December 4, 2008         HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLVI   No. 45


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to extend a warm welcome to Dr. Paul O'Brien, Registrar of the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Licensing Board.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize one of our many wonderful artists in Newfoundland and Labrador – actor, Nicole Rousseau.

Last night at the Resource Centre for the Arts Christmas Social, Nicole won the 2008 Rhonda Payne Theatre Award.

Nicole was born and raised in St. John's and lives in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. She is a graduate of the Bachelor of Fine Arts Theatre Program at Memorial, and won the President's Gold Medal for Academic Excellence in 1999.

Nicole has worked with a number of local theatre companies, including the Open Actors Studio, Redwatch Theatre, She Said Yes!, c2c Theatre, and Artistic Fraud.

She has been a drama instructor, festival adjudicator, and workshop leader at schools across the Province, most recently at the Anna Templeton Centre in St. John's.

She has just joined the Board of Directors for c2c Theatre, and is the current Artistic Associate for the Resource Centre for the Arts Theatre Company.

Nicole has almost finished her first full-length script, in collaboration with actor-writer Rory Lambert, about the Knights of Columbus fire, called One Last Dance, which will see its first public reading in December 2008.

The Rhonda Payne Theatre Award is administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council and is an example of the great work that the Arts Council does in supporting artists in the Province.

I ask the House to join with me in congratulating Nicole on winning this very prestigious award and wish her luck in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this great House today to recognize a long-time advocate and volunteer, Mr. Israel Hann of Mount Moriah.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hann is a long-time advocate for countless issues such as, seniors' rights, a long-term care facility in Corner Brook, and health care concerns. Mr. Hann's volunteer work goes back to the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hann's past achievements were recognized recently by his peers, and he was presented with the Good Samaritan Award by Mrs. Minnie Vallis, another volunteer and activist, on behalf of the Golden Meadows 50+ Club.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to recognize this fine gentleman as he brings seniors' concerns to the forefront.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise and congratulate Mrs. Dinah Stewart Matthews Cossar on the recent celebration of her one-hundred-and-third birthday. I do believe that Mrs. Cossar is the oldest living constituent in my District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

Mrs. Cossar was born in Burgeo in 1905 and is the only surviving member of the Stewart family of three brothers and one sister. In 1923 she married Captain Archibald Matthews and they had five daughters and one son, of which her eldest daughter and only son are deceased.

Captain Matthews was lost at sea during World War II. She remarried in 1959 to Lott Cossar, a businessman, also of Burgeo. Mr. and Mrs. Cossar moved to Corner Brook where they resided until Mr. Cossar passed away in 1994. From there she moved to Silverwood Manor in Stephenville, and in 2005 she moved to the long-term care facility at the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre in Port aux Basques.

Mrs. Cossar continues to live in relatively good health, and I am told she is a very strong and opinionated lady. She has twenty-three grandchildren, forty-one great-grandchildren and three great-great-grandchildren. Her first grandchild, a granddaughter, sits with us in the House of Assembly today. I am referring, of course, to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Member for Conception Bay East-Bell Island.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I ask all members of this House to join with us in extending a happy one-hundred-and-third birthday to her grandmother and my oldest constituent, Dinah Stewart Matthews Cossar. All the best to Mrs. Cossar and her family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on October 4 of this year, I had the privilege to attend the twenty-fifth anniversary dinner of the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue.

I am extremely happy to stand here today in this hon. House of Assembly to recognize and congratulate a fine organization of women and men on twenty-five years of service and dedication to our communities.

The Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue Unit is made up of outright generous volunteers. People who volunteer in such a role as search and rescue are individuals who care about people and their communities, and they wish to make it a safer and better place for all of us. Their service is a real gift to everyone.

The assistance they provide to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the community is a valuable asset. In fact, it was so evident as they were involved during the 2005 flood of Stephenville – and they, Mr. Speaker, I must say, provided a professional and invaluable service.

So Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating and thanking all those who have volunteered with the Stephenville-Kippens-Port au Port Search and Rescue Unit over the past twenty-five years, and encourage them to keep on doing what they do so well. Their commitment is sincerely appreciated and admired.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, December 2008, will mark ten years since Ms Gloria Morgan of Port de Grave started walking for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada.

Gloria's son Lloyd, who was just eighteen, was killed instantly while travelling to St. John's over Veterans Memorial Highway. The previous year, he underwent surgery to treat ulcerative colitis after being diagnosed with the disease in 1997.

Since this tragedy, Mrs. Morgan has raised $20,000 for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada and recently joined six other national winners in the foundation's Gutsiest Canadian Award.

Three generations of Morgans take part in the annual national walk, Heel-N-Wheel-A-Thon, which is sponsored in the local area by the Trinity Conception chapter of the foundation.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Ms Gloria Morgan as she continues to support this very worthy cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask that this great hon. House join me today in honouring the Town of Come by Chance for their great efforts in the act of remembrance on November 11, 2008.

This past November, I had the opportunity to share in the rededication of a monument at the Town of Come By Chance for Private Alexander Gilbert.

Mr. Speaker, at the age of twenty-one, on March 2, 1917 in France, Private Gilbert gave the supreme sacrifice in the war that was to end all wars.

Private Gilbert was the only soldier of the Town of Come By Chance to serve in World War I. His family was resettled from Coopers Cove, where the monument was initially erected. It lay in a very heavily wooded area until a couple of years ago one of the elderly members of the family remembered the location. A search was then launched by the family and the monument was found and then relocated to the Town of Come By Chance.

The relocation of this monument and composition of the story boards allows easy access to the people of this town, in turn giving Private Gilbert the tribute which he deserves.

I ask that this great hon. House join me in remembering those soldiers, like Private Gilbert, who sacrificed themselves for our freedom.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statement by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize December 6, this coming Saturday, as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Established in 1991 by the federal government, this day honours the anniversary of the death of fourteen young women who were shot and killed on December 6, 1989 at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique.

Mr. Speaker, these women were targeted simply because they were women and they had chosen to study engineering, a field traditionally dominated by men.

The purple ribbons that have been placed on your desks today are an important symbol of remembrance to women everywhere who have lost their lives to violence. Let this ribbon also symbolize the work that is being done in our Province to prevent violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary reports that 51 per cent of the 5,000 violent crimes committed in their jurisdiction in the last two years are related to severe violence against women. This is astounding, especially since the majority of violent crimes against women go unreported.

Mr. Speaker, the statistics speak for themselves. Between 2000 and 2008, twenty-two women have been killed in this Province, three of them this year, in family violence situations.

We can stop this violence, but we have to continue to work together and make violence against women unacceptable in every home and community. That is what we are trying to achieve through our six-year, $9.2 million Violence Prevention Initiative, which is now in its third year.

As decision makers, Mr. Speaker, we have a crucial role to play in offering a sense of hope to women who live in fear. By continuing our work towards the elimination of violence, we can help these women to live freely and peacefully.

Mr. Speaker, as a memorial to the fourteen young women who were killed on December 6, nineteen years ago, and to all those who have lost their lives to violence, the flags outside the Confederation Building will be flown at half-staff on Saturday.

As a reminder to us all, I want to read out the names of those fourteen women into the record of the House of Assembly: Genevieve Bergeron, Helene Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Maria Klucznik, Maryse Laganiere, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michele Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

I encourage all members and residents of the Province to reflect on the need for all of us to join the fight towards the elimination of violence towards women.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the minister for a copy of her statement today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the minister, and with her government, in recognizing December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the violence against fourteen women that occurred in our country in 1991 will always be a black hole in the hearts of women and men in this country. I think any time that we see violence against women just because of our gender and because we are women is really unacceptable, and it is also a responsibility of all of us to ensure that we make those change.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the minister's statement and she talked about the statistics from the RNC and that still 50 per cent of the violent crimes that are being reported in this Province are crimes against women.

Just recently I was reading an article in The Telegram, I think it was, a statement that was made by Sergeant Noel of the RCMP, in which he outlined that the number of cases against family violence in this Province are on the rise. Already in November we had reached the same statistics as we did the year before, and that, as well, is unacceptable.

I think that if violence prevention initiatives like the one that government has launched is helping to combat that, well, we need to continue with it. We also need to look at why these statistics are continuing to climb, and what needs to happen to ensure that family violence is being reduced as well.

