery, or what can they do? Can you enlighten those individuals what they should be doing when they are sitting at home today wondering if they should go on the water after shrimp?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that people out there are shaking their head at the Leader of the Opposition and this particular Opposition. I hear from harvesters every day in this Province, and not one of them have asked me that kind of question.

I have said, and this government has said, from day one, we cannot force processors to buy and process; we cannot force harvesters to fish. It is just impossible for us to do that. What we committed to, and what we did, was to put a legislative framework in place which set a price before those fisheries opened.

Now, that price cannot be determined by this Legislature, or this minister, or this government. So, the framework is there, the price is there. If it is not economical to fish, then harvesters are quite in a good position to make their own decisions. If processors cannot process at that price, they are in a position to make those decisions. Those decisions are not and should not be the prerogative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources announced that Newfoundland and Labrador would take the lead on any potential lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I ask the Premier: Is government planning to fund this project and, if so, where will this funding come from?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he could repeat his question?

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps if the hon. members opposite could be quite, the Premier would indeed hear the question.

I ask the Premier: Is government planning to fund this development and, if so, where will the funding come from?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of the announcement today was to indicate that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to do this project themselves. It is a first for the Province. We have never been in a position to do it before. We never had the fiscal capacity to do it before. There was never a will by a government, I don't think, to do it before, and it is something that we are very proud of, so I can understand the exuberance of the Members of the House of Assembly today because this is an historic moment.

As a matter of fact, I did make a call to the Leader of the Liberal Party this morning to inform him of this particular occasion, and invited him to be there. He was unable to do so.

Having said that, we are well away from the actual financing arrangements. As you do know, the federal government has indicated that they would be providing a guarantee in this particular matter. We are leaving our options open on this. We may look at inviting some equity partners. We have had some great proposals as a result of the Expressions of Interest that were put out there. We had some twenty-five-odd proposals that came into us. We are entertaining some of those, but the big message here is that we are masters of our own destiny, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in control of this project for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his press release, the Premier stated that the Province will take the lead in developing this project. I ask the Premier: If the Province is taking the lead, does this mean government is not willing to enter into a joint venture with any other companies, provinces, or the federal government in developing the project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, I think it was clearly indicated at the press conference this morning that, you know, any people who have an interest in being involved in the project, whether they happen to be customers, whether they happen to be financiers, whether they happen to be contractors, they could all be involved, or any of them could be involved, at any point in time.

By taking the lead we are in full control of the project, unlike the circumstance with the last government; that project, basically, was going to be controlled by Quebec. It would have been marketed, it would have been financed, the transmission would have been done by Quebec. The control of the project, the project management, would have been done by Quebec. As well, if there had been an overrun on the project, the last Lower Churchill project that was proposed by the Grimes government, in fact, we could have lost the project; because, if there had been an overrun, we would not have been in a position to be able to finance it.

This is a completely different situation. We now are basically inviting people who want to bring their expertise, but the biggest thing is that we are in charge of it. We are in the driver's seat here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, rather than just pass the project over to an Ontario, Quebec consortium, or any other consortium, and say, well, that is fine, take our project, take our river, take our power, do with it what you want, and give us a small cheque at the end of the day, we will be saying what the cheque is going to be. We will be determining what the profits are going to be, and that is going to go into the Treasury of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been much discussion about whether the federal government would participate in the project because of the benefits it might contribute to the Kyoto Protocol. We know that the Harper government is not committed to environmentally-friendly projects.

I ask the Premier, and you made reference to the federal government being prepared to guarantee the project: Has the federal government officially offered to participate in the project and, if by way of a guarantee, have there been discussions about how much of a guarantee or the full amount?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I think it is an unfair comment, Mr. Speaker, to say that the Harper government, the federal government, is not prepared to engage in any environmentally-friendly projects. There is nothing further from the truth, so that is an unfortunate statement.

With regard to this government's practice of writing leaders of federal parties and asking for their positions, that has worked very well for this Province. We did the same thing during the last election - we wrote the leaders of all parties - and, as a result of that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - we already had the announcement on the Gander weather forecasting, which was a huge announcement for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In the letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister, he replied: We support the proposal in principle and believe that it is important to Newfoundland and Labrador to have a greater control of its energy. As well, a very important statement was made by him when he was in St. John's on December 6, and that was to CBC. He said: I talked to Premier Williams a number of times on this. I have always been clear. I think he is looking for the federal government to play some kind of role in the way of a loan guarantee. I said: We are certainly prepared to do that. That is pretty straight and unequivocal, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past several years, one of the most significant problems in developing the Lower Churchill has been securing a long-term buyer for the power. Without a twenty-five year power purchase agreement in place, the banks would not consider giving this Province a loan.

I ask the Premier: Has the Province secured a long-term customer for the power? If not, have you indeed had discussions with financial institutions to determine if they will agree to provide the funding up front?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the least of our worries on this project is to find someone to buy that power. There is absolutely no doubt about it, there is a huge demand for power, not only in our country but also in the United States. Ontario is crying out for power. They are looking at going back to nuclear; that is a controversial issue. They are looking to buy power from Manitoba. Quebec has announced a new energy plan. They are going to need more power in ten years time. Having a long-term contract, we can find it right here in Canada, or otherwise, if we have to, we can look to the US. We would prefer that this be a Canadian project and that is where we would be looking.

An interesting piece of information, just for members of the House of Assembly: Quebec buys power from us for one-quarter of one cent. The power that they were able to sell on the export market, on the stock market, which is the cream, which is what we want to make sure we secure, they are selling for twelve point four cents. They are basically making fifty times profit on what we sell that power to them for. They buy it for a quarter of one cent and they sell it for twelve and a half cents. We want to get that return on our Lower Churchill power. That is what we are doing

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is quite obvious then that we don't have a long-term customer for the power at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of this announcement today, I spoke last night with the Prime Minister to indicate to him that this was proceeding and exactly what we were doing. I spoke to the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, to indicate that we were proceeding on a go-alone basis but that we would certainly be prepared to entertain the Province of Ontario as a customer. I spoke to the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, and talked to him about what our plans were. We discussed briefly his energy proposals, which were released just last Friday. He indicated to us that they had gone ahead with their energy plans on the basis that - they assumed that we were probably going to do the Lower Churchill project on our own.

With regard to the transmission of power and how the power is going to be wielded, we took a unique approach and a smart approach, quite frankly. We made an application to Trans-Energy so that we would be able to wield that power through Quebec. If, in fact, we do not sell any power to Quebec, well then we would have the right under the FERC rules, basically, to transmit and to transport power through Quebec. That is a right which is there. They are allowed to wield into the States, therefore we should be allowed to wield through Quebec, and we do not expect to have a contrary ruling on that.

In answer to your question; if we do not sell power to Quebec we would still use their facilities. If there is a need for upgraded facilities, they would be upgraded and we would pay a tariff for doing that; no different than anybody who uses the poles in the city to provide cable services or anything else. I have been there before, I know what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Premier says the Province will take the lead on this project, there has been very little mention of whether or not a transmission line would run to the Province.

I ask the Premier: Is government evaluating this option to encourage industry to locate in the Province and lower electricity rates paid by consumers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, that is something we are seriously considering. We are looking at a feed, and we are not calling it an in-feed because it can be a feed in and it can be a feed out. Where you have to look to the future, we are looking out even to 2041. There may be a situation where we have surplus power as a result of the projects. We could have extra power on the Island through wind, through gas, for example. If we convert gas to wire there could be excess power. In fact, if there is a feed in, it is also a feed out that we could use to supply power to other provinces or to the Northeastern United States. As well, a very, very important component of this is power in Labrador, and that is why our minister, who is not back -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - the Minister of Natural Resources has not returned yet. He was in Labrador this morning, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with MHA John Hickey to assure the people of Labrador that we are looking out for their interests. We want to make sure that there is a block of power available in Labrador for development in Labrador. As well, when Labrador's needs are filled, then we will also look at making power available to the Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there was mention this morning in the press conference, by the Premier, that there would of course be an Impact and Benefits Agreement with the Innu. There was no mention of the Metis. I wonder if the Premier could comment on whether or not he anticipates there will indeed be an Impact and Benefits Agreement with the Metis in Labrador in respect to this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, right now, I guess, it is a question of who is in the line up first. We are now dealing with the Innu people. I had spoken to Ben Michel last night and indicated to Ben that we are prepared to sit down, whenever he wants, to start to negotiate the land agreement, which he is prepared to do. Mr. Montague was at the news conference this morning. I understand that he had a conversation with Minister Byrne. So, as well, there has been a conversation taking place with the Metis as well.

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 Justice.

Last year government fired the Board of Directors of the College of the North Atlantic, including the President, for no apparent cause. As a matter of fact, the former President has now launched a wrongful dismissal suit against the government. At the time, the former Education Minister stated that an RCMP investigation would be launched and expanded into allegations that the former President accepted monetary gifts. On Friday, the RCMP stated that no such investigation had taken place and that an investigation was not warranted. Could the minister advise whether an investigation ever was or was not initiated, as the minister had said earlier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the matter is referred to the RCMP for an investigation. It is also my understanding that the notice to which the hon. member gave reference was an indication that the RCMP were reviewing the matter and were considering whether or not an investigation would follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Minister, a couple of weeks ago the Liberal caucus was in Stephenville and met with the flood victims Concerned Citizens Committee. We have since been in contact with them several times and they are telling us that they are having trouble getting a copy of a report which had been related to the flood.

I ask the minister: Will he commit now to seeing that these flood victims have complete access to a government report related to the flood?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, since September 27 I have been in Stephenville, I think, seven times, as has the Premier been in a number of times and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. As recently as the Sunday before last, I had a meeting with twenty-four of the individuals who were looking for a report. That report, that has been referred to, is an environmental study done for the Town of Stephenville, actually. It has not been done for the government. We have gone way beyond with respect to the compensation that we are offering those people in Stephenville; in particular, the people outside the flood. If we had not gone and gotten an extra $8 million to relocate 103 families within the boundaries of the flood control area, Mr. Speaker, those individuals outside the flood control area, those twenty-three families, would not have any assistance at all because they do not fall under the federal program.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention as well that government is demanding that 100 per cent of this group of concerned citizens, who live outside of the arbitrarily drawn line, would have to move from their present location before government would be prepared to build new homes for them elsewhere and compensate for their move. I ask the minister if that is, indeed, the case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First, Mr. Speaker, it is not an arbitrarily drawn line. It is a line that was done by the engineering firm for the Town of Stephenville based on surveying practices in the field and measuring the high water mark, where the water rose.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to those twenty-three families outside the flood control area, those families had damage because of the failure of the infrastructure, the pipes in the ground. What we have offered to those individuals is that we would be prepared to consider relocating those families also if the cost to repair equalled or was greater than the cost to relocate, but everyone would have to move, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to put $400,000 or $500,000 worth of pipe in the ground for four or five families.

Mr. Speaker, again, I can only say that we have gone way beyond any other program that we had in the past in Newfoundland and Labrador for flooding, or any disasters when it comes to the financial package. The Mayor of Stephenville was on this morning, on an open line show, and he made the comment that we have provided everything that they have asked for from the town's perspective, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, concerning the announcement this morning about the Lower Churchill. I have to say that the announcement of going it alone is certainly compatible with our vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - that we enunciated during the campaign to stop the privatization of Hydro in the 1990s and wanted it to be an engine of economic growth and development for the Province.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, given the Lower Churchill Development Act, which provides for a 49 per cent interest in the development of the Lower Churchill to the Government of Canada, along with associated agreements and appendices: Can the Premier indicate what role this legislation might play in this development, and is this something that we have to contend with as a Province in order to develop the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good question.

In the quote that I mentioned before from Prime Minister Harper, when he was here on December 6 and he made reference to the fact that they were prepared to do the guarantee. He also went on to say that we obviously have had only preliminary discussions on how it would be structured, but the truth is that there has been legislation in place, both federally and provincially, for over thirty years now setting up a joint corporation, allowing for the federal government to get involved in this. His statement here is interesting as well, actually: I think we owe it to Newfoundland and Labrador, because of what happened with the Upper Churchill, to help. So, obviously, the federal government are very clearly on side.

In answer to your question, the corporation was incorporated in December of 1978. Right now, it is a shell corporation. It is not active; it holds its annual meeting. It is 51 per cent controlled by the provincial government, 49 per cent by the federal government. It has an option to exercise, to use the water rights; so, it is an option that corporation can exercise if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted that corporation to be the vehicle. So, if the Prime Minister saw that corporation as a possible vehicle to provide a guarantee, and it could be useful to us, we would use it, but it would not create any equity ownership - unless there was some proposal whereby they wanted to fund part of it directly, we may consider it. It is a shell company that was to be used as a vehicle to help funding.

I understand over the years, and I am not clear on this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to keep their comments to sixty seconds.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question has to do with the cost of power produced. The Hydro-Quebec announcement last Friday said they would produce power for about eight to ten cents per kilowatt hour when they get into production.

Are these the kind of numbers that this government is looking at - because that is obviously higher than the domestic rate right now here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly higher than any industrial rate - or do we have any estimate of what the cost of power might be with the stand-alone Newfoundland development of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it would be early in the development, in the project, to pin down exactly what that rate is, but I can certainly give the hon. member opposite the assurance that it would be significantly less than the number that has been presented by Hydro-Quebec.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, the Residential Energy Efficient Program has been in limbo now for a number of months. A message had been posted on Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's Web site saying that the program had been slightly delayed for over two months, and today we hear through the media that the program is cancelled.

I ask the minister responsible for the Housing Corporation if he has been informed that this is indeed the case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We did receive a call from the federal government - Newfoundland and Labrador Housing did - saying that their program would be cancelled. This is regrettable. The program that the Province had put forward was to partner with the federal program, so it is certainly regrettable that the federal program is cancelled. The provincial program, however, Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

During Question Period today there was a comment made by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, which the Speaker heard, referring to the Opposition Leader as a hypocrite. The member will know that word is deemed to be unparliamentary and, in the context in which it was spoken, I ask the minister if he would stand and withdraw that comment?

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice has been making some statements about a conversation which he had with myself. I am pleased to see that he has confirmed that it was, indeed, himself who made the call to me and not, as the Premier said, that I had approached the minister, and this is not the first time that he has discussed departmental business and personnel with me. I appreciate the fact that the minister must, of course, support the Premier's version. Otherwise, he might be Fabian Manning II.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Instead of cherry-picking from the conversation, would the Minister of Justice like to come out and tell the public and the media which judge it was he called me about, to chat about, and the details of the conversation?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. I mean, a point of order has something to do with -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, maybe the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair might be right, but that remains to be seen. That was not what was raised here. What was raised here by the hon. Opposition House Leader is a point of order.

A point of order, as Your Honour well knows, and as all members know, has to do with an alleged breach of the rules of the House. There is no breach of the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, so therefore there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, speaking to the point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I phoned the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who was not home at the time I called. He called me in Corner Brook the following day and I discussed with him the new models of court administration that had been put out by the Canadian Judicial Council, and I discussed with him the fact that judges were aggressively advancing one of the new models of administration set out in that report.

I talked to the hon. member about when he was Minister of Justice and how he dealt with correspondence and communications from the Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court on these issues.

That was the purpose of our conversation.

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

MR. PARSONS: A new point of order, and clarification of what the minister said.

I absolutely refute his comment that he just made. He did not call me to talk about the court structure from the federal court. The issue of the federal court came up because I raised it with him, and asked about the three federal family courts that were intended to be coming to this Province, because I had intended to apply for a federal court position on the bench.

The minister called me to discuss a specific judge, and had some very specific questions about that individual. I am not prepared to release the details of the conversation, but if he wants to start telling stories and cherry-picking he should get into the full details because I do not intend to be maligned by him or anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that a point of order is a question raised by a member who believes the rules or customary proceedings of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of order to bring to the attention of the Chair any beach of the relevance or repetition rules, unparliamentary remarks, or lack of quorum.

It has been ruled on many occasions that matters which arise outside the House cannot be raised in the House on points of order - the proceedings of the House would not be affected by it - nor can they be raised as points of privilege. Therefore, the Chair rules there is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support Orders, Bill 27.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 28.

I give notice as well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 22

I further give notice, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that tomorrow, Tuesday, the House not rise at 5:30 or at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 63, Subsection 3, that the Private Member's Motion which is an Opposition motion for this coming Wednesday, on Private Members' Day, is to be put forth at this time by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read into the record the following Private Member's Motion that will be debated on Wednesday of this week and brought forward by the Opposition.

WHEREAS this Province as an energy producer has benefitted because of increased offshore oil revenue;

WHEREAS the people of this Province are forced to pay some of the highest fuel prices in North America and are suffering because of these high fuel prices;

WHEREAS many people on fixed incomes are unable to afford to heat their homes;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is applying for another increase in electricity rates;

WHEREAS the trucking industry in this Province is suffering because of high fuel prices;

WHEREAS the Province's tourism industry is being negatively impacted by high fuel prices;

WHEREAS concerns are being raised about the inadequacies of public transportation in this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the provincial government to develop and implement a plan to deal with the impact of high fuel prices and high energy taxes in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today on a petition concerning the Wild Cove dump in the Corner Brook area. I have a petition today from the residents of the towns of Irishtown and Summerside and some from the Town of McIvers.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a very serious issue for the north shore of the Bay of Islands especially in light of the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs who stood up in this House and said I didn't know what I was talking about with gulls over on the north shore. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation have been invited to meet with all the town councils on the north shore and, to date, there has been no response given. If both ministers want to go over and tell the seven mayors and the mayor from the council of Massey Drive and the residents from Mount Moriah that there are no dead gulls on the road, that there is no dumping on the sides of the roads going up to the dump site - I would say to all the members opposite, they should go out and meet with their residents. This is a very serious issue, a very serious issue. There was a commitment made to have this dump site closed down. There was a commitment made that there would be a regional disposal site, and I gave the minister full courtesy when I met with you - I gave him the same details that you told me, the same details that I told them, exactly what I told them, that if the minister got a regional disposal site area, he should come out and explain the concept to the mayors. This is what I am saying. So, if you want to stand up and say that -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, you did.

MR. J. BYRNE: What are they saying now?

MR. JOYCE: They are still waiting for a date. And the Minister of Environment, they are still waiting for a date. If there is a concept of a regional disposal site, come out and explain it to them. Explain to them why the plan of a regional disposal site is not going to go ahead; explain it to them.

The other concern that they have - just say the minister is correct, just say he is correct. What are you going to do with the traffic concern with the slow trucks going up the side of the road? That is a major traffic concern with the heavy trucks going in and out. That is a major traffic concern for the area. So, it is just not if you can clean up the dump site and get rid of the gulls, get rid of the garbage on the side of the road, there are other issues.

I gave both ministers the opportunity to stand up, and I was fair to everybody here, but for the minister to say that I do not know what I am talking about, that there are no dead gulls over there, it is absolutely false, minister. I just cannot stand and be representing seven communities on the north shore, a community on the south shore, Massey Drive - the Member for Humber East, I am sure, has heard it. I am not sure if he believes everything he hears sometimes, by the way he puts on, but, anyway, I have to say, I am asking: Will you please go out and meet these residents, set a date so we can meet with these residents and get this matter resolved one way or the other? They deserve the meeting. They deserve the information being put forth. Mr. Speaker, I ask the ministers, that as soon as possible, if they would make arrangements for this meeting so that we can get this ball rolling?

Thank you very much.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to rise and present a petition on behalf of the residents and the students of Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove, in the District of Burgeo & La Poile, which I represent.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, concerns the possible closure of St. Michael's Elementary School in the community of Rose Blanche. It is about thirty-two years of age and the Western School Board have given notice that it may have to close this school, but it has not given any particular reason at this point, whether it be for declining enrollments or whether it be because of the physical stature of the building, whether it needs repairs and so on. They are basically proposing, I guess for the sake of economies of scale, of integrating the elementary school kids in Rose Blanche and busing them up the road about seventeen, eighteen kilometres to Grandy's River. This, of course, is very disconcerting to the parents and to the students, given their ages. They are only Kindergarten to Grade 6. In fact, this move was tried earlier with the older students in the community and it has not been working out particularly well for a number of reasons, the travel conditions and the road conditions and so on in the wintertime.

So, I give praise to the school board, at this point, in saying that they have not made a decision without consulting. They at least have looked at it and said it is a possibility. We are going to have a meeting on May 18 to consider where we go from here and make a motion accordingly. Of course, I will be in attendance at that meeting, along with the parents, and we look forward to meeting with Dr. Elliott and representatives of the school board so that the parents of those areas can make their case known and they do - this is not an irrational group of parents, of course. These people are very well thought out in their arguments and they will present these arguments to the school board. We feel confident that once the meeting is over, any consideration of closing St. Michael's Elementary School will only be an afterthought and nothing more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of Grand Bank, particularly those associated with the fish plant in Fortune and the fact that the plant has closed now. They are hopeful, of course, that something else will transpire there and there will be employment opportunities for them. But, of course, what they are hearing is that any interest right now being expressed by an outside party, now that FPI has decided that it is no longer interested in Fortune or the people who work there, they are hoping now that any other interested party would be able to take that plant and run with it and employ the same numbers of people who have been employed there traditionally.

Of course, what we are hearing from one interested party, in particular the Cooke Aquaculture Group, is that in order for them to even make things happen at Fortune - and I have to say, I was surprised when I heard that Cooke Aquaculture is looking at other sites in the Province and not necessarily committed to Fortune, that did raise some concerns by me. When I saw that, I thought it would be an opportune time for the government to ensure that there was a quota of fish provided for Cooke Aquaculture if that would be what it would take to entice that particular company to Fortune so that things could start happening there in under two years. What Cooke Aquaculture has been saying is that if, in fact, they go into Fortune, it will be about two years before we will see any significant activity there that will see employment for the people who traditionally work there.

Mr. Speaker, actually, we had people from nine communities working at the fish plant in Fortune. So it is not just Fortune that is being impacted by the uncaring attitude and position taken by FPI, you have several other communities. When you take people out of a community like Lord's Cove and look at people who traditionally worked at the fish plant or even fished for the product that was supplied to an FPI plant and now there is nothing for them, that has a serious economic impact and social impact on those small communities.

What the petition is calling on is for government to acknowledge 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. Hundreds and hundreds of people on the Burin Peninsula have signed this petition, and not just those who worked at the plant.

Mr. Speaker, I say again, if you have an act of the Legislature, the FPI Act, that in fact gives the government some authority over that particular company, then it also has some control over the assets of that company. Therefore, since quotas are assets, then why would it not make sense for this government to act, using the authority it has, to ensure that those quotas remain in the areas in which they were traditionally processed? That is all we are asking this government to do. With an acknowledgment that the federal Minister of Fisheries has said that fish are a common resource owned by the people, not owned by a company, so why then working together, cannot the provincial government and the federal government ensure that the quota remain in Fortune to be harvested and processed by the people in Fortune?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to petition this government on behalf of the people of Buchans and Central Newfoundland surrounding area. Here we are late into the spring and still no word from this provincial government as to any commitment to upgrading the road on the Buchans Highway.

The Minister of Transportation and Works said in this House, himself, that he has never been over the Buchans Highway. If he wants to go, I can personally drive him over the Buchans Highway. It is actually 100 kilometres off the Trans-Canada from Badger. It is the lifeline for everybody living in Millertown, Buchans Junction and Buchans. I am sure the former Transportation and Works Minister knows, because he did squeak out $300,000 last year to repair the edges of the pavement, but there is nothing from the new minister this year. I was in a meeting on Saturday with the Badger Town Council and they support my quest to petition government to upgrade the Buchans Highway.

We have recently learned that the new mine, Aur Resources, their first plan was to move the shipment of ore through the country on the Abitibi roads to St. George's. We have now learned that the ore now will be transported directly over the Buchans Highway and on to the Trans-Canada Highway going west to St. George's. That is going to take its toll again on the Buchans Highway, as well as the Trans-Canada Highway.

Bearing all of these facts in mind, I do not understand; there is absolutely no rationale. The Transportation and Works Minister is looking like he is not up to the job. He is looking like he is not up to the job. The facts have been laid on the table. I have given them myself, and people from the community and all of the surrounding area have said the same things as I am saying. If you are trying to generate a new economy in Central Newfoundland, and indeed our Province, it only makes sense - it only makes sense - for this government to upgrade the Buchans Highway. There is no good reason why they would not do it. They have the money to do it.

I am hearing now that there is going to be a conference of Premiers coming to Newfoundland and Labrador this summer and they are going to use over $1 million to transport Premiers and their entourage, officials, from St. John's to Corner Brook, to take in dual activities in two cities in our Province, and still there is no money allotted for the upgrades to the Buchans Highway. Now, that is a decision that this government needs to take. Where are their priorities? This government sees no priorities in upgrading the Buchans Highway; yet, it is going to generate millions and millions and millions of dollars for the public purse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have more time tomorrow, I am sure.

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition presented to me by the residents of my District of Carbonear Harbour-Grace, and this particular petition states that we, the undersigned residents:

WHEREAS conditions on Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is in bad need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses, commercial trucks, ambulances and patients going to hospitals through private means; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has deteriorated over the past number of years;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to see that this section of road is brought up to proper standards;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this particular road is deteriorating on a rapid basis. Again, this past weekend, I was in that part of my district and there were more ruts than the week before. With the number of crab trucks, trucks transporting crab out of the area from the fish plants in the neighbouring district, the hammering that the road is getting is just not good enough for what is happening to us right now.

The kids going to school in the mornings, the parents are now afraid to take them on the school buses because of the treacherous conditions that the roads are in. There are ruts there, in some instances, seven and eight inches deep on that particular road.

The pitting of the asphalt, the asphalt is coming loose that was put in there last fall as a temporary measure. That particular pitting is causing further damage, causing damage to vehicles that are travelling over it, not just from my district but from the adjoining districts.

Mr. Speaker, this section of road, I think the importance of it is, it is Route 70; it is part of the Conception Bay North Highway that connects Victoria to Salmon Cove, but it also takes on down through the neighbouring District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. People are travelling that every day to commute back and forth to work. With the crab plant open now in Old Perlican - I am trying to remember where the other fish plant was down there - the two fish plants down in that particular section, there are well over 100 workers from my district travelling down there on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I get calls every day regarding the condition of this particular highway. I ask the government once again that they would take the time to even send somebody down there to have a look at it and see what kind of repairs could be done, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Surely, with the tourism season, the trucking season, the number of people who are travelling there just for work, Mr. Speaker, they have a right to drive over decent road conditions.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask this hon. House to listen to the undersigned residents and to take some action in doing something about this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act." (Bill 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Buildings Accessibility Act was first enacted in December of 1981, and after twenty years it was felt that we needed a comprehensive review. The Building Accessibility Advisory Board presented an extensive review on the building accessibility and the regulations.

Government undertook a consultation process to seek public input on the report and its recommendations. Some of the board's recommendations will be incorporated into the Act and the associate regulations, and will help improve the accessibility in new buildings with relatively little additional expense.

Some of the changes to the Act are ensuring that the voluntary upgrades to improve accessibility in older buildings, which are technically exempt from the legislation, meet appropriate safety and accessibility standards; allowing individuals other than building owners to appeal in inspector's order; improving accountability by requiring the director's decision to be given in writing and having time limits for the hearing of appeals; increasing fines for non-compliance to further discourage people from ignoring the law.

Changes to the regulations will include: ensuring that primary employees' entrances are accessible in addition to a main public entrance of a building if they are different; increasing the number of disabled parking spaces and accessible public telephones; increasing the number of spaces in public areas for wheelchair use and increasing the number of barrier free public washrooms.

There are, however, a number of recommendations that we feel could have a significant impact on some of the sectors of the economy, and for that reason we are going to have some specific discussions with the business community, the construction industry and representatives of persons with disabilities. We anticipate to bring those in in the fall.

These are positive steps we are taking. In fact, we have some of the strongest and best legislation in the country with regard to accessibility.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate on the bill. Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments, I guess, Minister, regarding this Act.

Just looking at Clause 11 of the bill, I am just wondering about the number of persons with disabilities who would be appointed to this board. While you mentioned it was important for discussions with industry, the construction industry and other people with buildings to have some input to what would happen between now and September, I also feel it is very, very important for persons with disabilities to have a strong role in managing this particular act and making sure that their voices are heard on most of the things that would happen, or all of the things that would happen, for the purpose of this act.