I am aware that there are still over 800 cases of violence against women reported in the Province this year. Last year there were over 1,000 cases reported. Those numbers are still way too high. I think our responsibility is not only to educate society, provide programs that deal with prevention, but we also need to provide safe houses and shelters for these women and their children and for families in general. We need to ensure that there is always somewhere where they can leave a home of fear and violence and be able to seek the services and the counselling and the safe havens that they require. I think that is our job in this Legislature, to ensure that those programs and services are available to them.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the initiative that the government has launched around violence in this Province, and we will continue to support it, knowing that it is reaching out to those who need it and it is giving them a safe haven in times when they have very little else to depend upon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for her statement and for the way in which she read her statement. I think it is good that every year we do say the names of these women, to remind us of the horror that goes on for women.

The statistics that the minister presented today are very nerve-shattering, actually. The 51 per cent of the 5,000 violent crimes are related to severe violence against women. Over three women every year are murdered by partners. This has to shock and horrify us, and I think we have to do even much, much, more than we are doing.

I think the more that we can do with the justice system in helping protect these women, the more that we can do through our social services system to help women economically - because economics plays a role, sometimes, that keeps them in violent situations - the more that we can do with offering safe places for women and their children to go to, the more that we can do the better, and I do not think money should be an issue.

We have to stop this. We have to stop women being brutally assaulted and murdered to the degree that they are. I did this the other day, when talking about another statement by the minister, but I want to say it again today: I really would urge all members of this august House to get the book by Brian Vallee, War on Women, and to read that book in tribute to the deaths of these women who we have named here today, and every woman who has died in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to invite all hon. members, their families and the general public, to a wonderful annual festive event, the provincial government's twenty-second annual Christmas Lights Across Canada ceremony this evening. The event begins at 6:15 p.m. in the lobby of the East Block of Confederation Building.

We are once again joining provinces across the country in this event which will see hundreds of thousands of lights sparkle from coast to coast. One of the goals of Christmas Lights Across Canada, organized by the National Capital Commission, is to be a symbolic link between Ottawa and Canada's provinces and territories. Of course, being the most easterly Province in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador will kick off the festivities and illuminate the Prince Phillip Parkway from the Memorial University campus to right here at Confederation Hill.

This year, our display contains approximately 60,000 lights, six billboards depicting Christmas scenes, and thirteen trees adorned with white lights symbolizing our thirteen provinces and territories. The main tree on the steps of Confederation Building, the lights along Prince Phillip Parkway and on the Confederation Building itself, are all LED lights as we strive to be as environmentally-friendly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this year I will be joined by the hon. Premier for the lighting ceremony. We will also hear from the Paradise Elementary Grade 5 Choir and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Band, who will help create a festive mood during the ceremony. Our Master of Ceremonies this year is Erin Sulley of CBC Television's Living Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me once again encourage everyone to join us this evening for this annual holiday tradition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say that the Official Opposition would also call upon the general public, as well as members of this hon. House, to join the minister and the Premier for the twenty-second annual Christmas Lights Across Canada celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, it is also good to know that this is another initiative of the government, when it comes to being as environmentally friendly as possible, to know that all the lights that are going to be lit here this evening are LED lights.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will be well entertained by the Paradise Elementary Choir and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Band, and soon, hopefully - depending upon the hon. Government House Leader - we will all be returning to our constituencies to spend the Christmas season with our families and friends and constituents, and I call upon all hon. members that this year we will all keep the true meaning of Christmas as we socialize with our families and friends.

We look forward to this evening's event, and hopefully there will be thousands coming out on our Confederation Hill to take part in this festive season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and say to him that I am glad to see that he sets off sparks both outside this august Assembly as well as inside the august Assembly.

[Laughter]

MS MICHAEL: This is a very nice ceremony to have, and I am always glad to see children's choirs involved in these ceremonies as well. Unfortunately, this evening, because of other sparks that are happening in our country, I have to be at an event that will keep me away from this one, but my spirit is there as we start the Christmas season here with the lighting of the lights, and I thank the minister for his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this morning brought more news of the effects of the global economic slide, the effects of it on this Province. AbitibiBowater announced that, after 100 years of operation, the pulp and paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor will close.

This mill is why people settled in Grand Falls-Windsor in the first place, and for the last two weeks we have stood in this House and we have been asking the Minister of Natural Resources what the status of the AbitibiBowater mill has been. We have not gotten a response on anything, other than in the economy everything is steady as she goes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister today when she was notified that this closure was coming for AbitibiBowater in Grand Falls, and that the 1,400 mill workers and forestry-related workers in Central Newfoundland would be out of a job.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a dark day in Grand Falls-Windsor and the surrounding eighteen communities that depended on that mill over the last 100 years for their livelihood.

We have been engaged with this company and with the mill union in Grand Falls-Windsor over the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, as we worked through the downturn in this industry and the impact that was being felt here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Everyone in this Province knew that we were waiting for a decision from AbitibiBowater on the future of the mill. They told us that would come before the end of December.

This morning, when we picked up The Globe and Mail, we saw that there was a prediction that the mill closure would be announced today. The Premier got a phone call at 9:30 from David Paterson, the CEO. I got a call, following that, from Mr. Pierre Rougeau. We found out this morning at 9:30 and 10:15 respectively, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievably that in this time of economic crisis – and I said it yesterday – that the minister sits in her office and waits for the phone to ring every morning to find out what industry is closing today, and how many jobs people are going to lose. It happened with the IOC announcement, it happened with the Wabush announcement, and today we are hearing it just happened with the Grand Falls-Windsor announcement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this, because in the course of the last year that she talks about that she has been on top of this file, we have not heard anything in the public about the details that government has laid on the table. We have heard them talk about the executives of the company, talk about the company themselves, but we have not heard the details of what government proposed and offered to try and allow for the continuation of this pulp and paper mill in the Province.

Why don't you tell us that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the Leader of the Opposition watch or listen to the news, because our involvement in Grand Falls-Windsor has been very public.

Mr. Speaker, into that operation goes, every year, $12 million worth of energy from the Exploits River; $6 million that subsidizes the mill in its operation, and $6 million they make in profit from power purchase agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the government has invested a further $11 million over the last three years in support to the company during this difficult financial downturn. On top of that Mr. Speaker, we have come back to the company on a number of occasions and said: Can we enter into a discussion with regard to repatriation of your chartered lands which will put significant money in your hands for reinvestment in the mill in Corner Brook? That is what we have done in the last four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, this announcement is little comfort for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor. People are going to want to know, minister, what this government has placed on the table. This is the second pulp and paper mill that has closed under your Administration in Newfoundland and Labrador. You have had a year working with this company. You know what the result is today, so surely you would have had some kind of effective and comprehensive plan in place that you can roll out to be able to support the local economy and those people that are affected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the two-and-a-half years that I have been in this portfolio, Mr. Speaker, I have met, on a regular basis, with the union of the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, I have met on a number of occasions with the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as the mayors of the surrounding communities; with representation from the Regional Economical Development Board, the Chamber of Commerce. The three MHAs for the area have been engaged on a regular basis with all of these same people. The people of Grand Falls-Windsor understand what we have been trying to achieve. They understand what is on the table. They understand what has been asked of us and how we have risen to the occasion. We have tried to mitigate any of the challenges that the company has put our way. This is beyond our control, Mr. Speaker. We wanted Abititi Bowater to have a good future in Central Newfoundland, another 100 years. The company's mindset was not in the same place, and thus we have arrived at this place today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not about who creates the problems, it is about who is elected to lead and find the solutions in times of crisis, I say to you, minister.

When Stephenville mill closed, the 300 workers had the option of looking to Alberta for employment. Today, the 160 workers coming out of Wabush and the more than 400 direct employees coming out of the Grand Falls Bowater's mill in Grand Falls do not have the option to go to Western Canada to find those lucrative jobs in Alberta.

What is the solution for your government to ensure that these families and these workers have an opportunity for retraining, for adjustment and to be able to sustain the economies of their communities along with their families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as we have worked with the people most directly affected by this news today, they have been very clear as to what their expectation is of this government. I think that they can speak more powerfully than anybody else that they are pleased with the way that they have been treated and supported and communicated with.