It is interesting to note right now, Mr. Speaker, there is a strike going on in this Province in the elevator industry, and it is having a dramatic impact upon, I would say, this act here, the Buildings Accessibility Act, because, as we know, there are new buildings being built here and old building being refurbished. I noticed in the paper last week that there was one particular home in the city that had to put in a two-person lift in their building just so they could transport peoples with disabilities from one floor to the other.

This Bill 8 is indeed a very important act. There has to be some sort of mechanism that would address disputes like this, because it would certainly add more teeth and give this act a greater impact in times of crisis like this. Because it is a crisis, I say to the minister, when we end up with a particular issue like this where people are being inconvenienced with that sort of thing.

It is interesting to note as well, Minister, that this bill would have an impact on buildings that were created before December 24, 1981, when people are in the process of making changes, because the buildings are over twenty-five years old, I guess, is the simplest way of saying it. You know, there are many buildings here in the city right now, where there is a housing boom and apartments being built and renovated and so on, that the doorways and so on do not have any particular measurements that would blend into this act.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, this is a step in the right direction of adjusting some of the things, and I think it is a starting point. After twenty years, Minister, you have taken this on and looked at it, but I do not think it is an ending point either. I think that, as we assess the various needs of our growing elderly population, we need to keep building on this particular act, making sure that those persons with disabilities in this Province are being looked after.

Clause 8 would change the act so that fees payable by an owner of a building can now be paid by his or her agent. I understand there were some problems in the past, where somebody was out of the area or out of the Province, where the fees could not be paid, and that the particular agent of that person was not in a situation or was not allowed to pay those because of the wording of the previous act.

I think that is pretty well all I have to say on this for right now, Mr. Speaker. I have a question that I would like to ask, and it is regarding current members of the tribunal. Will they have the time that they have already served deducted from the new term to be implemented? I think it is two years, I believe, that the implementation period is. If so, this may be - well let's call a spade a spade- a less controversial means of government to get some people appointed to a board that offers paid positions. Bearing in mind, Minister, as I said earlier in my preamble, I would like to see major emphasis on enough positions on that particular board that they would be occupied by persons with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate at second reading?

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words at second reading to the amendments to the Buildings Accessibility Act.

We have heard the minster make reference to the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board which made a whole series of recommendations when it filed its report in 2004. This is not the first set of amendments to the Buildings Accessibility Act. We had amendments last year, of which I was highly critical, Mr. Speaker. The amendments last year, in fact, weakened the legislation by removing the prohibition from occupying a building that had not been inspected and been seen to comply. The current legislation now gives the right to occupy a building if the plans have been approved, whether or not the building has been inspected.

The issue identified in the debate over that amendment, Mr. Speaker, was whether or not the department had enough inspectors, whether they were actually going out and able to inspect buildings prior to them being occupied to ensure that there was compliance with this act.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, that in some municipalities an occupancy permit is required for buildings and for compliance with the National Building Code, whether it be residential or commercial, and the requirements of the Accessibility Act were designed to ensure that, with respect to the occupancy of buildings that the act was subject to, that, in fact, the inspectors will have approved those things before the occupancy took place.

The issue raised then, Mr. Speaker, and I still raise today, and maybe the minister can address this when she replies at second reading, is: Are there enough inspectors to do the job? We had a situation that we described last year in Labrador, of the inspectors having their travel budget cut. They could not travel to Labrador West to approve a building - buildings waiting for inspection. The minister, instead of hiring more inspectors at that time, changed the act to say that inspection was not required before occupancy could take place. That was the easy way out, but also a way that did not ensure that the act was complied with.

What I want to know from the minister now is - what I said at the time was that, if this act passes, the people may never be back to those buildings; the inspectors may never be sent to inspect those buildings and ensure that they comply with the act.

I do not see anything in these amendments here today that changes that. In fact, the legislation here provides for - a new provision providing for an opportunity for people to appeal decisions of the director, which is probably fair enough. I do not see anything wrong with people having a right of appeal if they do not like the rulings made by the director. I am sure there are a number of provisions in this legislation that actually are in the matter of housekeeping, dealing with the definition of persons with disabilities as opposed to disabled, and a number of provisions that ensure that it does not apply to private homes, foster homes, boarding homes, lodging houses, bed and breakfast accommodations, with more than ten boarders.

I have a little problem with the number, Mr. Speaker. Ten is a lot. To have a foster home with ten people, to have a group home with ten people, seems to me to be of a nature that ought to require an accessibility to persons with disabilities. I am not sure I like the notion that someone could have a group home for ten people, or a boarding house, or bed and breakfast accommodations. I suppose ten boarders, guests or lodgers, you could, I suppose, at a bed and breakfast, have four or five couples. That would really only mean four or five places of accommodation. Maybe for bed and breakfasts it is okay, but for a boarding house it seems to me to be pretty big if it has ten boarders in a boarding house, or certainly a foster home with ten guests. It seems to me we are getting into the area of a commercial establishment that ought to comply with the act.

There are some good provisions here: the application to existing buildings. Major changes are being made. Where buildings conformed in 1981 and are undergoing renovations, this alteration to improve the availability and accessibility to the building must comply with the requirements of the act. If changes are being made that stop it from conforming with the requirements, then that person ought to come forward and do it.

I would like to see something a little stronger even. If you are making alterations to a building existing prior to 1981, it really only says you have to comply with the act if you are attempting to improve the availability and accessibility of the building to persons with disabilities. That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, merely to say, well, if you are attempting to provide access to people with disabilities, you have to do so in conformity to the act.

What if you are undergoing a major renovation that has nothing to do with trying to make the building compatible but you have a 1981 building that has been around, obviously, before and did not comply with the act when it was built, but you are going to spend $5 million upgrading the building and you are going to upgrade it for everything except accessibility? Well, my reading of this at a cursory level is that you do not have to comply with the act unless you are actually going to start making it accessible. If you start making it accessible, or try to, then you have to conform to the act, but if you do not bother with that, if you take a building.... I am not using this as an example of a building that is not accessible, because this one is probably fairly accessible, but you take the Royal Trust Building down there on Water Street, built prior to 1981, may or may not have complied with the act at the time. When Fortis bought it, they underwent a major renovation, a major renovation, to a building in downtown St. John's, probably spent $5 million or $10 million on it, but, unless they were actually making it more accessible, they would not have to comply with the act.

I want to know why the minister is limiting the application to old buildings to ones who are actually trying to improve it. Why doesn't the legislation say that we now have a circumstance where a building existing in December of 1981, if it is undergoing a major renovation - and define that somehow, find a way of defining what a major renovation is - that a major renovation should require that the building come under the act and see that the changes that are made are going to not only improve the building and improve its capital value or improve its marketability for tenants but also make it accessible to persons with disabilities? That would be a progressive step. What we are seeing here is a minimal amount of acknowledgment that the act must be complied with if you actually try to improve the building as opposed to the purposes of accessibility. That does not seem to me to be very strong. Some of the provisions are okay, but a fundamental attempt here to say that only buildings where the owner of the building is trying to make the building more accessible, only then do they have to comply with the act. If you do not bother, if you are undergoing major renovations to an existing building but you do not bother to even try to make it more accessible, you are off the hook. That is that way I read it, that you are off the hook totally unless you actually make an attempt to make it more accessible. So, you are rewarding the people who ignore the requirements of the act, and you are saying to the people who try to make their building more accessible: Well, you have to do it to the letter of the law.

Now, I do not have a problem with them doing it to the letter of the law, but I do have a problem with an owner of a building undertaking a major renovation, potentially rebuilding the building, but still gets away with not having to comply with the Accessibility Act because they do not even try to make it more accessible.

I ask the minister - maybe we can have more debate about this during the Committee stage of legislation. It seems to me that this is a wrong-headed type of approach, just as the approach last time was wrong-headed when the minister, through legislation passed in this House in 2004, when the minister brought in legislation that said that you no longer have to have an occupancy permit, you no longer have to require to meet the conditions of the act to get an occupancy permit; all you have to do is submit plans that show that if you build it this way we comply.

That, to me, was creating a major loophole. Instead of increasing the inspection capability, instead of increasing the ability of government to actually ensure that the building is complied, what you did was say: Okay, you go ahead; take it over and occupy it. When we get around to inspecting it, we will.

That was in the same year that they took away the travel budget of the inspectors, so I do not know if they ever got around to inspecting any of the buildings that were required to be inspected in order to be occupied prior to the amendments made last time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, in principle, some of the measures here are improving the act, but that particular improvement is wrong - that one that leaves a loophole for existing buildings - but also the procedure that is now in place where this Buildings Accessibility Act says you can go ahead and occupy a building without meeting the requirements and we may or may not get around to inspecting them later.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my contribution at second reading and hopefully have a few more words to say when we get to the Committee stage in looking at the clauses of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act.

I follow along the lines of my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, in talking about while we are addressing and making a building accessible to persons with disabilities - and I know that all governments have tried to make as many buildings as accessible as possible - you have to wonder sometimes if, indeed, we have gone far enough.

I will just relay a few examples of how I do not feel we have gone far enough and I think that the government should try to push a little harder on this. I agree with a lot of things in the act, but like my colleague just said, the fact of the matter is that any building that is not accessible today to persons with disabilities will never become accessible under the current piece of legislation unless they undergo renovations. I think it says right in the act: Unless the building is to undergo some new renovations - and you have to spend a certain amount of money on that building - then that building remains unaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Besides that, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of incidents here in the City of St. John's that causes me concern, and that is because of an ongoing strike among elevator repairmen and inspectors. That has been going on now for over a year. As a result, there are at least two facilities here in this city that are not accessible to a person - or at least a large part of both of those buildings are not accessible to persons with disabilities. The first one relates to the new seniors facility that exists. I think it is Portugal Cove Road, just behind the Irving station off Elizabeth Avenue. That building was opened just recently, I think in the past year. It is a two or three story building. Yet, persons with disabilities cannot gain access to the second floor of that building because the elevator is there but it has not been inspected. As a result, that company, or the individuals who own that company, are unable to use those elevators to get the residents to the second floor because it has not been inspected.

The other one is a brand new hotel up on Higgins Line or Bells Turn up right here. It is called the Big Six or the Super Eight or something like that. I think, Mr. Speaker, there are eight stories in that building and they have a very similar problem, that the eight floors are not accessible to individuals and persons with disabilities because of an elevator problem. The same problem exists, in that the elevator has not been inspected by a qualified inspector and as a result, under law, that elevator is not to be used. Not only by persons with disabilities but by anybody. I think right now that government has just been hands off approach in a labour dispute. Maybe there are some conversations ongoing but there has to be a mechanism put in place whereby that cannot continue to happen.

There are other incidents, I say, Mr. Speaker, where we have not been vigilant and we have not pushed the envelope on this file far enough when we are talking about access to people or persons with disabilities, and I will give you a couple of examples.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the only residence at the Campus of Memorial University here in St. John's, on the Parkway in St. John's - the only residence that is accessible to an individual who is physically disabled, using a wheelchair - there is only one residence that he can avail of. I do not think that is right, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that Memorial University, the institution of higher learning here in the Province, is not accessible.

The one that really bothers me, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if any of you have really noticed it, but I had the opportunity a little while ago to visit the Department of Health with a constituent of mine, a young gentleman, a very bright, articulate, intelligent individual who was involved in a car accident just after his graduation - it might have been the same night - back some years ago, from my district. As a result, he is confined to a wheelchair. It was because of an accessibility problem that we went to visit the Minister of Health, the predecessor to the one who is there now. What we found on entering the Department of Health, the young man pointed out to me that we came to the doors of the Department of Health on the first floor of Confederation Building, that was accessible and the building is accessible, but the unfortunate thing is - we all know, there are a couple of big wooden doors right there at the entrance to enter that department. There was no way that individual could access, get through those doors because it did not have one of those push bars or push buttons that would open the doors to the lobby of the Department of Health.

I think when you see that you realize very quickly that we have not been doing enough to make buildings accessible. I do not think that any of us have pushed this issue far enough. I think that we should be doing far more. While I am not criticizing the government, because we did what we could at the time as well, I think that we all should stand back or sit back and take a very serious look at trying, at least, especially when we are running surplus budgets, that the least we could do is try and make government buildings and educational institutions accessible; at least with the buildings that we own ourselves or the people of the Province own, at least we should make those buildings as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. I also think that we are somewhat lax in allowing buildings to open with elevators that are installed but not inspected because of labour disputes and that these buildings, to this day, remain unaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words I will sit down.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now she will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members on the other side for their comments. One of the questions that the hon. member raised was the appointment to the board. It is now a fixed two-year term. There will be persons with disabilities on the board. They are eligible for reappointments to the board.

We deal with a number of advocacy groups who work with persons with disabilities, so we do have that experience there. I would like to assure the hon. member that the board is now up for renewal and we will be, in the very near future, appointing new appointees on the board, or even maybe some of the people who are presenting serving could be reappointed.

One of the issues brought up was about the amendment that we made last year to the legislation, and that was the occupancy permit before final inspection. I want to assure the hon. member that there are inspections done on the buildings, and the final inspection is indeed done. The only thing that this provision allowed was the opening of the building before the final inspection, but that final inspection does take place.

Also, the member brought up about the fees paid by the building owner. That is just a more flexible way for the building owners to deal with the government.

I did listen to all of their comments, and I take them very seriously. We are going to be doing further consultations in the fall and we will be having specific discussions with the construction industry and the business community, and persons with disabilities.

On that note, I would like to say that we have some of the strongest and best legislation in the country and we will continue to improve on that legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 8)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act." (Bill 10)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador joined other jurisdictions in Canada to sign on to a passport system of security regulations, and this is eliminating the duplication and the red tape in security regulations.

In total, we have had thirty-four approved harmonized rules with about 3,500 technical requirements and, as a result, there may be some differences with requirements in existing legislation or the regulations.

The amendment ensures that if there is a harmonization rule which has been approved by the minister, and that conflicts with existing legislation or regulation, the harmonization rule applies. This amendment will create less confusion for the people who are working in the industry, like the regulators and the investors, because they will know now which rule applies.

Most of the provinces, with the exception of Ontario, have signed on to the passport system because it does focus on harmonization across the country. Right now, you have to do an application in every jurisdiction, so this will cut out the duplication with this specific amendment.

We are committed to the passport system, and Canada is the only country in the world that does not have a single national regulator, but we felt right now that this is the way to go, that the passport security system is the way to go, because it is focused on harmonization.

The act was amended in 2001 to ensure that our rules kept pace with the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker, on a timely basis, and this government is certainly committed to moving with the passport system.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that we support, generally, the approach being taken with respect to securities in Canada. There is a very good reason why this is one of the only countries that does not have a single harmonized system, because we have a Constitution that says this is provincial power. So what we have, really, is some of kind of co-operation on the national level to ensure that the investment climate in Canada is reasonable and, at the same time, protects investors or protects people who are being asked to invest money in companies or ventures in various provinces, and the idea is that we do not have to duplicate effort across the country.

I have a small problem, Mr. Speaker, with this piece of legislation here. It is a small problem, but I guess it is an important issue. What we are actually doing here is giving the Superintendent of Insurance, or the superintendent under the Securities Act, the power to actually pass a regulation that conflicts with an act, and I think that is a pretty extraordinary thing to do constitutionally. You know, we have legislation in this House that governs things, and the regulations come under the legislation, and the regulations normally have to be in conformity with the act; otherwise, someone goes off to court and makes an argument that the regulations are beyond the power of the act, that the Cabinet, or whoever passes the regulation, has not complied with the act and they have overstated their authority. That is a normal way that the regulations can be challenged. It is also a normal way to ensure that our democracy works and that there is a supremacy of Parliament in making sure legislation is satisfactory.

We are saying here that we have what the minister called a passport system, some kind of fancy word. It has nothing to do with passports, of course. It has to do with passing regulations without conforming, so we will have a national conformity without having to go through each Legislature to do it, so it is an easy way to have harmonized regulations.

I do not really, in principle, have a problem with having an easy method of assuring that there is national conformity, but I have a problem with a regulation that is passed under this legislation staying in force regardless of whether the Legislature meets and considers it. I would say that, in principle, we should not pass legislation like this. We could pass legislation that says that, if there is conflict between the act, the regulation applies subject to the Legislature approving the legislation in the next sitting of the House. If we are going to have regulations that may be in conflict with existing legislation of this Legislature, whether they are in conformity to other province's legislation or not, seems to me to be certainly important from a policy perspective, but from a constitution and legal perspective it is this Legislature that should make legislation.

In my view, you cannot say that the superintendent involved - I think it is the Superintendent of Insurance, but the superintendent responsible for The Securities Act - that person can pass, himself or herself, that the superintendent makes a rule, in fulfillment of an agreement with other provinces and territories, that, if there is a conflict between the act and the rule, that the rule applies. Well, I have a problem with that from a Supremacy of Parliament point of view, and I think that we should look at amending this bill to ensure that any rules so made should have the approval, if they are in conflict with the act of the Legislature, or found to be in conflict with an act of this Legislature, that they ought to be ratified by the Legislature at its next sitting. That seems to me to be a very salutary amendment that should be brought forward, so that the rule of law is respected, that the supremacy of Parliament is respected, and that we don't have public servants, like the superintendent, able to override legislation by agreeing to a rule that is in conflict with existing legislation. That seems to me to be a safeguard that we should have in this legislation, rather than delegating that authority to a public servant who is now going to be, if this legislation passes, able to agree to rules that actually are in conflict with existing legislation of our Legislature, and I think that is wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

I think the whole explanatory note is a bit fuzzy for viewers out there today who might be watching this debate on television. I don't really know what the purpose is of bringing this piece of legislation to our House of Assembly.

As the minister has already indicated, under the Securities and Investment Act in Canada there is no single regulator what the provinces cannot go to for the rules of how to operate within Canada and within their provinces. It is a quasi setup for securities in all of Canada. The provinces have a certain limitation of what they can do with regard to investments in their particular province. When there is an issue that would go override under national jurisdiction, then there has always been a conflict as to who is correct in what decisions would be made in that particular field.

I think we are losing site of the real issue here, and the real issue here is to protect an investment or an investor consumer in our Province, making sure that there are safeguards in place that every piece of security that is bought and sold in our Province follows the regulations designated by the laws under the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When there is a crossover of an institution that sells or buys security outside our Province and offers the same thing within our Province, making sure that the consumer is protected I think is the bottom line that we should be looking at here.

I think what is unusual about this, too, is that the minister has not sited any particular example that would give rise to why this legislation needs to be brought forward to this House at this time. Was it the case of an investment that was sold in this Province and that consumers might have lost money, or was it the case of a company that applied for a permit to sell in this Province and did not meet the guidelines that were issued with the permit by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? What caused the minister, today, to bring in this piece of legislation? Was there a conflict that could not be settled here in our Province on a certain piece of investment? Was there an example of someone selling an investment to a group of people? Was there a class action suit launched where a number of consumers had lost money? Was there a situation where not all the guidelines were followed when a permit was issued to a certain party to sell a particular investment instrument here in our Province?

The fact that Canada still does not have a single regulator of investment securities in our country calls into question that now whenever there is a conflict between a particular province or jurisdiction, that the harmonized rule, you will be allowing some official sitting behind a desk to say: I have looked at both sides of the argument. I have looked at the provincial side, I have looked at the national side, and this is the end result of what I will make a decision on.

The minister has said that we operate on a passport system. Well, that is not entirely true. A passport system would give the indication that a passport is used and this is all about a passport. There is no such thing as a passport in this. It is passing regulations without a single set of regulations, that is what it is all about. There are thirty-four approved harmonized rules, but what about the rules that are not harmonized? What about the rules that this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador makes on its own but gets into a jam whenever a particular investment firm does not comply with the rules as set out? What this piece of legislation will do today, if it is passed, is give an official somewhere the right or the final say in saying that the harmonized rule applies.

I think what is missing from this particular piece of legislation is the assurance that the consumer in this Province is protected. This particular piece of legislation gives the superintendent of investments extraordinary power. It gives the superintendent of investments the last word. In other words, no matter what the situation is, the Province does not have the final word. The Province is now reneging on that power and passing it on to the superintendent of investments and allowing that person to have the final say whenever a conflict or depute arises. This legislation here is relegating someone else to make a final decision. It seems like an unusual piece of legislation. I would like for the minister to stand in her place and give us some indication as to, was there an example or several examples in the past that would bring the Province to this point today? What assurance can she give consumers out there who might be concerned about investment practices in this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now she will close debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their comments.

We are, indeed, giving the superintendent authority to pass a rule that may conflict with the act, but it has to be approved by the minister and it has to be approved by all of the ministers in Canada. So there is a substantial review.

I would like to say that once we have all the harmonization rules agreed on across the country, that we, indeed, will be redrafting this act. So, I would like to thank the hon. members for their comments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, entitled, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities." (Bill 11)

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

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

I am pleased to be speaking to this bill today, and as outlined in the Explanatory Note: "The bill would provide for the delivery of health and community services in the province through regional health authorities whose powers and duties are set out in the bill."

Mr. Speaker, the plan to integrate health services administration at the regional level and to begin building a sustainable and seamless health and community system was highlighted in Budget 2004. In fiscal year 2004-2005, transitional teams were established to ensure a smooth and seamless change in governance from the existing regional board structure to new regional integrated health authorities, and on April 1, 2005, government passed orders pursuant to the Hospitals Act.

Mr. Speaker, it was recognized that the existing legislation, regarding the new authorities, would require amendment or replacement at that time. The existing Hospitals Act was proclaimed in 1971 and, as a result of the reorganization into four regional integrated health boards, it is now determined that the regulations and the act need to be reintroduced as opposed to overhauling it. It was just as well to introduce new legislation as it was to try and overhaul the existing legislation and the existing regulations.

So, that is what is set out here with Bill 11, and I am pleased to say that consultations were held. Mr. Speaker, the bill was reviewed by the four regional health authorities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association. Consultations were also held with publicly funded, as well as privately owned, nursing home boards in the Eastern region. All parties consulted and were supportive of the draft legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words with regard to Bill 11. For those who do not know, basically what Bill 11 does is it allows the government to move forward, which they did two years ago, with health authorities in the Province. In essence, Mr. Speaker, what that meant was the closure of health boards all across Newfoundland and Labrador. I think if you go back to a couple of years ago, you will realize that, at that time, there were probably ten or eleven health boards operating in various regions of Newfoundland and Labrador, very specifically focused on the task at hand, which was delivering health care services in those respective areas.

What we have today, Mr. Speaker, are health authorities, which are four of them that have been established, one here in the Eastern Avalon region, one in the Central Newfoundland region, the Western Newfoundland region and the Northern Peninsula and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, in amalgamating these ten, eleven or so boards in the Province into four particular authorities, of course there was an amalgamation, not only of services but an amalgamation of debt as well. At the end of the day, what we realized was that many of these new authorities that have been now tasked by the government to go out and deliver health care throughout our region, was going to do so with debt that rose above $120 million annually, Mr. Speaker - in that particular year, I should say. That was a substantial amount of debt, which still is on the books. Still on the books, Mr. Speaker, for these boards. They have not been written off by the government. In fact, the complete opposite has happened. Not only have these new boards, new authorities been tasked with the mandate of delivering health care services, but they have also been tasked with the mandate of reducing the service to the point that it is within the budgeted amount that the government provides to them on an annual basis. What that actually means is that in order to reduce the debt from year to year, in order to pay down the long-term debt of many of these boards, the only way that they can do so is by reducing the services that they provide in the respective regions.

Mr. Speaker, that is why today, in the Province, we have issues consistently being raised around the level and the quality of health care services that are out there. I would just like to talk about a couple of those today. While this is a bill that, in essence, allows for the government - although it was done two years ago - to amalgamate and close up health boards and put them under four health authorities, it also gives them the opportunity to appoint members to sit on these boards. They are not elected members, they are appointed. They are there at the whim of the government. They are there to toe the government line, to toe the government policy and to take direction from government. Certainly, being appointed by government does not allow you the same flexibility and the same level of articulation of issues within that board that it would be if you were actually elected. I think we all know that, just from society in general. These authorities are, no doubt, appointed by the government and there are now just four of them. They are four that are incurring debt on an annual basis. They are four that have a long-term debt that needs to be paid down of millions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, as result of it we are seeing changes in our health care system, changes that have been, I would think, reducing the quality of care that a lot of patients have been getting. I can say that because I have talked to a lot of people who are using our health care system in the Province today who feel that the quality of care and the level of care that was there is not there anymore. I would like to talk about that for a few minutes.

Let's look at Stephenville first of all. Stephenville hospital, since day one when this new health authority was formed, have been coming under scrutiny and have been pressured, Mr. Speaker, every single day since this new authority was formed, in terms of what their future would be. They feel threatened by Corner Brook, they feel threatened by the whole health authority process in the Western Region because they feel that the services they have at their hospital are not secure. Those particular concerns have only been fueled by the fact that there have been independent studies, like the Hay Group Report, which indicated unequivocally to government that these services at Stephenville should be reduced, some should be taken out altogether, and it should be scaled back. That was no comfort either, Mr. Speaker - no comfort at all I say - to people who use the health care services in that region.

Although people had those fears and although they felt that under a larger health authority system they may become smothered with the more gigantic services being offered out of the Corner Brook Region, the people of Stephenville obviously took it upon themselves to set up a Health Advisory Committee to look at these particular issues. While government has consistently said, don't worry this is not going to happen or that is not going to happen, what, in essence, has happened, Mr. Speaker? Today, there are eight vacancies for physicians and specialists in that hospital. Eight, Mr. Speaker! There are people being referred to Corner Brook for testing and for appointments with specialists that never ever had to be referred before, simply because they can no longer access that service at the Stephenville hospital.

That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Do I think all that is because we now have four health authorities as opposed to eleven board? Absolutely not! Do I think it is because these health authorities are pressured, Mr. Speaker, to run health care services with escalating deficits? Absolutely, I do! I think, Mr. Speaker, anytime that the pressure of government comes to bear on health care, and boards or authorities, whatever they may be called, anytime they are told to live within their budget means, Mr. Speaker, you know what that means. It means that the level of service being provided to people in a region are going to be reduced, and that is exactly what is happening in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what is happening in Stephenville.

Although the Hay Group report came out and said we should take out the gynaecology services, obstetric services, these people should now be referred to Corner Brook for servicing, and the member stood in her place and said absolutely not, I do not support it and therefore it is not going to happen, well it did happen, Mr. Speaker. It did happen. For one reason or another it did indeed happen. Right now, today, there are eight vacancies in this hospital for physicians and for specialists. Do you think that is not impacting upon the quality of health care in that region? Anyone who thinks that it is not is wrong, because it is. Absolutely it is. Any time you take that many specialists, that expertise, out of your region, it is going to have an impact, and a significant impact. So, have the fears of the people in the Stephenville area been legitimate? Absolutely, they have been legitimate. They have had reason to be concerned, and they had reason to establish their health advisory committee and concerned citizens committee to address these issues, because the very thing they feared from the beginning when government started this process has indeed come true, and that is unfortunate, I say.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at another region: the amalgamation of the Grenfell, Labrador region for health services, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is any secret that the Labrador health board has been challenged in terms of being able to deliver health care services at the budgeted amount of government for quite some time now. Long before the present government took office, when our party was in office, it was the same thing, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions we have had to invest over and above the amounts of money required into the Labrador health board for the continued delivery of service.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when that board amalgamated with the Grenfell board they also took with them a huge, huge, debt, Mr. Speaker - a huge debt - and the government did not write off this debt, allowing these two boards that would not come together to form the Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority to be able to start on a clean slate with the delivery of health care in that region. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in their coming together and merging as one health authority, the very first issue that they were faced with and had to deal with was how are we going to manage the accumulated debt that has been built up in this board? They are still dealing with that issue today, Mr. Speaker, still dealing with it today.

I will acknowledge that government has invested some capital expenditure money into that region, into Labrador City and into Goose Bay, in long-term care - I will be the first to acknowledge that - but investing new capital money, Mr. Speaker, they have not increased the budget for the corporations to be able to accommodate the amount of debt that they are incurring on an annual basis. Now, this year the minister said there would be $60 million in new money that would be allocated to the four health authorities in the Province. To date, as far as I know, and he can correct me when he stands up, none of these health authorities know how much of the $60 million they will, in fact, get for the operations of their health authorities, or they do not know what amount of this $60 million will, indeed, be targeted towards particular services that the government would like them to focus on. So, they do not know what portion of the money will even allow them some flexibility in terms of how they invest it, where they invest it and so on. So, there are two things. To my knowledge, they do not know how much of it they are going to get or where they can invest it.