We have made a commitment to continue to walk that journey with them and to do everything that we can to support them and to support their communities. We have a task force in place, Mr. Speaker, it has been in place for over three months, to deal with any potential fallout of the decision making around Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this much, the one thing that the union has been adamant about is that we do something to correct the wrong that was done in Star Lake negotiation under the former Administration, that we will not give away resources – that Abitibi-Bowater cannot continue to earn money without operating a mill here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The last few months we have seen a pattern develop. Abitibi-Bowater announces a capacity review; then they close Grand Falls-Windsor. Wabush Mines announces their capital expenditure review; they lay off 160 workers, slash 40 per cent capacity and halt their $100 million maintenance upgrade. IOC announces a capital review; then they halt their $800 million expansion. Now Chevron Corporation announced yesterday – or, on Monday – that they are delaying the release of their capital spending program to the end of January.

I ask the minister: As a partner in the Hebron project, what information do you have, or has it been provided to you by the other partners, on changes in spending or in timelines with regard to the Hebron project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I encourage the Opposition House Leader to review Hansard, because I answered this question the week before last. I met with the vice-president for the Americas of Exxon-Mobil last month. We had a long conversation about the Hebron project, the Hebron agreement, and the go-forward plans.

Mr. Speaker, there are no adjustments or realignments of planning that is taking place. The project is proceeding as it was designed to do. We will see the opening of the project office here in St. John's early in the New Year, and Exxon-Mobil, who will be the operator for the Hebron project, does not foresee any challenges at this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also learned today that Vale Inco will be shutting down the Voisey's Bay Mine next July for a one month period. We have spoken to the company and they have advised that there will be no layoffs and no impact on the Long Harbour hydromet facility.

I ask the minister: Does government know what the financial impact of this decision will be, what it will have on the Province's coffers, and has this been factored into the much promised fiscal update that we are supposed to be getting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I happened to be in Voisey's Bay just a month ago, and I am happy to report that I met with principles of Vale Inco this morning.

Mr. Speaker, the way that the shut down in July is going to be handled, everyone who works in Voisey's Bay is on a two-week rotation. So, two weeks of July will be used as that rotation piece and then everyone will be asked to take two weeks holidays. So there is not expected to be a financial impact, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, IOC announced a one month shut down of their operations in 2009, as well as the delay in their Phase I and Phase II expansion plans. The company has stated that this would not impact their permanent employees but will have an impact on temporary employees and students.

I ask the minister: Does government know what the financial impact will be of this shut down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, no, we do not know what the financial impact on part-time employees or potential employees of IOC would be at this point in time. I gave an undertaking here in the House that I would ask IOC to provide that kind of information, but they are busy, Mr. Speaker, at the present time in trying to manage their way through the current worldwide crisis that is affecting all commodity markets as outlined by the speaker in his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Suspicions are, and have been for some time, that government is in deep denial over the state of the economy. This has been confirmed by some of the responses to questions that we have asked in this House. It is pretty clear that government is perfectly content to sleepwalk through this economic disaster.

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper was quoted as saying some time ago, that he thought the fundamentals are sound, and that is the kind of stuff we hear from this government, i.e. everything is stable, steady as she goes, and so on. Well, the facts indicate otherwise. It is time for decisive action, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Premier: Premier, rather than simply responding when someone calls to government with an issue, would you be prepared to chair an all-party summit on the economy, bring together, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the business interest of this Province, the labour interests of the Province, the community leaders in this Province, so that there can be a discussion - the more heads there are the better - and hopefully you can map out together some strategy for this impending crisis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I chair a committee on our economy and that is the Cabinet of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That Cabinet has met four times, I think, in the last four days. We had a meeting scheduled this morning which we cancelled because of the Abitibi situation.

It seems to be lost on the hon. member opposite that General Motors and Ford and Chrysler are in trouble, three of the biggest American corporations, three of the bigger corporations in the world. They are looking for a $28 billion bailout. The American government has already put $700 billion in. I watched CNN last night. One of the accounts basically said that the money is being spent so fast and doled out so fast that nobody is keeping account of it, and they don't know where it is going.

This government is going to ask responsibly, and we are stepping up. It just galls me to listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about what this minister is not doing. She is working around the clock. She is meeting with everybody concerned. She is meeting with the corporations. Ask the people of Grand Falls what they think of what we have done on this particular issue with Abitibi. The union will tell you we were there for them, the community will tell you we were there for them, the members will tell you that we were there for them, everybody, and the company will tell you that we were there in discussions with them.

You stand up and imply that we are just not doing anything. Nothing is further from the truth. This is not a Liberal Government, this is a PC Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that there are more industries shutdown in this Province since he has been the Premier than were ever started, and record will show that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to switch gears: There is an increasing concern and discussion regarding the future of waste management and waste management projects in our Province. The current strategy of waste management sites is placing a financial burden of a lot of towns in this Province, especially the towns that are using the Robin Hood Bay site.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: What is the status of the Greater Avalon Regional Waste Management Program, and are communities continuing to participate?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is committed to the Waste Management Strategy, and we are investing over $200 million into that strategy. We have just put $40 million into the facility of Robin Hood Bay, and we have a committee that is working to bring about this waste management on the Northeast Avalon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Towns such as Holyrood, who were disposing of its own waste, were doing so and earning a royalty on it by doing so for other towns, of up to $160,000 a year in surplus in their budget; but now, because now they have to take their garbage to Robin Hood Bay, they are running a deficit and will run a deficit again this year.

I ask the minister: What is government doing to offset the increased cost to these municipalities that are now having to truck their garbage for a number of kilometres and pay high tipping fees to dispose of it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that we cannot have a dump in every community in this Province. This government is committed to closing down incinerators in this Province and having the proper waste management facilities. All of the communities know full well that it is time now to modernize those types of facilities, and they are working towards that to do just that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for government to have a Waste Management Strategy that tells municipalities you have to now truck your garbage so many kilometres, in some cases hundreds of kilometres, you have to pay tipping fees that are doubling by the year, like we are seeing in Robin Hood Bay, and provide no supports and leave them on their own to do it.

I ask you, Minister: Is your department or the MMSB going to provide any assistance (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, for my hon. colleague there, I have just repeated that this government has been committed to waste management in this Province. It is time now that we come ahead in the modern – it is a type of strategy that has had to take a $200 million investment to bring this Waste Management Strategy to modernize facilities across the Province, and there are committees of members from various municipalities serving on the boards to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that this government – her prior government brought in this strategy - we are the ones implementing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May I remind the minister she is the government. You have been the government for five years. You make the decisions in this Province, Mr. Speaker. You make the laws in this Province - not over here! Not over here - and this was a law they made!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while the government is forcing towns to truck their garbage hundreds of kilometres, pay high tipping fees, and giving them no subsidies, they are also allowing the MMSB to sit on $11 million in their bank account.

Minister, why not use that money to implement recycling programs in these towns so they will have less garbage to truck and less garbage to dump?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would advise the Leader of the Opposition to just keep an eye on what is going to be happening with the Waste Management Strategy in this Province.

I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day this government will bring waste management a darn lot further than they ever brought it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that at the end of this strategy there will not be 250 dumps left in this Province. I just ask her to stay tuned and see what the result will be. We will have a Waste Management Strategy in this Province that will be comparable to anything else in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing questions asked and answers given. It causes concern, not only to the person asking the question but to the minister trying to answer the question.

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the minister needs to get a move on if he is going to get all these things done that he speaks of today.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen from the MMSB is glossy advertising and educational campaigns that tell how to recycle, what to recycle, what we can recycle, but it does not provide for the programs in the Province.

I ask you, Minister: When are you going to step up, and start using that money to provide for appropriate recycling programs in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, it is time that we give them a glossy education about what waste management is all about.

If she wants to talk about programs, go and speak to the schools. For every recycled dollar that the schools bring and circulate, they receive an equal dollar. It is no good to tell me that the education campaign has not worked. If I say to people: Get to Half, what does it mean? - Practically everybody in the Province knows exactly what that means.

Mr. Speaker, the MMSB does not provide operational costs. That has been asked about in the media. That is going to be sustained by the community. What we are talking about here, the MMSB, the Waste Management Strategy, will invest in the infrastructure. That is what the $200 million is about.

I would ask anybody to take a look at Robin Hood Bay, where it is today compared to where it was two or three years ago. Speak to the people and see the advancements that have been made out there; and in another couple of years, Mr. Speaker, there will be something out there that will not look like anything as it was in the past. It will be an engineered landfill site, not a dump, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, the people in Holyrood are looking at Robin Hood Bay. Last year they looked at it for $23 a load when they dumped; this year they are looking at it at $50 a load when they dump, I say to you, Minister.


I am glad to hear the programs in the schools are working because it was an initiative of the Liberal government that started the program in the schools on the recycling, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the minister this. He is the government. Just because the MMSB does not have a mandate today, he claims, to provide for recycling programs in the Province, there is no reason why they cannot have that mandate.

I ask you, Minister: Will you bring forward a change to see the $11 million that is sitting in a bank account in this Province put to good use to clean up our environment and put good recycling programs in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you exactly what all of the money of the MMSB is being used for, and I do not know what the mandate will be in the future. That remains to be seen.

I can tell you one thing: the money is not sitting idly. Go to Central Newfoundland and ask the Central Waste Management Strategy what they have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: There was $500,000 allocated to them just a short while ago. Fourteen of the dump sites that have been closed out and recapped, so on and so forth, the money from the MMSB has gone to that. It goes to education. It goes to recycling, the school program – I regret that I mentioned that now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: - seeing that it was an initiative of theirs. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day this government will go on record as being much more progressive than the people opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out in our Question Period today, today we had more announcements, one in particular with regard to Grand Falls-Windsor, that are very serious and that will affect the workers in our Province and potentially, the Province's own fiscal situation. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province deserve answers from this government on what it is going to do to protect them in this time of economic downturn.

So I ask the Premier: What economic stimulus programs does your government have, and what are you developing to deal with the loss of jobs in the natural resource sector in this Province and the potential of workers returning to this Province without jobs because of the slowdown in natural resource activities elsewhere in Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are significant projects that are still going ahead. There is the Hebron project, of course, which is on stream; there is the hydromet project, of course, which is still on stream; the Lower Churchill is moving forward very favourably.

As a matter of fact, on the Lower Churchill, what we will be doing is attempting to draw into some of the green infrastructure money, the rapid, accelerated infrastructure money that is going to come from the federal government.

I have a meeting of the Atlantic premiers now on Sunday and Monday in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, so we will be looking at that.

As well, it should not be lost on hon. members as well, that we have a very generous wage package out right now to public sector workers. We are offering a compounded amount of 21.5 per cent to our public service employees, and I am really at a loss to understand why they are looking this gift horse in the mouth and not taking it because we have indicated that we can hold this until we get to the Christmas period, but going into next year, we are not certain as a government whether we will be able to maintain the obligation of a 21.5 per cent raise hike. So we are doing everything we can and.

In addition, I have also asked for an update on our infrastructure program. Infrastructure projects that we have on the hopper right now are calculated at approximately –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- calculated at approximately $3.5 billion to $4 billion. So we are taking any of our surplus money, we are putting it into our workers and we are putting it into capital infrastructure and creating jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the large projects that are on the books, these long-term projects. I cannot deny these. I know that they are there, I know they are being worked on, but there are many people who right now in the present are not going to benefit from what is happening, especially because of the shutdowns that we are talking about and many people are going to be suffering because of the economic crisis that we are in.

So I ask the Premier: What concrete steps is your government taking and what can we expect to see in the economic report that we are going to get to mitigate the negative effects of the current economic crisis as it unfolds in our Province, not what is going to happen in ten years time but what you are going to do now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The effects of the economic crisis are really starting to trickle down to us now, as we have seen really with regard to commodities; with iron ore and steel, with nickel, with oil and gas, in the pulp and paper industry. That is obviously having an effect, and the most direct effects right now have been to the workers, of course at Wabush, and as well, now our workers in Grand Falls through Abitibi.

So we do have a task force set up, which the minister just talked about before. It is three months in the works right now, which is up and running, and is ready to hit the ground running again tomorrow. That will be going into Central Newfoundland, working with the community, working with the union, working with people in the communities to decide on what they think are the best things for that particular area.

As well, we will continue to spend. We do not intend to pull back on our spending. We are just trying, as we look out two, three or four years, we have to look at where our deficits are going but we are going to continue to infuse spending into the economy to make sure that the people get the benefit.

We are, as I have said before, in a very good, financial position. Now, that position unilaterally drops as every province gets hit harder and harder by the world economy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But we will be at the top of that heap, or very close to the top of that heap. So as a result of our surplus this year, which the minister will be discussing in the very near future regarding the economic update, we can give an assurance to the people of this Province that we will be spending that money in their best interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I table the Report of Mineral Licenses, Mining Leases and Surface Leases for 2007-2008 for the Department of Natural Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of motions.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish The Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council. (Bill 70)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Chartered Accounts. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2008.

I further give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I am very happy today to be able to present the petition that I have here on my desk, which is from the undersigned residents, Canadian Cancer Society, Newfoundland and Labrador Division, who humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is currently lacking adequate financial support for its residents who must travel to avail of cancer care service; and

WHEREAS changes should be made in order to lessen the financial cancer diagnosis, particularly at a time that is stressful and complicated for cancer patients and their families;

WHEREUPON we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reimburse gas/mileage for the use of personal vehicles; add meal per diems for those staying with family and friends, and increased overall rates to reflect the true financial burden; include coverage for those taking part in clinical trials; wave the $400 deductible faced by those who live on the island portion of the Province; increase reimbursement of eligible costs from 50 per cent to 80 per cent; and

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Dated: December 4, 2008.

And as my colleagues can see, the Cancer Society has gathered thousands of signatures of people from everywhere in this Province who stand behind this petition, some thousands of which I will be passing on today to the Clerk.

This is a very serious issue - I am sure we all realize that it is - and I would like to point out that in the light of what we have happening around the Province today, with shutdowns up in Labrador, and with the loss of the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, although that will not happen until July, the impact starts now financially on people, because they know in July the jobs are going to be gone so they automatically have to look at what savings they have, how they can hold on to money, how they can prepare. You might even have workers who are starting to look elsewhere for work. The impact starts right away, once they know the jobs are gone. With all of that happening, right off the bat we know that there probably could be some hundreds of families who have illnesses in their families – not just the workers, the workers' family as well - that require travel for medical help, medical assistance and medical care. We can assume that there will be a large number of those people affected who also will have to travel.

That is just one example of how what is happening economically in the Province is going to increase the burden on people in the Province, so the issues around the cost of medical travel are going to increase as well because we are going to have more people for whom it is going to be a tremendous burden to have to pay for their travel the way they are now paying for it.

There are so many things that I can say to this issue, and I will be presenting petitions more than once on this issue so I will not try to cover everything today. I do not see time being counted but I have three minutes, I think. You will have to tell me, Mr. Speaker, when my time is up.

MR. SPEAKER: I advise the hon. member that her time for speaking on the petition has lapsed. If the member would like to clue up, I am sure that leave would be granted to make a conclusion to your comments.

MS MICHAEL: I will clue up now.

One point that I would like to make is that the Canadian Cancer Society has put together a very important chart that is provincial, territorial and national, with regard to the medical travel assistance programs. This chart shows that in some areas we do very well; in other areas we are not doing so well. I will not give details of this chart today, Mr. Speaker, but I will at another time, speaking to this petition, present some of the information from this chart.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I do not have a pile of petitions like my hon. colleague - I do not bring them all to the House - but, Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to feel a little bit bad today so I am going to present two at a time now. I will present two at a time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and present a petition again today on behalf of the residents of Shearstown, Makinsons, Clarke's Beach and Carbonear, from the areas that I represent and other honourable members represent, to ask government to look at the possibility, again, for a long-term care facility for the Carbonear area.

The facilities that are in Carbonear now - everyone knows this; the hon. member knows as well - those facilities have outlived their life expectancy and even the professionals that work there know that we need a new facility in the area.

This government, in 2007, admitted that it is a requirement for the area, and this year, I guess, why the petitions started flowing is because we heard government announce that there would be $1 million to look at the possibility of two long-term care facilities for the St. John's area. They are saying: Why can't we have one of those?

We know that it all can't be done the one time, and we are very pleased to know that there were five or six other facilities built around this Province. Carbonear and St. John's were at the top of the list, and we know now there have been facilities for Corner Brook, Clarenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lewisporte, and that is all good. There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, but we are saying that we are the Conception Bay North area which takes in Trinity South as well, and the people are asking government to reconsider their decision last year not to provide the $1 million for this project to proceed, and hopefully this year we will hear an announcement.