That brings me back to the Grenfell-Labrador board again, Mr. Speaker, because this is a board that has probably one of the most challenging geographic areas of the Province to service. That has to be recognized, because they provide services to probably, I think right now, maybe about eight to ten isolated communities which have only fly-in, fly-out medical service operations. They are also operating in the North and, as we know in any government department in this Province, providing services in the North are always more costly than they are in other regions of the Province just by the nature of geography and where you live.

Then they have the challenging issues of dealing with three particular Aboriginal groups in that region which have very identifiable health care needs that are specific, in lots of cases, to their culture. I am just going to mention diabetes as one, because we know that diabetes in Aboriginal people, the statistics show us, are far greater than they are in the rest of the population. Therefore, there are different health needs that sometimes are very culturally attached that have to be dealt with through this board as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think that, while it was a board or whether it is a health authority, it is almost irrelevant to the point in that, if these particular health entities - and in this case I am referring to the Grenfell-Labrador entity - has the appropriate money, has the appropriate amount of budget to deal with the services in that area, then people can rest assured that they will get the quality of service that they require, but when that money is not there then there have to be changes.

Those are the kinds of changes that we are seeing right now: changes where we have very little dental services left in that region at all. Out of what was six or seven dentists serving that region back only three to four years ago, I think we have one dentist left there now. We have a number of positions, I would think it is four positions right now, for physicians and specialists that have not been filled at that particular hospital in St. Anthony. We have two internists that have not been able to be recruited for that hospital. For a long time we had a full hospital at St. Anthony that was left with no internist, no doctor of internal medicine. You have a lot of people using that facility, and when you do not have those particular services it is not the quality of care that is required.

Again, do I think that all of this has to do with the fact that we have amalgamated boards? Again, I do not think that, but I think it has to do with the fact that if we are not prepared to put the money in for the delivery of health care in the Province that is required, then we are going to have challenges like this that we are going to be unable to meet. As a result of it, the people who depend upon the service are going to be the ones who are left most in need.

Mr. Speaker, I say that because if there was a very aggressive recruitment and retention program that focussed on communities with hospitals like St. Anthony and like Stephenville, which are the two I just talked about in particular, I think that we would not have the gaps in the services that we have today. I think that we would be able to provide a better service to the people who are in those particular regions.

I also want to talk about the people who are being referred here to our capital city for health care. I understand, and I will be the first to admit, that you cannot have certain diagnostic testing, you cannot have certain surgical procedures, available in every single hospital and every single health authority around this Province. I know the difference in that, I absolutely do. I know, first of all, the population does not warrant it. I know, secondly, that sometimes it is going to be really hard to recruit some of these specialists to those other areas, especially when you are looking at cardiac care and things like that. Mr. Speaker, it is quite understandable that in lots of cases it does not matter what health authority you belong to, you are going to be referred here to the capital city, to the main health care corporation or the main hospital for our Province to have those medical needs tended to. I think people realize that.

Mr. Speaker, the part that always bothers me, and continues to bother me, is the fact that quite often when these people are being referred from one health authority to the St. John's Health Care Corporation for services, that they are being referred there without the adequate resources to access the treatment they need, and I mean that from a financial perspective. I would rest assured that I am probably not the only MHA in the House of Assembly today who have had constituents call me after they have had open-heart surgery and are being released from the hospital and have no money to get home. I bet I am not the only MHA in this Assembly who have taken calls like that. I bet there are a good many more.

Mr. Speaker, in lots of cases when these people are brought to St. John's for medical treatment they are done so as emergency cases and they are air-ambulanced here. Then, once their procedures are done and they are well and are able to go home, they do not have the financial resources to be able to get home, to buy the plane tickets they need. That is really unfortunate; in fact, it is so sad. I do not think that any individual in our society should have to endure that. I think that if the main hospital and the main services are going to be built up in the St. John's region for the benefit of all people in the Province, than they should be able to access those services at an affordable rate, and that means whether you have money in your pocket or not, you should be able to get the treatment you want and be able to get home from the hospital and not have to be calling up the clergy, or the social worker, or your MHA, or a family member, begging for some money to be able to get yourself home from hospital. Mr. Speaker, that is unnecessary, it is degrading and it is sad that people in our society actually have to do that, and I have beared witness to it on many occasions, which is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to do is that while we are investing more and more in the services in the St. John's region, we also have to invest more and more into the transportation program that allows people to be able to get to hospital. That is what we need to do, Mr. Speaker, we need to invest in that.

I have a situation right now - well, I have a number, but I am just going to give you one. One case right now where a young child from my district has been diagnosed with cancer, has already spent two-and-a-half months in St. John's. Her parents have had to take leaves of absence from their jobs. They are living at a hostel over next to the Janeway. Mr. Speaker, do they get any subsidy for this? Absolutely not! They have to pay for all of this out of their own pockets. They will spend the next six months in the city, living in a hostel, while their child gets the treatment that she is required. Do you know what the good thing about all of that is, Mr. Speaker? Is that they actually have somewhere to bring their child to get the treatment. They actually have somewhere to bring their child where there are specialists that know what they are doing and know how to provide the kind of care that is required for a disease like this in a small child. That is where they are very fortunate, Mr. Speaker. Where they are very unfortunate is that for eight months, while they take leave from their jobs to care for their child, they have to live in a hostel and pay $35 a night and have to feed themselves through that whole period. Mr. Speaker, they are not able to claim back any subsidy. They are not having any drug coverage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is my - I know Your Honour knows this and it is just an oversight, I am sure. It is my understanding that the Opposition critic speaking immediately after a minister introduces a bill, in fact, has an hour of speaking time. You might want to check that out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Government House Leader is 100 per cent correct and the Chair apologizes to the member. She does have an hour, being the critic for that particular department.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not a problem. I am sure it is just an oversight on your part.

As I saying, I was talking about an incident of a child from my district who is actually at the hostel. I was talking about, for eight months they will pay somewhere around $35 or $40 a night to stay there without any coverage from the Province in terms of being able to pay for that expense. I actually heard one of my colleagues say: Well, that's not very much money. It is a lot of money -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is right (inaudible) years ago. It is about $50 now.

MS JONES: Oh, is it? He just informs me that it was too cheap and it is about $50 now. I know that it is substantially high and I know that it is out of reach of what this family can afford. I also know that they are not getting it paid for by any provincial government program.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I find so unfortunate, because now in my district, they are not only constantly raising money and having fund raisers to buy airline tickets to get people out to the hospital, but they are also now raising money to be able to ensure that families, who have to go there to have treatment, are able to pay for their expenses while they are there. So, almost on a weekly basis money is being raised to cover the expenses of people who have to come to St. John's to get the health care services that they require.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I, indeed, have a problem with that and it does not matter to me if you are driving from the Burin Peninsula, from Placentia Bay, from Burgeo or flying here from up in Cartwright. I think that if you have to come here to access the service, then you should be able to be eligible for the financial resources you need to be able to do it. No person should have to be medevaced here to have an emergency surgical procedure and three days later have to call up someone to try and find enough money to get an airline ticket home. That should not be happening. That should not be happening, nor should any person whose child has to come here to get medical services and they have to be staying in an apartment or in an hostel with no subsidy, nor should they have to be depending upon charity and fund raisers in communities to pay for their costs. Mr. Speaker, not because the communities do not want to do it, because they are very, very, very generous.

In fact, the volunteers who do this are very generous. In fact, I had an e-mail from a lady about a week ago. She said to me that she had been a volunteer all of her life, and she said: I have finally decided that I have to take a break because I am stressed out. As a volunteer, she said, I am stressed out. I do not work a day job but in the last month, she said, I have organized three fund raisers for three different families in my community who have to go to hospital, who have to access the services of the health care system in our Province. For a full month she spent organizing fund raisers for three different families, to the point where she felt that she was burnt out, where she felt that she no longer had anything left in her to give and needed to take a break because she was completely stressed. Mr. Speaker, that is a very sad, sad, story, isn't it? It is a sad story because not only the people who are accessing these health care services in our Province, not only are they depending upon charity of communities and people that they know, but they are depending upon these volunteers as well to help them when they need it the most.

When you have volunteers like that, who are writing you and saying that I am burnt out and I have just spent the last month raising money for three different families in my community who have to go out to St. John's to see a specialist, to see a doctor, to have a surgical procedure, and I cannot do this any more because it is very stressful and I just cannot do it any more, that is very sad.

I actually felt for this woman. I actually felt for her because I know her personally. I know that in her heart she has been doing this all of her life and she has been doing it because she wants to do it, because she wants to be able to give something back. It is very sad that, all of a sudden, she feels that she is so stressed and that her own health is compromised from being out there working, trying to help others.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is a health care board or whether it is a health authority, I guess the only difference is, is there money going to be saved at the upper management level? At the end of the day, it does not really change a lot of the issues that are facing patients in our Province.

Let's talk about those patients out there who require drugs on a day-to-day basis and cannot access them. I talked in the House of Assembly about people who are Multiple Sclerosis patients in our Province not being able to afford their medications because they are ranging between $2,000 and $2,200 a month, which is out of the price range that most normal, average families can afford.

The minister seemed to think that the drug program was fine, that there was going to be an increase to a salary level of $30,000 a year and they should just apply and access it. Well, the truth is that once your income goes over $30,000 a year you are not eligible anyway, but even when it is under $30,000 a year you are only eligible for a portion of coverage. It is not full coverage for a patient who needs medication; it is partial subsidy towards that medication. I think that should be clarified.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the drug program does not fall in line with other government programs that offer up subsidies. If you were to apply to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - and I do not know if there is any money there now; I understand the Harper government just cut the low-income housing program - if you were to apply to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, you are eligible even if your income escalates to $40,000 a year, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. Even if it goes up to $40,000 a year, you are still able to qualify as a low-income earner to be able to get work done on your home.

If you owe money to the government, Mr. Speaker, like school taxes, like the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people in our Province received bills for this year, from the hon. Minister of Finance, received bills that dated back twelve and fourteen years ago for a school tax that might have been $200 that, with interest today, would have escalated to $2,500 or $3,000. Well, if you were to go to the Department of Finance to try and have some of your debt written off, as a person who owed the government money on their school tax, well, what would happen there, Mr. Speaker, is they would look at your income and if you income was under $39,000 a year you would be eligible for some interest relief. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the standard for housing. What I just outlined is the standard if you owe money to the government, and now, Mr. Speaker, if you are sick, if you are ill and you require medications, and you have a chronic illness or disease and you require medications, Mr. Speaker, you are only eligible as long as your income does not go over $30,000 a year.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are different standards for different programs in which the government decides if you are a low-income earner or if you are not. I have a problem with that. I think there should be one standard when it comes to assessing based on income by the government for all of these programs. I think they should look at that, and I strongly advise them to look at that.

Getting back to the drug program, Mr. Speaker, the Multiple Sclerosis Society last week confirmed the information that I had raised in the House of Assembly. They confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that indeed there are 600 people in our Province today diagnosed with MS who do not receive the medications that they require. They do not receive those medications, Mr. Speaker, simply because they cannot afford them; simply because they cannot afford them. Six hundred people today, Mr. Speaker, out there in our Province, are going without medication, who have a chronic disease. They are going without medication because they cannot afford to access it.

Mr. Speaker, that may be acceptable to some people. It is certainly not acceptable to me, I say, definitely not acceptable to me. Do you know the other thing that is not acceptable to me, Mr. Speaker? The hundreds of these patients who are purchasing their medications today who are doing so with every last cent that they have, every last cent that they have.

I told you before about a family whose income is $2,800 a month. Twenty-eight hundred dollars a month, Mr. Speaker, and this lady's medication is $2,100 a month, but, because it allows for $700 a month for her, her husband and her two children to live on, she is not eligible for drug coverage, not even partial drug coverage. She is not eligible, Mr. Speaker. Once her income hits $2,800 a month then she has to spend $2,100 of it on her medication. The rest of it is used to provide for her two children, her and her husband.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is acceptable. I honestly do not think it is acceptable. I really do not. I think that these people earn, work hard to earn, this money and they are people who do not mind paying their way in society, Mr. Speaker. They pay their way every single day in society, and they are glad to do so, Mr. Speaker, but when you know that the only way that you are going to be able to live long enough to watch your children grow up is if you take every single cent that is in your family and you buy this medication every single day to keep yourself going, that is a very sad story. That is a very sad story.

I think that if the government was going to invest, it needs to invest in a drug program that allows for all of the residents in our Province - even the 600 out there with MS today who are going without drugs - it allows all people to access drugs and medication as they require them to deal with their illness.

I also raised the issues around psoriatic arthritis, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that physicians at the Health Sciences Complex are telling me today there are 150 patients who have been diagnosed who are going without treatment, 150 patients right now today who have been diagnosed with this illness, who are going without proper treatment, and they are going without that treatment simply because they cannot afford it. Do I think that is acceptable? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker!

It will be interesting to see how the amalgamation of health boards into health authorities, as we see through this bill today in the House of Assembly, is going to raise its head to deal with some of these issues that I have outlined already, because, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is going to change a thing. Whether it is a health board appointed by the government in ten regions of the Province, or a health authority appointed by the government in four regions of the Province, do I think it is going to come to bear on the level of service that people are getting in Stephenville or St. Anthony today? Do I think it is going to make a difference to that woman in Harbour Breton who is not getting her medication today? Absolutely not!

What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks, is how much money the government saved by amalgamating health boards? What was the amount of money saved from the amalgamation of health boards into health authorities? How many people were laid off from their jobs? Maybe he can tell me that. He can tell me how much money they saved, he can tell me how many people were laid off from their jobs, dismissed with their pink slips, as a result of the amalgamation, and then, Mr. Speaker, maybe he could tell me where the savings have been invested? Was it the $60 million he announced in the Budget this year, because I thought that was money transferred from the federal government? I would like to know how much was saved and where it has been invested? Where specifically has this money gone? Is it the amount that went back to the health boards, the $10 million or $12 million, I think, last year? Maybe it was that amount. I do not know. Maybe he can tell us, and maybe he can tell us how the health authorities have improved health care in the Province, because what I see, Mr. Speaker, is completely opposite.