I call upon my hon. colleagues from the adjacent communities to stand behind their constituents, bring their issues forward, so that a long-term care facility will become a reality in the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call from our Order Paper Motion 2.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2, Bill 50; and

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991No. 2, Bill 50, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 50, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2, carried. (Bill 50)

CLERK (MacKenzie): A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2." (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 50 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act, Bill 63; and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act, Bill 63, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 63 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act," carried. (Bill 63)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 63 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Rooms Act. (Bill 64)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, Bill 64, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 64 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rooms Act," carried. (Bill 64)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Rooms Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 64 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 64 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 68)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2, Bill 68, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 68 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2," carried. (Bill 68)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act." (Bill 55)

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been moved and seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 55 – it is a Homes For Special Care Act. This is a revoking of a particular piece of legislation that was in place since 1973. Since that time new legislation has been brought in place to deal special homes such as these.

When this act was enacted back in 1973, it was applicable to three particular facilities in the Province, I say, Mr. Speaker. One was the Hoyles Home here in St. John's, the other was the Harbour Lodge in Carbonear, and the other one was a children's home here in St. John's. Now, since that time we have created regional health authorities, both the current structure of the regional health authorities which is governed by the Regional Health Authorities Act, and prior to that, health facilities and health programs in the Province were governed by the Hospitals Act.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation here that we are talking about today was a piece of legislation that, yes, was relevant in 1973 when we operated these three particular homes for children. Since that time, these homes have – well Hoyles is still in existence and Harbour Lodge is still in existence but their roles have changed significantly, and the children's home here in St. John's is no longer in existence.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a relatively routine piece of legislation that sets out a process to repeal an old and outdated piece of legislation that no longer has any application for the care and provision of services to the children who would have been cared for in those three particular facilities back in 1973.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, this is not a very significant piece of legislation relative to today's terms, but one of the things I would point out, is in as much as these three facilities, two of which are still standing, the other one has since been eliminated, the population that was served by those three homes at that particular time – and they did provide a valuable service at that particular point in time – but since that time the children of this Province are being cared for through a variety of other programs, through one of our four regional health authorities, or supported by programs through HRLE. Those individual children who would have been provided with care and support in those three homes back then are now being provided supports and services through a long-term care and community support services strategy.

Members in this House will recall that in response to numerous questions over the last four or five months, I have indicated clearly our government's strategy development process that has been focusing on a comprehensive review of all our community supports, all our long-term care supports. Some of the same children who were cared for in these three homes back in 1973 and the years that followed that, are now receiving supports and services under one of those particular health authorities and through our long-term care and supportive services programs.

Mr. Speaker, I am only too glad, as we move into the committee stage, if there are some very specific questions around this particular bill, I will be only too glad to answer them but, I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively routine process, taking out of play a piece of legislation that no longer has any application because the children being served and were dealt with under this legislation are now being dealt with under the Regional Health Authorities Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 55.

Mr. Speaker, obviously this legislation was put in place at a time in our history when we were dealing with serious problems around foster care and providing for safe homes for children in the Province, whether that be on a temporary or on an extended basis.

Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that while we stand here repealing the act that would have designated special homes and special care for people who were either in a foster care situation or adults that were suffering from other kinds of illnesses or inflictions that needed special care, we are still in the position today in this Province where we have growing numbers of children who are being taken into foster care.

In fact, back earlier this year we were –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, I know. I said it was special care homes for adults who had inflictions or other disabilities that were – the minister is trying to change the vamp of my speech but it will not work today, Mr. Speaker, because when you are dealing with special care homes, you are dealing with homes that provide for a safe haven and care for all people in our society. I am saying to the minister, he may have missed the first part of my speech, but what I am saying to him is that at a time when these kinds of facilities were warranted to be able to care for people who suffered from illnesses and disabilities within our society, over a course of time we have either been better, Mr. Speaker, at providing for these individuals in their own homes and in their own families, or providing better treatment for them in communities, enabling them to become more self-confident and self-assertive in taking care of their own needs, with the support of aids and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, this has allowed a lot of people in our society to live more independently, and I know a number of these people who today live very differently than they would have thirty years ago in this Province. Today they have independent living arrangements, where they have their own apartments, where they have people who help them with daily chores, and help them with their personal things that they need to do to care for themselves, and it is a much better way. It is a much better way for these people because it instills confidence in them and it gives them a sense of independence that, years ago, under the older system, they did not have the opportunity to do. I am not saying that all things were bad under that system. I am saying that it was done in response to the need at the time, and it allowed for individuals to live together in a group home setting or in a special home setting where they could get care that ordinarily they would not be able to get anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing for special care for people in our Province, it is still a challenge for us. Even today in this Province we have over 700 children in foster care, and we have only 400 homes that are able to take those children. That leaves us with a very difficult situation, because today we are seeing children who are taken into custody and awarded to the state, being put up in hotels, being put up in housekeeping units, in apartment facilities; but, Mr. Speaker, there is no other option in the absence of having proper foster care and proper foster families.

At least we have the ability to know that these children, while they are being put up in hotels or in apartments, that they are being provided a safe haven, that they have a roof over their head, that they have food; but, Mr. Speaker, I have to question, to a certain degree, whether they have the proper programs, the proper services and the proper individuals trained to care for them. That is a debate for another day, but it is certainly one that I have done a lot of work on, and I have taken an extensive look at, and I am sure that we will see a debate on it in the House of Assembly in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, today in this Province, while we have 700 foster children in care and awarded to the state, we have only 400 foster families. I want to encourage people in this Province to become a foster family, to open up your home and open up your hearts to some of these children - children who need, even for a short time, Mr. Speaker, a family to go to, the nurturing and the caring of being in a family unit, of being in a home. I am sure there are lots of families out there in this Province that have the capacity and have the nurturing ability to open their homes to a lot of these children.

Mr. Speaker, since the Zachary Turner inquiry occurred and was completed back in October 2006 - and I remember it well, Mr. Speaker, because I was just leaving the Province on vacation when the Turner Report came out, and I actually took it with me and spent the two weeks reading that report, only because I could not put it down. In that report, it identified a lot of the gaps that existed within our system and it cautioned a lot of the people who work within our bureaucracy, especially in child, health and family services, that you take nothing for granted.

As a result of the Turner Report we have seen an increase in the number of cases that are being reported to Eastern Health and, in essence, to all the health boards in the Province. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, not just the effect it has had in this Province but I remember seeing a report that was on CBC – I don't know if it was the fifth estate or some other report - back in February of this year, in which they talked about the Zachary Turner case but they also talked about other inquiries that were done into deaths in provinces across Canada. As a result of it, it has caused people who work in health and community services and child services to be much more cautious, and we are seeing more cases being reported right across Canada and particularly in our own Province.

Mr. Speaker, about a quarter of the children in Labrador's two Innu communities in particular are in some form of protective custody. I talked about this last year in the House of Assembly when we realized that more than 200 children were in the child welfare system, and there were another 100 children that were being watched by the system, that could be removed at any time, according to the elders in the community who spoke out against this publicly.

Mr. Speaker, these are alarming numbers; because, when you have about 800 children or residents living in the two Innu communities in our Province under the age of eighteen and you realize that at least one-quarter or more of them are either in custody or being watched by the state, it should cause governments and ministries to wake up to what the real problems are in these communities. These are communities where families need healing, where investments have to be made in healing the community and the family and not just taking the child and putting them into foster care. That is one component of it. Allowing for the protection of services for the child is one component, but we need to also ensure that we provide for proper facilities and treatments within these communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the culture of the Innu people, and I know that the treatment centre that they set up a couple of years ago on the Churchill Road is having a magnificent impact on that community for those families. It is a centre where parents take their children and they go to the centre, and they get the services and they get the healing and they get the expertise of those that are there, so that the whole family has the opportunity for treatment and therefore they are able to maintain their family unit. They have had a lot of success from that program.

That was something that was instituted by the Innu people themselves. They were the brainchild behind this, and it was the leaders in their community that pushed to have this done. It is effective and it is working, but we need to see more of it. We need to see a lot more of it, Mr. Speaker, and we need to ensure that the children we are placing into foster care have the opportunity to bridge the culture with their community, and that they are not always – I remember one of the Innu elders saying to me that she was very concerned that a lot of the Innu children were being sent outside of their community and outside of Labrador. In fact, I think the last number was that there were 100 Innu children in foster care who were now living outside of Labrador. That was a concern to the elders in the community, and a primary concern to the elder that I had talked to. They want to see their children safe, but they also want to see them in their community and in their culture and having the opportunity to be able to grow up in that environment. That means we need to put more energy and more effort into healing the communities and into healing the families.