Let's talk about the new equipment that was in the Budget for the cancer treatment units for a minute. It is going to be a full year before the bunkers are built. I am assuming the equipment is on order, I do not know. I am assuming it is on order, because as I understand this equipment has to be built, so it is a very long process and it probably takes a year to fill the order. Maybe a year from now, maybe a year and a half from now, we could actually see that new radiation equipment installed at the Health Science Centre here in the city.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime what happens? We have had one unit over there, it has been broken down for almost two years, and the minister knows that. It has been broken down more than it has been operating for the past two years. We also know that the new equipment that is going to come in, this new equipment is only going to replace the old equipment. It is not an expansion of services, as the government would like you to think when they bring down their Budget. It is not an expansion of services, indeed it is not, it is a replacement, Mr. Speaker, it is a replacement of the equipment that has been not functioning for the last two years to provide for the treatment of cancer patients in the Province. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we have a backlog today. We are going to have a backlog in the foreseeable future unless the equipment is up and running. As it stands right now, that is probably going to be a year down the road.

Has the health authorities amalgamation improved any of that situation? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has at all. I certainly do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it has improved accessibility for people in our Province.

I talked to a woman just the other day who tells me, that because of her husband's illness they may have to relocate to St. John's for probably the next year. Is the easy on people? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker! Can most of them afford it? No, and a lot of them do not come. Even a study with the Cancer Society that was done almost two years ago in partnership with the University - and I forget the name of the professor who did it now, but I remember the study quite clearly. It outlined, Mr. Speaker, that one of the biggest challenges that they face is that people cannot afford to access the service. That is why the number of people being diagnosed with cancer quite often opt for other procedures or opt not to do the treatment simply because they cannot afford to come here to St. John's. Again I raise that issue and I ask: Have the health authorities done anything in terms of being able to address those particular issues? Whether it was a board or an authority, I do not think so.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the only question that remains in bringing in this new bill - in fact, as everybody in the Province knows, the government went out two years ago and established health authorities and closed down the health boards in the Province. Anyway, two years later we now have the legislation here on the floor of the House of Assembly for debate. We know that much. We also know that the health authorities are going to be appointed. They are going to be appointed by the government, they are going to be hand-picked, hand selected in various regions of the Province to sit on this board and take direction from the government to carry out government policy, Mr. Speaker. That will be the level, I guess, of public support that will be given to the process: None, no public interaction, Mr. Speaker. Nobody gets to vote on who sits on their health board. If the government appoints a full board of people who want to sit there for three years, say nothing about health care and raise no issues about health care, then that is indeed, I guess, what will happen. I would like to think that will not happen, because I would like to think that a lot of these individuals, many of whom I know, who are appointed will think little of the fact that they are appointed or elected, but will mostly think of the fact that they have a job to do and they will do it appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, we now have the legislation. We are two years out and in that two-year period, I would like to know when the minister stands, how much money has been saved by the amalgamation of health boards in our Province, how many jobs have been lost, how many people were displaced from their work in the Eastern region, in the Burin Peninsula, in the Avalon region, in the Western region, in the Northern Peninsula, in the Labrador region, how many people who work for these health boards have been laid off, and also where the money is being spent?

I know a lot of the money announced in the Budget last year was federal health transfer dollars. I know some of the money this year is federal health transfer dollars, not new investments or money by the provincial government, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he can clarify that, break down the amounts and tell me where it has been invested.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the bill itself and health authorities themselves - I have met with a lot of the health authorities in the Province and there is no doubt they have a huge responsibility and they have a huge mandate. What makes their job even more challenging and even more difficult is the fact that they not only have to deliver health care services to large geographic areas and sparsely populated regions and have trouble with recruitment and retention of specialists and physicians, but they also have to deal with escalating deficits. They have to deal with an accumulated debt that they inherited as a health authority when they amalgamated, and they have to also deal with annual deficits that they are running. Mr. Speaker, they have not got an easy job, there is no doubt about that, and I don't underestimate the job that they have. I think that in order for them to fulfil the real mandate of delivering proper health care services to the various regions of this Province, they have to be ensured that they are supported by the government, both financially as well as from a policy perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say I have not seen that, because when all of these health boards closed up the decent thing to have done, in bringing these boards together under one authority to carry out the responsibilities of health care in the Province, would have been to erase the debt and let them start off with a clean slate. It is unfortunate that did not happen, because as a result today it is the people in the Province who are going to suffer. That is the sad part of it, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have paramedics out on the street today in St. John's, because the health authority does not have the extra money to hire a couple of units that they need, a couple of more individuals to support the paramedic team here in the City of St. John's. That is why, Mr. Speaker, you have communities in this Province having fundraisers every night of the week to get someone to hospital, because the resources are not provided by the government to get them there. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have hundreds of people out there in the Province today going without the medications they require, because the subsidies are not there to allow them to access those medications on an affordable basis.

Do I think the job of the authorities is an easy one? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker! I think it would be and could be made easier if they didn't have to deal with writing down the debt as they continue with the delivery of service. That is where I have a problem, Mr. Speaker. That is where I have a problem. If you go back to when the previous government amalgamated boards in the Province, they cleaned the books. They wrote off the debt for these health boards and they said: You are going out there, you are starting new, we are going to take care of the debt and you go out and deliver the health care services for the region.

When the government opposite amalgamated the boards, they did not do that, Mr. Speaker. Instead, they said: You take your $120 million or $130 million of debt that you have accumulated as health boards in the Province and you figure out how you are going to write that debt down.

The only way that you can write it down is by cutting services to people. I know that, and I have to say I am sure all the hon. members on the other side know that. The only way is to cut services to people, and whether that is taking doctors out of the system, nurses out the system, specialists out of the system, charging more for the service that they get, like ambulance fees, for example, we have seen escalate in the Budget of 2004-2005 by the government opposite, those are the only options, Mr. Speaker, that these boards have. They either have to charge you for the service they are giving you or they have to cut the service. That is not too difficult to understand. Ask the people of Stephenville. It is not too difficult to understand because that is, in essence, what is happening. Whether it is well intended or not intended at all, that is, indeed, what is happening.

Services are being reduced to people in this Province. Not only are they not affordable to a lot of people, but even those who can access them, the services are being reduced. They are being reduced to people. Anybody who uses the health care system today will attest to that, Mr. Speaker. They will. We have more and more people using the health care services in the Province today than probably we ever did. We only have to look at our statistics on heart disease, our statistics on colorectal cancer, Mr. Speaker, probably the largest statistic per population of anywhere else in the country. Why? Because it is a genetically-related disease, for one reason. Mr. Speaker, there are diseases that are unique and are far greater, growing far more rapidly in this Province than in other regions of the country based on population, and that puts more demands on the services that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is almost up, and I am sure that there are other people here who would like to speak to this particular bill because it is an important bill. Anything that has to deal with health care in this Province is important to the people, to the people who use it.

Mr. Speaker, my only point today is just to say to the government that, while you might be doing some things that are right, and while you might be doing some things that I can certainly applaud, do not think that it is all done because it is not. Do not think that there are not still needs out there in our health care system, because there are. Do not think that people are not struggling, because they are, and some of them are struggling when they are at the most vulnerable time in their lives, when they are at the sickest time in their life, when they are actually fighting for their life, Mr. Speaker. That is the truth, and that is when some of them are having the most difficult time.

So, while the government has made some efforts to bring in new equipment, to put more money into capital infrastructure to build some new hospitals, you know, I just want you to remember that there are still a lot of things that need to be done. Some of these things are little things that affect people in a very big way, because people feel like they are on their own when it comes to trying to access some of these services.

I leave that with the minister today so that, in reflection, I am sure that he will see there are still some gaps in our health care system, and some gaps that will desperately need his attention as the minister and the government's attention over the next while, Mr. Speaker. Whether you have health boards or health authorities is probably going to be irrelevant. The issues are there and they definitely need the attention of the government in order to get resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that will conclude my comments today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not see the member standing, so the Chair recognized the Member for Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just stand to have a few words on this bill.

As my colleague just mentioned, it is mainly the realignment of the boards in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This was done several years back to improve the health care services and to improve the services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, I have to stand in this House and question, where are the services being improved?

I see the Member for Port au Port sent out a press release that I voted against the Budget. I am not even sure if he was in the House when the vote came down to vote for or against that, but yet you had time to send out a press release. So, great for your concern. Who wrote it for him? Because he was not in the House to vote for or against it, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Port au Port, I am glad that he is concerned, because I will just tell you why I voted against the Budget just concerning - we are talking about health care. You talk about the long-term care facility. Are you aware that the Premier committed to have the long-term care facility built in 2007? Are you aware of that? Are you aware now that the Minister of Health, in Estimates in this House, said it will not be built now until 2009, with a wait list out in Corner Brook? I mean, these are the reasons why I have concerns when you go out and make personal commitments.

Mr. Speaker, here we are now, we see an extension of another floor to the long-term care facility. That is good news. That is absolutely good news, and the minister himself saying it is going to take a bit longer on the design of it. It is going to take a bit longer, maybe not the opening date but on the construction date. That is good news, but the negative news, I say to the Member for Port au Port, this is why you have to pay attention. This is why you have to stay on top of the issue instead of having someone write up a press release and sending it out. The eighty dementia units that are being built, forty of them now are being cancelled. Forty of the eighty dementia units that were being built to house the people with dementia, who are in our system right now in Corner Brook, are going to be taken and put in a long-term care facility so there is no gain of beds.

I raised the issue on numerous occasions. I raised the issue in the Estimates. I raised the issue with the minister personally. Yes, I give the minister credit, the minister said that, yes, I will bring it back. I will investigate the number of beds and make sure there are a number of beds being allocated. I wasn't aware that these were the number of beds that were being allocated. It wasn't a suitable number and the minister did do it, but what he forgets to add now is that, somewhere along the line, someone ordered him to cut forty dementia units. So, I am supposed to stand up here now and vote for that? Am I supposed to stand up here in this House of Assembly and say oh, what a great thing for Corner Brook?

It is great to have an extra floor. It is excellent. I admire you for it. The Member for Port au Port, when you said I am against the long-term care facility, I ask the Member for Port au Port: Are you aware there wasn't one cent in this Budget for the dementia unit for Corner Brook, not one penny for the dementia units? Yet, the announcement was out in Corner Brook how they are building dementia units, building, what is it, eighty, enough for eighty units? The big announcement out in Corner Brook, which is good news, but when you come down and see their Budget, there is not one cent in the Budget for dementia units, not one penny. Then, when the Premier was out in Corner Brook, I am sure he got the word back himself from others in the Health Care Corporation, and I am sure he got it from the minister, because I know the minister was concerned when it was brought to his attention. I brought it to his attention but he turned around and went up. The only draw they had to do was cancel the forty dementia units, to build on another floor. And I am supposed to stand up and say: Thank you very much. That is what I am supposed to do here.

I look at the funding to reduce wait times in the Western region. Have the wait times gone down? Absolutely not! Go ask the people who have to go through it: Are the wait times taken down, with all the big announcements, with all the funding in health care, with the realignment of the boards? Have the wait times gone down? Absolutely not! How about out in the emergency units? Have the wait times gone down in the emergency units? I am talking about where they have to put down enough times, the emergencies, so people can get in and be seen in a respectable time.

I had a call, and it was a letter in the paper in the Corner Brook area about a lady who brought her daughter up there and waited almost six hours. I think it was six hours waiting to get in there. There were people walking around and her daughter was still there waiting and waiting and waiting. She was so upset that she even wrote a letter to the Editor. She even wrote a letter to the Editor because with all the announcements and all the big hullabaloo about the health care in Corner Brook, about all the expansion going on, all the new funds, but yet the reduction in services is still diminishing.

I know my colleague, the Member for L'Anse au Clair, brought up the debt on the boards; a big issue. It is a major issue for the board out in the Western region. Here is what is happening out in the Western region. Fine, there was some money put in there last year to reduce some of the debt across the Province, but here you are, you have a certain amount of debt - and we can always argue and say: Well, who gave them the debt? That is fine. We can always say it was your fault, but the problem that you are running into is that here you are, put the boards, put all the debt together, and I know out in the Western region they have a debt now, and they are saying: Okay, you have to live within your budget. Now go service the debt and bring the debt down. There is only one way to do that, and that is to reduce services. That is the only way to do it. You speak to some of the board members out there in Corner Brook privately and they will tell you about how the services are being reduced out in the Western region, and they have absolutely no control.

Even in this act, Mr. Speaker, with the health authorities - here is what is in the act: The minister may approve or disapprove a budget submitted under subsection (1) or may approve a budget subject to changes to it required by the minister. So, who has total control? The minister. He appoints the board members, tells them what he can. He appoints them and if he does not like them, he can ask them to be removed without - and it is in the legislation - any repercussions or any act against the government. He can abolish them; he can take them out.

We look at the Hay Report in Corner Brook, this is one thing that got my craw. Here we were out in Stephenville, the Minister of Education now, the Member for Stephenville East got up and she was out there saying: Oh, no, the Hay Report is not going to go ahead. I cancelled it. Everybody in this Province thought the Hay Report was cancelled. Guess what? There are still seniors on the list to be moved outside the region because there are no beds, expect one. There was one there about three weeks ago when the Minister of Justice himself stepped in because his staff were caught on tape, saying: Oh, no, this has to change. I guess we need a tape for the minister these days, too. We know he has it on his staff out there and that is why the decision was changed. Yet, the Hay Report is gone only because the minister's staff were caught on tape saying: Oh, no, the minister disagrees with this decision. It is going to change. In the next little while though, what happens? They found a bed. Minister, it is good to have a tape around you these days and around your staff. I must say, it helped the seniors in Corner Brook this time, I have to say.

I look at the respite beds - and this is one thing I have to thank the minister on. It is too bad you put the people out in Corner Brook through the stress. The two respite beds that were in Corner Brook, the beds were taken and used for people who needed a bit of respite for a day or two, or for a weekend who had caregivers at home. Guess what? Because of the shortage of beds because they did not want to open other beds, they were closing down the respite beds. So if a person who is a caregiver, and in one or two cases this person was a caregiver for her husband at home, wanted to keep him home, needed a week, needed a break, needed to go visit her children, could not do it because the respite beds were shut down.