Mr. Speaker, today there are twenty-seven children from this Province who are in foster care outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, almost all of those children are from Labrador. I have had an opportunity to meet with the foster care agencies in Ontario that house those children and they are in what they call therapeutic foster homes. We have none of those homes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but for a number of years we have been sending our children to those homes in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the boards that I met with and the individuals that are involved, there is no doubt, they provide a good service. It is not the service that is even being questioned by me, but what is being questioned is why we do not have these therapeutic foster homes here in our own Province. Why are we having to send our children in Labrador to Ontario for treatment and away from their families, away from the community and the Province that they are somewhat familiar with, to be able to seek the service that they need?

I think it can be provided in this Province very easily, because what I understood from the people who run the therapeutic foster homes in Ontario is that a lot of these homes are in the outskirts, the suburbs of the Province. They are not in the main cities. They are in the suburbs. These children live with families who have some training and ability to deal with extensive cases. Some of these children may have addictions problems, some may have come from an abusive home or an abusive family and they need to have proper counselling and services. Some of these children may have been in trouble with the law and they need to have those kinds of services, and they are getting those services. They are not necessarily getting all of that in the family they are living with, but they are getting it as part of the services of a therapeutic foster home.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that we cannot have those facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We pay to send them out, and so we should, but the amount of money we are paying we could be doing it at home. So it is not a financial consideration for government. It is a matter of making the effort to put the proper services in place right here in Newfoundland and Labrador so that these children have the opportunity to be able to do that.

When it comes to providing care for people in our society, obviously, the responsibility of it falls to the greatest extent to the government. I know and understand that oftentimes the ministry and the department are challenged in terms of the amount of service that needs to be provided, the quality of the service that needs to be provided. Oftentimes, we hear we do not have the numbers to warrant it, we do not have the cases to support it. Mr. Speaker, sometimes those arguments bear merit and sometimes they do not. We were dealing with a case in this Province today, a situation not unlike would have been dealt with back in the 1970s, when the answer at that time would have been these homes, those support homes that we are repealing the act for today.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have another problem. It is a problem in servicing our mentally ill youth in this Province. We have, in Newfoundland and Labrador, increasing and alarming rates of suicide attempts being reported by young people, people under the age of eighteen. We also have a number of cases where our youth are being hospitalized at the Janeway but are not receiving what they call intensive treatment programs for the illnesses that they have. This has become a major concern for parents in this Province. So far, government has been addressing the problem over the last number of years by sending these young people outside of Newfoundland and Labrador to get treatment. Again, I think there needs to be solutions found at home. What is sad about all of that is that there is a report that was done back in 2003, submitted in December of that year to the ministry, which recommended at that time that there be a treatment facility for youth in this Province who were suicidal and needed to have proper treatment and proper programs.

Mr. Speaker, that report has sat in the Department of Health and Community Services for the last five years, through three successive ministers and administrations and has not been dealt with. That is unfortunate. It is more than unfortunate, it is absolutely sad. It is sadder for those young people who have spent the last number of years in and out of the Janeway hospital crying out for psychiatric services, intense treatments and programs to help them deal with their suicide problem and their mentally ill problem. In addition to that, we have growing numbers of young people that are dealing with emotional disorders in the Province, who also have been crying out for help and looking for special treatments and facilities to be able to handle that.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to encourage government to go down a path of taking some real action and dealing with these problems that our mentally ill and emotionally challenged young people are dealing with. We want them to go down the path of putting in place the appropriate treatment programs right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have had people look at me and say: Oh, we do not want another Exon House. We do not want another home like we are talking about today in Bill 55. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not about brick and mortar. It is never about brick and mortar. Brick and mortar is just a roof under which everything falls. It is all about programs. It is all about treatment. It is all about services, and whether that happens in a wing of a hospital, whether that happens in a separate building, whether that requires a new facility, to me that is not the relevant piece to this. The relevant piece to this is that there needs to be something done, more than what we have seen in the past, and I want to encourage the minister, and encourage his government to go down the path of looking at different programs and services for young people who suffer from mental illness in this Province. Do not look at it as being brick and mortar; do not look at it as being institutional services. Look at it in the context of treatment and what treatments are required.

When I look at institutionalizing, I see what is happening at the Janeway right now where some of these children have been in lockdown units of the Janeway for up to three and four months and have not seen the light of day. To me, that is institutional care. Only getting the services of a psychiatrist for an hour out of a week, to me, is not a treatment program. These children have to be watched hourly, daily, minute-by-minute. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are cases in which they cannot be left alone.

That is the seriousness of the problem that we deal with, and that problem will not go away unless there is some form of intervention to deal with it, some form of treatment. The answer right now today, unfortunately, outside of lockdown mode in the Janeway to protect them from themselves, the only other option is to send them outside of our Province, away from their families, away from their parents and their siblings and their friends, to be able to get that treatment. Some will go, but not all will go. Not all will go, because they suffer from illnesses that do not often give them the kind of confidence and encouragement that they need to be able to take on something like that.

I know of cases, Mr. Speaker, where parents have quit their jobs. They have had to leave their jobs to stay at home to care for their teenage daughter who was ill and needed to be there with them on a daily basis. You can do that for a shorter period of time but you cannot do it for a long period of time. It is not something that is sustainable over a long period of time. It is not healthy for the family and it is not healthy for the other children that are in this family, so something more needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that now that the minister has the report and has assigned some officials in the department to look at the recommendations in this report, that we can very quickly see government shape out a strategy and a plan that will provide for the treatment and the services for these young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at the statistics that the RCMP had put out, they were documenting then about 1,300 calls from young people in the Province, of which most of them were suicidal calls. That was last year alone. Now, think about it like this: the RCMP services the rural areas of this Province. The RNC services the St. John's and a lot of the Eastern Avalon area, they service the Corner Brook area and they service Labrador West. The stats that the RCMP quotes are for the jurisdiction in which they serve, and that jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, takes in the rest of the areas of the Province: the Clarenville area, the Grand Falls area, the Stephenville area, Port aux Basques, Goose Bay, and the smaller, more rural areas in between. So, really, you are talking about half the population of the Province that would be serviced by the RCMP, and if they are reporting numbers of 1,300 calls from youth, of which most were related to suicide, that should tell us that is only about half of the number of people that are actually calling in. We could not get firm statistics in the St. John's and the Corner Brook areas because the hospitals do not record the intake numbers.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with suicide numbers in the St. John's area, the RNC would not have that kind of data. They may have some numbers, and they may have even had several hundred cases, but a lot of the people in this area would go directly to an emergency room or would go directly to another facility or to some other form of help or assistance.

The numbers and the data were not readily available in the same way, but those numbers in themselves tell us that there is a problem. Then again, we do not need those numbers; we just need to go out and talk to people who suffer from this, families that are dealing with it, and you get a very clear picture of the seriousness of this problem and realize that it is not something that can be ignored any longer. We have reached a point where government needs to take this in hand and seriously do something to try and help it.

Mr. Speaker, I talked today about a number of issues. Of course, when you talk about homes for special care you certainly have to talk about home care in this Province; there is no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, I touched –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) great latitude.

MS JONES: Yes, it is great latitude, I say to the minister, to talk about a number of these issues that warrant some profile and some consideration.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt, homes for special care can translate into a number of things. I talked about foster care and the number of children in this Province, 700 children today, in foster care; yet, only 400 foster care families available to take them. I talked about therapeutic care for our young people who are outside the Province, and I talked about the need for treatment for mental health, young people suffering from mental heath services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about home care because home care is one of the issues in this Province that has yet to be able to sort itself out. The problems that complicate home care are various and they range from the services that are being provided in the home, and the eligibility for those services, right down to those who provide the service, those workers in the system.

Mr. Speaker, 64 per cent of the people in this Province who receive home care are over the age of sixty-five. We already know that couples over the age of sixty-five are asked to contribute heavily in order to access home care services. This was an issue that we raised in the House of Assembly last year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had a tremendous amount of support from seniors around this Province when we were raising this issue, simply because of the co-pay system that exists. Mr. Speaker, the co-pay system is not conducive to allowing for the appropriate services for people who are senior citizens in this Province and require home care.