Now this is where I give the minister a bit of credit. The minister understood the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: Only a Tory government could do that.

MR. JOYCE: Only a Tory government could do that.

The minister understood the issue, understood the problem, and the minister hearing me in the Estimates did put a halt to it, or found some way to get around it. This person involved, I asked that the minister call her personally and the minister did do it. So I do give credit that when the issue was brought, especially this issue, to the minister's attention he did change it. I thank the minister for that but it is too bad that it has to get to that situation where you have to go to the media, poor families in the media almost begging to keep a bed or two open out in the region, too bad it has to get to the political side, but if it got to the political side, I am just glad that it was resolved in a satisfactory way.

We look at the other issues out in Corner Brook. We always have to ask ourselves: Are their services being improved because of the realignment of these boards? Are their services being improved? You go out and ask a lot of people in Corner Brook: Have the wait times gone down? Absolutely not! Have the wait times in the emergency wards gone down? Absolutely not! I guess what we have to ask the minister - although there may have been some equipment put in, which is great news. The hospital board foundation does a great job out in Corner Brook for raising funds for equipment needed in the hospital. You have to give the hospital foundation their due. The question is: If you put equipment in a hospital or any facility are you supplying the necessary staff to ensure that this equipment is being used to its maximum?

We know that the Hay Report - anybody who has read the Hay Report - was recommending reduction in staff in the Western region. The question is: Has the Hay Report been implemented? We know a section of it is still going ahead, but what has been done? Under the secrecy of the government, now we do not know. Stephenville was supposed to have certain parts cancelled, Corner Brook was supposed to have it cancelled. That was not done. It is just picking and choosing, I guess. If you know the Member for Humber East, or if you have him on tape or something you have a chance to get something changed. I guess that is what we have to do.

When you had the realignment of the boards we were all hoping to see some positive changes. With the changes that are happening now in the Western region there are not a lot of positive changes. The minister can stand up with this new bill, but I can assure you, that the health care services in the Western region are definitely not at the level that was committed to back in 2003-2004 with the realignment of the boards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. COLLINS: Well, I wouldn't say that is where I got the edge over you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 11, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities.

I would like to start of by saying that the people who serve on these boards around the Province, the people who have been asked to serve, are volunteers who have given up a lot of hours of their own free time in order to sit on these boards to represent not only the people of the area but their friends and neighbours who they live close to. So, these people are doing the best they can and I think it is important that we recognize them for the amount of work that they put into their responsibilities serving as a member of the health care boards.

I remember, before the advent of the health care boards in the Province, where, in the hospital in Labrador West, we had our own set-up and we had a surplus in our local hospital fund. We had a sizable surplus, as well, and then we joined the Labrador Regional Board and, of course, that wasn't the case there. They were running a fair size deficit and our surplus got swallowed up in that. With that, too, I have to say, a lot of the autonomy and the authority that we had locally, control over the hospital, we suddenly lost that to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where the regional board was set up.

So, there have been a number of changes over the years that have impacted negatively on certain areas of the Province who, prior to the advent of the health care boards, could handle their own affairs. Mr. Speaker, now we have a broadened mandate for the people who are responsible for providing health care service to the people of this Province, and the challenges that go with that broadened territory are certainly greater than they were before, and I am certain that the members who serve on these boards are spending much more time now facing the new challenges and devoting a lot of energy in trying to come up with solutions to the ongoing problems that they experience.

Mr. Speaker, I know, and we have heard previous speakers here today talk about, some of the challenges that are involved in delivery of health care in this Province with our huge geography and small population. It is a challenge in almost every area of life that we have to provide services in, and health care is no exception.

I want to talk a bit about the travel policies that are in place, and I discussed this with the minister and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair addressed it in her response as well. Mr. Speaker, these problems have been going on for a long time. I can remember standing here over the last seven years, on a good many occasions, and talking about the need for a more comprehensive and a fairer system to allow people who live in remote areas of this Province to get access to the major centres where the health care delivery takes place for the most part.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall, too, people who came out by way of air ambulance and were released from the hospitals not having any money in which to purchase a ticket to get home, and it becomes a real issue for MHAs in rural areas to try and help people when they are dealt with situations such as this. There is a lot of fundraising that goes on in a lot of communities around this Province to help their friends and neighbours when they are faced with a situation where they do not have the money to travel for health care, or they do not have the money to return once they receive it.

I suggested to the minister, and I want the minister to look at this, the fact that government has a subsidy in place now whereby people can apply and get reimbursed. The first $500 is deductible for the first trip in any year, and after that deductibility then they are eligible to receive 50 per cent of other eligible expenses, such as hotel and lodging.

What I want the minister to look at, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to him, is that, for people who do not have the ability to come up with the cost of a plane ticket to come out, then there should be an arrangement made with the respective airlines that they travel with for government to reimburse the airline of what they will have to pay the person anyway if they buy their tickets and actually get to travel for medical reasons.

That would ease the burden considerably, Mr. Speaker. It would ease the burden considerably, on a lot of people in this Province who do not have the means right now to just walk up to an airline counter or call their travel agent and book a ticket and come out to see a doctor. I think that the minister needs to look at this very carefully and see if these people who find themselves in a position like this, see if they can be accommodated, because it does place a lot of stress on a fair number of people in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this past Budget calls for the building of a new health care facility in Labrador West. I say again, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, when the people of Labrador West received this news they were joyful over the event that we were finally going to get a new health care facility that we have been crying out for, for a long, long time, Mr. Speaker, for many years now. We are hoping that, by having a new facility, it will increase and enhance our ability to attract more doctors to the area, because previously, Mr. Speaker, and currently, one of the challenges that the people who were doing the recruiting for doctors to work in our hospital was the fact that, after they came and viewed the facilities, very few wanted to stay there and work in an environment such as the old hospital, or the current hospital, offers. That was a problem for people who were doing recruitment.

It is hard, Mr. Speaker, and I understand it is difficult, not only in this Province but indeed right across this country, to have the number of doctors that we require. It is a difficult task and a difficult job for any area to attract and retain doctors. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to take a new approach. We have to take a different approach than we have in the past when it comes to the training of physicians in our Province. I think we have to take into account, Mr. Speaker, that if we were able, and if we provided a break up front for a lot of medical students, then they would choose to stay in this Province the same as other people in trades. If the work was there, they would not to move out west; they would stay here and enjoy their lives like the want to.

One of the interesting things that is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that the chance of getting doctors to move and stay in rural areas is if that is where they are from in the beginning. If their hometowns, if they grew up and were raised in a rural setting, and they went on to study medicine, they are more likely to move to a rural area, be comfortable there, and to enjoy working among the people they grew up with. I think that is the area that we have to concentrate on, and do more in the way of training more local doctors in this Province than we are today, and to give them the break up front so that they are not faced with this tremendous amount of debt when they graduate so that they have to go wherever they can get the most money in order to pay off their debt and get on with their life.

That is the challenge that this government is going to face over the next couple of years. I certainly encourage them to promote the School of Medicine at Memorial University, to be used first and foremost for training doctors to meet our own purposes, to meet our own needs, so that we do not have to be faced, each and every year, with trying to get qualified physicians to come and stay in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we also have another problem in this Province with health care, a critical shortage of orthodontists. The minister can correct me, but my information is that we have a total of six orthodontists in our Province, and none of them, with their schedules and for other reasons, I guess, come to Labrador West. Right now we have a large number of, particularly children, who need orthodontic work who are not going to be able to get that done simply because we do not have the services of an orthodontist coming to the area. We can go to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, people can take their kids there, but there are very, very few people who live in Labrador West who are going to be able to afford the cost that is associated with that. The orthodontic work itself is very, very expensive, and if you had to purchase a couple of airline tickets to go to Goose Bay each and every time you had to see one, that is beyond what most people can afford.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have again taken this issue up with the minister and ask him to look at the internal Labrador travel subsidy medical plan, and allow people who need orthodontic services to avail of that plan so that their children can get the orthodontic treatment and services that they need without it having to cost them a small fortune, or not be able to use it at all simply because the cost prohibits people from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here today by previous speakers concerning prescription drugs, particularly the cost of catastrophic drugs like those needed to treat MS, for an example. I can tell you, there are twenty-six people in my district alone who suffer from MS. That is a sizable number, twenty-six, not all of whom qualify under their existing drug plan, if they have one. Not all get the medications that they need. We debated a resolution in this House last week that would allow for a comprehensive prescription drug policy for residents of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I found it very difficult to accept a lot of the argument that came from the opposite side. You know, the argument that they put forward was for a different resolution than the one that was being debated, or supposed to have been debated, here in the House of Assembly.

There was nobody last Wednesday on Private Members' Day looking for charity. There was nobody asking for a freebie. All we were asking for was an opportunity to look at the possibility of establishing a prescription drug program in this Province that people would be allowed to buy into by way of paying a premium. I find it a bit hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, to hear arguments being put forward by saying: John and Jane Public, we can take your tax dollars and we will buy a policy for ourselves. We will make sure that we are covered, but do not expect us to use any of your money to try and help you along the way. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is an attitude that we should be espousing here in this House when our mandate and our job and our role is to try and do what we can to help people to the highest degree possible. As I said, we were not looking for a handout, for a freebie, for the people of the Province, we were looking at a policy being introduced where people would pay their fair share and be provided with a benefit that the rest of us in the House of Assembly enjoy, and that many other people in our Province enjoy through their workplace. There are far too many people in this Province today who do not have the benefit of a drug plan, and when they are sick or someone in their family requires the purchase of prescription drugs, sometimes people just crumple it up and throw it away knowing full-well that it is pointless because they will never be able to afford to buy the drugs that they need for them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the clock and I understand the Member for Port au Port has tried on a couple of occasions to get to his feet, but for one reason or another it has not happened yet, so I will conclude my remarks. I will have an opportunity to speak further on this, and I will conclude my remarks to allow the Member for Port au Port to have his say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words to say in response to some of the things that have been talked about on the other side.

First of all, the Hay Report, I tell the Member for the Bay of Islands, is quite a good report, but I do not know if anybody ever read it. There were a lot of things in it that were not very good, and one of the things that nobody seems to ever mention was that as soon as the report came out, the report had called for the abolishment of clinics right from Rose Blanche up to the District of St. Barbe that the board's boundaries covered, that was immediately taken out. There were some things in the report which were not good, and certainly the removal of gynecology and obstetrics from the Stephenville hospital was something that we opposed. At the time, the reason there was a hesitation was that we had hoped the new board which was taking over in May or June, as I remember it, would make that decision.

Of course, the problem, Mr. Speaker, that we have in Stephenville with the Sir Thomas Roddick hospital is a problem of morale, both in the town and in the hospital. At that particular time, with the Hay Report hanging over, waiting for the new board to take over and make the decisions on the Hay Report, doctors were starting to get worried. They were thinking about leaving, and people were quite upset about it. We made a decision, as a government, that before the new board had a chance to make a decision we would make the decision ourselves, because it was a crisis at the hospital.

I just wanted to say, when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was speaking - I think I wrote it down correctly - she mentioned taking people from the system. Now, there are vacancies at the Stephenville hospital. We have been looking for a radiologist at the Stephenville hospital for ages and ages and ages. We almost had one last year but because of a tragic accident in South Africa which left two of his nephews motherless and fatherless, as orphans, we did not get that particular physician.

It should be well know that it is not only a problem in the Stephenville hospital, that there is a problem in all of Newfoundland trying to retain doctors. In conversations that I have had, people from Ontario and Alberta often come down and actually have a look at the records of some of the physicians here, at whether they owe money to the government or not, and they pay it off and take them up there. You will find that the offers are better in some of those places like Northern Ontario and Alberta than here.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we do have a new hospital in Stephenville. We, as a government, have certainly supported it. I, myself, have been critical at times of the administration because we have vacancies in the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, but I can tell you right now that there is a committee which is feverishly trying to recruit doctors for that area.

I had a feeling when the member was speaking that somehow or other we were not encouraging this, but I can tell the people of Stephenville-Port au Port and Stephenville-St. George's East that hospital is very much on our minds, that we are in constant contact with the board, the administrators. We are trying, with everything that we can do, to get the specialists that we require in the area there.

The town itself has a committee formed, the Town of Stephenville. I think most of the people in Stephenville, and certainly most of the city council in Stephenville, feel that we are doing a good job with it, certainly if I interpret the comments that I heard the mayor of the town make about this government on the weekend and also on Open Line on the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, it is not money. We are quite willing to spend what it takes to get these physicians there. We have not said that anything closes. If people have to go to Corner Brook, it is not because of anything that the government has done. We have done everything in our power. If we could get the specialists that are required, and knew how to drag them to us, we would do it as quickly as we possibly could. Mr. Speaker, it is not the government. Unfortunately, the reason I stood up to speak is because I felt that maybe it was being painted that way.

I should say to the Member for Bay of Islands that, if had read the Hay Report, a lot of the recommendations of the Hay Report have already been looked to and have caused a lot of savings in the board.

MR. JOYCE: Name one.

MR. J. HODDER: Perhaps if you read the report first.

I will say to the Member for L'Anse au Clair that I do agree with her when she talks about large boards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. HODDER: Personally, I have always had a feeling that small boards worked better. I do know that, as a member for the area that I represent at the moment, for some twenty years, when we did have a smaller board, the people of the area were happier with it and there was a greater deal of understanding of the people, what was happening in the town.

With the larger board, I think there is a large lack of communication. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I certainly think that the communications of the Western Health Board could be improved. Certainly, myself and the Member for Stephenville East have, on occasion, been floored by announcements that have come out of Corner Brook. I guess all regions will always try to get the most they can from a particular board. It worked very well. The small board worked in Stephenville very, very, well when we had our own board.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Stephenville Hospital will overcome this. We have a beautiful, brand new hospital. It is probably as good as any hospital in Eastern Canada. We are going through some growing pains within the hospital. We have some uncertainty, uncertainty which sometimes the members of the Opposition try to (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the attention of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I think things are positive, that things will be positive, that we will retain the doctors that we require. I think the people of Stephenville understand that we are working hard on behalf of the hospital and that we have their best interests at heart.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to respond to this bill on the formation of the new health care boards.

Before I begin my debate, I want to set the record straight and it is a good time to do it, too. My understanding is that the Member for Port au Port put out a news release last week condemning this side of the House for absent members not being here to vote on the Budget.

I, for one, Mr. Speaker, was attending the funeral of my very good friend in Baie Verte who died prematurely from cancer. For someone from the opposite side of the House to get up and put out a news release condemning members of the Opposition who may have had valid reasons, like I had myself - I drove in the dark to get there, to be there - and for him to come out with a news release like that, and he himself wasn't even in the House. It is disgusting and it is degrading for a Member of the House of Assembly to come out with a news release like that, and I would hope that he would stand on his feet and apologize.

Anyway, the purpose of my debate this afternoon is in response to this particular bill, and I do not see any apology or standing forthcoming. I met with the Badger Town Council on Saturday. This government, in March, heralded a community wellness program that would do a lot for small communities around this Province, to make sure that people in communities around this Province were making the right kind of healthy choices, and they would commit to carrying out a non-smoking program, a fitness program, healthy eating, and all the good things that would ensure that our health care bill would be reduced substantially and we would be better for it.

You know, the community of Badger, a community of 900 residents, bought into that program. They bought into that program and they applied to get a grant. They applied to get a grant so that they could, in their new community hall, be able to provide that awareness for their citizens. They have the facilities there, and it is being heated all the time by the Town of Badger. They have volunteers from the Badger Fire Department who were able to give excellent training, free of charge. In fact, they are one of the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today that are well staffed in their fire department.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure attending their fortieth anniversary of providing volunteer fire services in the Community of Badger, and they have forty - can you imagine? - forty volunteer members in their fire department. Now, you do not see that very often in rural Newfoundland, I am sure. You do not see that. They even have a waiting list. Isn't that incredible? They have a waiting list of interested firefighters, or potential firefighters, who want to join the volunteer fire department program.

Now, anyone who is doing that, any community around our Province that has a waiting list for people who want to join their volunteer fire department, says a lot. Number one, there is a lot of community spirit and there is a lot of interest in the community for protecting their citizens and making sure that life and limb is protected, as well as buildings.

When you get an application from the community of Badger and it is going to Department of Health and Community Services - now, as we all know, the community of Badger was under water in February, 2003. There were questions asked today in the Legislature about the community of Stephenville. Badger has managed to overcome most of the problems associated with that flood and they are in a rebuilding stage both community wise, even though their structures are in pretty good shape at this time. Although, for the community of Badger, they need a lot of road work done, street repairs and street upgrades. Their water and sewer system needs to be revamped to make sure they have clean drinking water. Their sewer system needs a whole new infrastructure system in place. That is going to cost a lot of money. Now, whether or not the community of Badger can take on their one-third share - which will be federal, provincial and municipal - it is a question to be asked. They do not feel they can. Their residents are highly taxed as it is.

Mr. Speaker, when you see an application come over your desk, if you are an official with the Department of Health and Community Services - prior to that, the Minister of Health was on TV reporting that everybody out there who wants to do their part to promote community wellness should download or ask for an application from the Department of Health and Community Services. Well, my office sent them an application, and the hard part about all of this was they were refused. They were refused. Badger is considered to be a rural community, small population, but a lot of community spirit. They have an excellent facility that they could have used to conduct this program from. They have a community centre that is brand new. They have a brand new fire department. They had the building, there is no rent to be paid on it. The heat and light is already taken care of. They did not need to build anything. All they wanted was some money to buy the resources, whatever was required to conduct the program, the training.

The priority has been healthy eating, physical activity, tobacco control and injury prevention. They even had employees from Workers' Compensation who work in Badger who were willing to volunteer their time. They had people who worked with Abitibi, people who are on the fire department who are well trained. In fact, the Badger Fire Department respond whenever there is a request for road help with accidents on the Trans-Canada Highway. They respond whenever there is a request for search and rescue in Central Newfoundland whenever there is a need. They are very well trained. They are even trained in ice activity because of the Badger flood; in rescue, you name it, they have a lot of skills on hand. They wanted to put off this program and they were not looking for a whole lot of money. The official who responded to their application said there were 141 grant proposals received. Out of those 141 grant proposals received, guess what? There were only twenty-four funded.

Now, the government comes out and they can beat on their chests and say: We have a great wellness program that we are trying to promote to the people of our Province. So, the people of the Province believed that and 141 communities across our Province decided they would apply for the money, only to find out that only twenty-four out of 141 were approved. This is the same government that had a surplus budget and left $76 million on the table, but this same government cannot find a few thousand dollars to give to the community of Badger to promote the health and wellness program. Now, there is no duplication of services in Badger when it comes to a community wellness program. There is not even a clinic in Badger. There is no physical activity, no fitness places in Badger. There is no way to get any training for injury prevention in Badger unless you do it through the fire department. The closest place for these services is the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, which is thirty minutes away. Most people are not going to get in a car and go into another community to take part in this program.

The people who are making decisions on this health and wellness program, have they ever travelled outside of the Confederation Building in St. John's? I would like to ask that question. This has nothing to do with the official who made that decision, but I would like to say to the Minister of Health and Community Services today: You would be doing a good thing, Mr. Minister, if you were to look at some of the applications that were rejected. Your government says it is committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, well this is a direct contravention of your policy because you are not really committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a community that had the facilities, had the volunteers in place to conduct a program, wanted nothing but a few thousand dollars to buy whatever resource material was needed, and you turned them down flat. So, you have no commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a direct reason why you do not have a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. You only have to turn the corner in Badger, which is the gateway to the Buchans Highway, and that is another black eye for government. No commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador right there on the Buchans Highway.

This is a sad state of affairs when the government comes out and uses all the hoopla that it can and says, on one hand, they are promoting health and wellness in our Province. Then, on the other hand, you get small communities, like the Town of Badger that are willing to apply for the funding, just to be turned down flat, and for no good reason. They can get off the hook just like that. A small community spends a lot of time filling in all the blanks that government applications have.

There was a group going around called the Red Tape Reduction Committee. I think the Member for Glovertown, or Terra Nova, was heading up that Committee. He was going to cut out the red tape reduction. Here you get an application that is complicated in itself, and you get somebody from a small community thinking that they are going to be one of the communities that is going to be able to get funding, go through all the energy of putting together a proposal, only to be laughed at when it hits the minister's desk at the Confederation Building in St. John's. There is a lot that could have been done. There is a lot that could have been done in a community like Badger. There is nowhere in Badger that there is any organized recreation, only for children from Kindergarten to Grade 7 who attend Avoca Collegiate. There is no curling club, there is no stadium, there is no swimming pool, there is no soccer field, there is no hockey, there is nothing. Here you see an application from a small community of 900 people who are willing to pool their volunteer resources to do something to enhance the well-being of the residents of Badger. You know yourself, after coming through a flood three years ago, their first eighteen months were totally consumed with getting back in their homes and getting their lives on track. They had an opportunity for the community to come together and, for those who were interested, find out about healthy eating.

Now, the government says they want to reduce the budget for the Department of Health. Well, almost half of our Budget is consumed by health issues in this Province. We are a small population but we use up almost half of our Budget with health and social issues. If government were really serious in trying to do something about this, they would have left these application approvals for small communities. There is no reason to approve a lot of these programs, say, for the City of St. John's, where you can look around and they have all the government facilities here and all the big schools and all the fitness programs, whether it be private or provided by the government. If you are from a small community, what do you have? You can look around this House of Assembly and see the people who are representing rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In good faith, we sent the application out to the Community of Badger thinking that, yes, they might actually get this money. They might actually get this money and it would make a great difference. They did their best, they put in a strong proposal, only to be turned down.

I wonder what twenty-four were funded? I am curious about that. I think, through the Freedom of Information - in fact, if the Minister of Health were doing his job, he would be able to post this information now on his Website. There is a Website for this program under the government Website for the Department of Health, so if the minister wanted to do a follow-up for this so-called best thing since sliced bread program that government is advertising, they would have been able to say, well, we have 141 grant proposals out there, and these are the communities that got approved. We used up an x number of dollars and we still have money. You know, not even one-third of the people who applied for it got the money. This program was so successful, we are going to put more money into the program. Instead of that, they are saying: No, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you really do not qualify, why are you applying? This is only meant for bigger centres, when, in fact, bigger centres should not even have approval on a lot of these programs. This should really be designed for smaller centres that do not have access to the YMCA, to fitness centres, to big stadiums, big curling clubs, soccer fields and you name it.

I think this is a slap in the face, definitely a black eye, for government. There is no reason why the Minister of Health should not take this application personally and have another look at it, have a second fresh look at it, and see why the Town of Badger was actually refused for funding. They were not asking for too much money. Sometimes communities might ask for $10,000 or $15,000 knowing full-well, when you are dealing with government, it is better to ask for more because you are never getting the full amount that you ask for. It is always usually better to ask for more and somewhere, if your money is approved, if your application is approved, you will probably get really half of what you are looking for or less. It would not have taken very much money to conduct a program for Badger. It would not have taken very much money at all. There was probably very little in the way of staff to be paid for. Maybe it might have been someone to oversee the program, but the majority of the program was going to be handled by volunteers.

These are the kinds of things that people in rural communities across our Province are concerned about. They see this government now as a government that, for the first time since Confederation, has new money to spend, whether it be from the Atlantic Accord or high oil prices or even from the two mining entities in Central Newfoundland. I am talking about Aur Resource and the barite plant. This government were not willing to put back a few thousand dollars into a small community like Badger to provide for a community wellness program.

The sad part of all of this today is that I am not going to get any response from the Minister of Health, from the Premier, from the Deputy Premier or from anyone, as to why the community of Badger did not receive any funding for this program. They are prepared to let that slide under the rug. All they know is that they had x-number of dollars in the program, twenty-four applications were approved, and the rest of them, over 100, will have to do without it, 117 will have to fall by the wayside, and they are not one bit concerned about that. Although they had plenty of money to deal with it and they have plenty of money now with oil at $70 a barrel, they cannot provide a couple thousand dollars for the community of Badger to take on their wellness project. What would that have done? Can you imagine the people, the seniors, who would have gone out to that program, many of the seniors who are living alone and are unsure what you could do to provide a good healthy diet.

I attended a conference on Saturday morning in Grand Falls-Windsor and it was about the hard-of-hearing and the awareness. It was attended by a group from Gander and also Grand Falls-Windsor. They were trying to create awareness for the residents in Central Newfoundland about the problems of hearing loss.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: I wonder if I could just have a moment to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: A minute to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: A minute has been granted for some concluding comments.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the government for their generosity in giving me a moment to speak to clue up.

In closing, I want to say, all that is required at this point is for the minister to take a second look and find a way to fund that small initiative for the Community of Badger.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would like to thank the members opposite for putting their points forward. Many of their points I will certainly take under advisement. Some of them could be debated, Mr. Speaker, but having said that, I appreciate the comments that are made by the members of the Opposition.

I will say, that in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, we did put $60 million into the Regional Integrated Health Authorities to ensure their viability. On top of that, prior to this year's Budget, we did put additional funding into the authorities to try and help them reach a balanced budget. This year we put $180 million into health care, a 10 per cent increase over last year, which had an increase over the previous year. That is brand new money, Mr. Speaker, into health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we are working at addressing the challenges that are in each of the health authorities. We are working at addressing wait times. We are putting additional funding into prescription drug programs, dental care, cancer treatment and so on. So, we are trying to reach efficiencies and to help the regional health authorities to do their job by putting the additional infrastructure and the additional funding in place which will help all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 11)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

(Inaudible) Bill 11.

CHAIR: Bill 11, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to rise and have a couple of words on this bill. I did have an opportunity to speak earlier today and I think it is a very important bill, not just because it takes health boards in the Province and amalgamates them to form larger health authorities but I think it is important because this is the organization of individuals who provide for health care services right throughout our Province.

I think it is important to recognize that two years ago when these particular health boards - I think, at the time, there were ten or eleven of them - were amalgamated to form these four health authorities, they came together, at that time, with a huge debt, an accumulated debt of over a period of time, which government refused to write down. So, therefore, not only were they taking on the responsibilities of new boards and a larger geographical area providing for services for even more individuals under that one auspices, but, Mr. Chair, they were having to do so under the restraint of huge deficits as well. I believe, at the time, if you go back - still today, these particular health boards have an accumulated debt of over $120 million. On an annual basis they are still exceeding their budgets, in most cases. I think, this year, because of some additional investment by the government, some of the boards were able to stay within their operating means on an annual basis, but not be able to deal with their debt.

I point that out because I think it is important for people to realize that when these boards are left with that kind of a debt on their books and they are not receiving the resources of government to pay down those deficits, then they have only one option. They are being told today by the government that they must have a plan to pay down the deficit over a period of time. In order for health boards to pay down that deficit, they have to do one of two things. They either have to increase fees or charge fees for the services that they provide to the people of the Province, and, in doing so, would be a form of privatization and I do not think that will fly or be acceptable. The second option, Mr. Chair, to be able to tackle this deficit, is to be able to - two options, as I was saying. The second option would be to cut services. That would be the only other way that they would be able to tackle that debt. That is unfortunate, because in cutting the services that the health corporations provide, they are also affecting the people who depend upon that service and that is what we have been saying. That is what we have been saying, not just by the fact that people today are having to be sent out of the Province for cancer treatment or that people in our Province today, by the hundreds, are going without the medications that they require, but also on a very local level, we are seeing the disintegration of services.

The Member for Port au Port spoke this afternoon and talked about what was happening in the Stephenville region. I can confirm, Mr. Chair, because of meetings we had in that region, that there is a definite reduction in service being provided to the people in that area simply because they do not have the physicians or the specialists to continue the operations at a level that they did previously.

I am not going to belabour the argument, because I know that there are other people who want to speak to this bill today, but I think it is important to recognize, and for government to consider, that whether you have health boards or health authorities there is a level of service that is expected by people in the Province that needs to be delivered to people in the Province and therefore it should be. These particular health authorities, while they have been mandated with a responsibility, they also need to be resourced properly in order to carry out the work that they do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities." (Bill 11)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 31.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 31 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 31 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 31 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 11, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Bill 11 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 11 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 11 passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move third reading of Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

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

I move that the House now adjourn and return tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 9, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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