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about repealing an act for special care homes: homes that were set up where groups of people could go into those homes and get specific care that they needed, whether it was because they were just elderly or whether it was because they suffered from certain disabilities or certain illnesses. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are allowing for a system where people who need home care can get it right in their own homes; but, in order for them to stay in their homes and access this care, they need to have support and supplements from the government.

Mr. Speaker, the government sets a benchmark for those who are eligible for home care services. People have to be able to meet that benchmark in order to qualify for any kind of subsidies. Once they reach that benchmark they are asked to contribute under what is called a co-pay system.

We heard of cases, Mr. Speaker, where seniors in this Province were asked to contribute half of their income in order to access appropriate home care services. These are individuals, couples, two people in a home, who are earning less than $30,000 a year as their total annual income, but in order to stay in their home, in order to live there and provide for the care they needed, they needed home care services. In order to access those home care services government was saying, you need to contribute at least $12,000 to $15,000 annually towards that cost. That was half of their income. That was leaving these two elderly people in their own home to pay for their heat and their light and their groceries and their medication and their transportation with less than half their income. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

You are asking these individuals to live way below the poverty line. Yet, we have strategies in this Province to combat poverty, to help people up out of poverty, to help families, to help the elderly, to help our children who are living in poverty in this Province. Then we design programs to assist them and help them that push them right back into the situation, that push them down into poverty, that don't allow them to meet their monthly expenditures and be able to maintain home care services.

Mr. Speaker, if someone doesn't see that there is something wrong with that, then they should not be in this House. We come here to represent the needs of minorities, to ensure that there is fairness in our system and fairness for all people. That, Mr. Speaker, is not fairness. It is not fairness when there are two senior citizens out there in Bonavista or in Trinity or in Benoit's Cove or in Cartwright or anywhere in this Province who have to give up half their income to the government in order to access home care services so that they can stay in their own homes and not have to be put into an institution or a long-term care facility.

Get this, Mr. Speaker! Get this! We charge them for home care. They stay in their own home, we charge them to give them the care, but they come into a long-term care facility and we subsidize them twice that amount, I would say, twice that amount. It is at least $3,000 or $3,500 a month now. The minister can tell me - I am sure he knows it off the top of his head - but it must be at least $3,000 a month now to keep an elderly person in a long-term care facility.

Mr. Speaker, that being the case, to keep two elderly people in a long-term care facility is double that. So, we charge them to get home care services in their own home, we charge them, forcing them to live below the poverty wages, less than standard wages in our society, running their homes and their households on $12,700-and-some-odd a month, Mr. Speaker. We do that asking them to cover their heat costs and their light costs and their food costs and their medical costs and their transportation costs, on less than $13,000 a year or something.

Then, if they will not do that, their only other option is to go into a long-term care facility. When they go into a long-term care facility, Mr. Speaker, it costs the government money. It costs the government a lot more money. In fact, I am quoting $3,000 a person and I am thinking that I might be a little bit off. It is probably $2,600 or $2,500 a person, is it, Minister?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, it is higher than $3,000. I am being much too generous, apparently. The cost of keeping a person in a long-term care facility, we know, is over $3,000 a month. That would be in the range of $6,000.

Is that the desired position that we want to be pushing people, our elderly people, into? I don't think so. If they are able to care for themselves in their own home with certain supports and certain home care supports, then that is the route that we should be going.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a Province today where the numbers of elderly people are increasing. Our statistics are showing, Mr. Speaker, that we will have a great deal more people depending upon long-term care services and home care services in this Province over the next ten years than we do today.

Mr. Speaker, today we have almost 69,000 seniors in our population base, and one-third of our population is over the age fifty. I am quoting this now from Statistics Canada from 2006. What they are saying is that by 2016 seniors will represent almost 20 per cent of the Province's population. By 2026 they will represent 27 per cent of the total population of the Province.

These are alarming increases in terms of the number of seniors that will become dependent upon supports in our system, so we really need to put our head around this. Government needs to start looking at how they can change the financial assessment tools that are used to determine whether seniors get home care or whether they do not.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, seniors that I know and talk to, most of them want to live independently in their own homes for as long as they possibly can. They do not want to have to go into a long-term care facility. That, to them, is a last resort. That is their last option. If we are not going to provide them with home care supports so that once they have serious operations and come out of the hospital there is care for them when their spouse cannot do it, if we do not provide for the proper home care supports, they will be forced into long-term care facilities.

In fact, I see it in my notes here now that the cost for a person to live in a long-term care facility is $4,200 a month. I was quoting $3,000. It is actually $4,200.

MR. WISEMAN: You are still off.

MS JONES: The minister says I am still off. It must be higher, is it? It must still be higher.

Of course, these would have been stats, I say to the minister, that would have been in 2007.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) research (inaudible).

MS JONES: If I had some money to update my research from last year I would have gotten the number accurate right from the beginning; but, Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the government did cut and did not support a motion to give extra research dollars to the Opposition office, so please forgive me if I am a couple of hundred dollars off in what it costs to keep a senior citizen in a home in this Province today.

The numbers that I have here tell me that it is $4,200 a month, and the minister says it is even more than that. I guess my argument is: Why not change the financial tools that we are using to assess who is eligible for home care in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that more people get to stay in their own homes, get to have appropriate care in their own homes, and get to live above the poverty level? That is very important. That is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, home care, in my opinion, is one of the best programs that we have going in this Province but it needs some work. Not only do we need to change the financial tools so that people who are over the age of sixty-five can access more supports and be able to maintain their income and not be forced to live in poverty, but we also need to look at those tools that we are using to assess people who are under the age of sixty-five, who are not senior citizens in our society: people who suffer from disabilities, who, a few years ago, back in 1973 when this legislation was coming in, would have been put in these special care homes. Well today, Mr. Speaker, those individuals are living independently in their own homes, but we need to ensure that they have proper supports as well.

Mr. Speaker, I got introduced to some really sad stories back about a year ago, of people in this Province who live with disabilities, who live independently, and the lack of supports that are out there in the system for them.

Mr. Speaker, we think that the government has a responsibility to ensure that this group of people, as well, are assessed appropriately, and that the proper supports are being provided for them so that they, too, can have a quality of life and be able to participate in the community in the way that they want.

I can tell you that some of the people I have dealt with, who are in our system, who suffer from disabilities, are some of the brightest people I have ever met. They are well-educated, they have gone to university, they have gone to post-secondary, they have a lot to contribute in our community and in our Province, but they have physical needs that have to be met, they have services that are required, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they get those and they get them adequately.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of pieces to this that we could talk about, and I could go into the exact cost of what it is costing the people in the Province today to be able to live, but I am going to try and restrict my comments there. Before I do, I want to talk about the home care workers themselves.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have between 5,000 and 6,000 people who work as home care workers. They are individuals who go into private homes everyday to provide health care and home making services to our seniors and to our people with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a shortage of home care workers in this Province; we also know that there is a shortage of home care workers right across the country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Fifth Estate ran a program a little while ago on the people from the West Coast of Newfoundland, from down in my colleague's district in Burgeo & LaPoile, who were travelling across the Gulf into Nova Scotia and providing home care services to individuals in Nova Scotia. They were working, Mr. Speaker, a month on and month off providing this service, and it seemed to be a good fit for most of them.

In this Province we have between 5,000 and 6,000 people who everyday get up and provide a service as a home care worker in this Province. Mr. Speaker, they have been through a tremendous amount of challenges over the years because their job is not easy. There job is not easy! They are serving people in this Province and providing a valuable service to those who cannot provide it to themselves. That means that it is a physically intensive job sometimes. It is a job that requires a lot of concentration when you are dealing with medications, you are dealing with severe illnesses and injuries and disabilities. These people need to be very nurturing people, and they are. They provide not just the service, Mr. Speaker, but they provide oftentimes the emotional stability that is required in the relationship. They require supports. They supply love and nurturing and caring to all of these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, home care workers for a number of years have been challenging government because they either all work directly for the individuals or they work for an agency. They certainly feel that they are not being paid appropriately. They do not get the kind of benefits that they should be getting, and I tend to agree with them. Mr. Speaker, I think they thought that when they went out and started the movement of unionizing home care workers in the Province that they would actually see some significant changes in their status, that they would actually get better pay, better standards of work, better benefits for the work that they do, but unfortunately those things have not materialized for them.

I say to government today, that home care is a much better option for the individuals involved and it is a much better financial option for government, so if it means that you have to provide a little bit more subsidy to the individuals that require the service, so be it. It also means that if you need to pay a little bit more to get that care provided in the home, then you need to look at that and you need to look at it seriously.

I know that governments never want to walk into a situation where they become the employer of 5,000 or 6,000 home care workers in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: it is a service that we require. They are doing this service on behalf of the government and the people of the Province. If these home care workers were not out there providing the service in the homes to those who need it, government would never be able to keep up with the infrastructure required to provide for long-term care services. Whether you take the responsibility on directly or indirectly, it is your responsibility at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I think that government needs to seriously look at what kind of package can be put out there for home care workers to provide for the additional incentives and benefits that they are asking for, because the shortage of home care workers in this province means more demand is being put on long-term care facilities, and government knows that they cannot invest and build fast enough the infrastructure to keep up with what the need is going to be. Right now, they talk about the long-term care facility that is going out in Corner Brook. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was a commitment that was made when we were in government, a commitment that we were prepared to act on; absolutely, no doubt.

The minister knows that we had a study done of all the long-term care needs in the Province. We had just identified what those needs were, Mr. Speaker, when the government changed. One of those needs happened to be in Carbonear. One of those needs happened to be in Clarenville. One of those needs happened to be in Goose Bay. I remember it well, I say to the minister. I have read a lot of reports and documents in the days I have been in this House. I might not remember the absolute numbers in every one but there is a lot of important information I do remember; and that I do remember.

Mr. Speaker, you are talking five years ago, and in five years, even with the continuous commitment of the government opposite, it still takes a long time and a lot of investment I am pointing that out because I want you to understand that if we continue to have a shortage of home care workers in the Province because we do not pay them appropriately and give them appropriate benefit packages, and if we do not provide for the necessary financial assessment tools and criteria to ensure that people can access the service and live in their homes ,we are going to find ourselves in a situation where the numbers of people trying to get into long-term care facilities in this Province will be out of hand and government will not be able to address the need. You need to understand that because it is going to take several years. Even to act on the commitment that is there now to build no long-term care facilities in St. John's, in Corner Brook and in Goose Bay, it is going to take time for that infrastructure to be in place and for those beds to be open.

The other thing you need to know, Mr. Speaker, is that in replacing those long-term care facilities I just mentioned we are not necessarily adding a lot of new capacity. The minister will acknowledge that, I am sure. What we are doing is replacing infrastructure that has really been around for a long time, that is worn, that needs to be replaced, that is no longer suitable to be able to deliver the kind of care that it was intended to.

That happens, Mr. Speaker, with all infrastructure is after a while just like it happens to all of us after we are around for a long time. Buildings are no different and after twenty-five or thirty-five years you start seeing the wear and tear in this infrastructure. The new long-term care facilities that are being built are not necessarily increasing the capacity in those homes. Really, what it is doing is allowing for a new facility for those people who already occupy the beds.

We certainly need to be cognizant of all of those things and we need to ensure that we put in place a home care program in this Province that is going to take the pressure off our long-term care institutions, but, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, give people the tools they need to live independently, to live in their own homes, to provide for themselves and have the appropriate services to do so. Sometimes, that becomes very difficult because we see continuous increase in costs.

Although the price of gasoline has dropped in the Province the price of home heating fuel has not dropped. My colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, asked a question in the House this week, when were the fuel allowances going to be issued in the Province to those who are in need, have low income and seniors who qualify. She asked that question simply because I am sure she has had a lot of requests from people asking her if she knows when that benefit is going to be available, and we have had calls as well, because although we have seen the price of crude go down and the price of gasoline drop, the price of home heating fuel has not dropped.

There are still escalating costs out there for many of our people who are on low income and are seniors who require care under the government as part of the Department of Health and Community Services. We want to ensure that government is being cognizant of all of this, and if you are going to put programs in place to assist them, do not offer it to them in one hand and take half their annual income in the other hand and force them into a situation where they have to live in poverty. Basically, Mr. Speaker, that is the point that I wanted to make around that piece of it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could certainly go on for a long time on a number of these issues as they relate to Bill 55, and I think there is another bill, Bill 56 or maybe 57, that is coming up as well. Two of those bills are interconnected. One allows for the legislation for the home and the act for the home, the other one allows for the allowances that would have gone along to support those facilities. So, it is all interconnected and certainly has an impact in terms of where we go today with the various sectors of our Province in providing appropriate care to those out there in the system that need it.

I think that government has a lot on its plate right now. They have a lot on their plate right now in being able to provide for the adequate services for all of these different groups, whether they be foster children; whether they be youth who suffer from mental illness; whether it be our Aboriginal children that are in therapeutic care outside the Province; whether it be our seniors who require the services of home care; whether it be people that are disabled who need supports and home care supports; whether it be those who need to access the services of long-term care facilities. They are all very huge issues and they are very complex issues. I certainly do not envy the minister, on any given day, when he is faced with some of the options that might be there in dealing with this but I always feel there is a better way.

Once you find a problem and you have seen that problem, there is always going to be a solution. It is sometimes a matter of will in implementing that solution, sometimes it is a matter of being prepared to take a new direction. I think what this government needs to do in some of these cases is take new directions, because a lot of the things that I just asked for is not about money. It is not about money and if you were to weigh it out at the end of the day I would think that the financial cost would be the least in the equation. In fact, I think if some of these things were done a little bit differently we would actually be saving money. We would actually be saving money. So that is the challenge that government has to look at and decide if they are prepared to do things differently to address the needs that have been outlined here, or if they are prepared to just continue with the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this, whether it has been in foster care, in therapeutic foster care, in home care, in long-term care, or with people who suffer from disabilities, I can say this, that the answers have all been the same, and that is that we need to have some change. Especially when it comes to children or youth that suffer from mental illness, it is very obvious that change is required and a different direction is required.

So, just as the minister repeals this act today, to look at different directions of special care in this Province, I encourage him to look at some of the options that people of the Province have asked for and have laid out before him and his government. We would certainly look forward to seeing some favourable changes taking place that will enhance the services to these people within the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very pleased to have some time today to speak to Bill 55, which of course is a bill that is repealing An Act Respecting Homes For Special Care.

The reason I am happy to speak to this bill is because of issues that are covered in the act that the bill repeals. While the specifics of the act, the actual homes may no longer exist – although I would suggest, as the minister did, that Hoyles Home still does. While the homes themselves for the most part do not exist, the issues that the homes and the act dealt with still do. So when we look at the act that we are repealing, we see that what the act is referring to was the institution known as the Hoyles Home in St. John's, the Harbour Lodge in Carbonear and the institution known as the Children's Home on Water Street West in St. John's. I think the minister referred to all these.

The other group that the act referred to is a general statement which says other institutions in the Province for the care of persons who, because of age, need, infirmity, blindness or other incapacity or disability, are unable to fully care for themselves. That was quite a list there and this act, while it covered institutions that took care of those needs, people who have those needs, and these people were both children and adults, the issues relating to people with needs, these special needs that I have just outlined, both children and adults, still remain.

Now, we know that when these institutions closed, they closed because the care that these individuals required now came under a whole new program in government, and that was community services, where the needs were going to be met in the community. So, if it was somebody who had a need because of being elderly, or somebody who had a need because of having some kind of an infirmity, or what we might now call a disability, whether it was blindness or another incapacity, and anybody who was unable to fully care for themselves, that we would try now to take care of these needs in the community.

We do that partially, because now, for example, we have a pretty sophisticated system, and in that system we assess people and we try to keep people in the community for as long as we can before they actually go into an institution. Sometimes that works and sometimes that does not work, so I think as we repeal the act it is important for us to ask the question: How well are we now doing what we were doing before under this act in institutions? How well are we taking care of the people with the needs that are referred to here?

The way our system is now, of course, is that we have an act now, we have regulations, actually, that come under our Health and Community Services Act, and they are regulations for personal care homes. That is called the Personal Care Home Regulations under the Health and Community Services Act. Under the personal care home regulations of the Health and Community Services Act, we find that these regulations cover adults, because it is adults who are in personal care homes. So that is a distinction between the act that we are repealing and the regulations under the Health and Community Services Act. We do not now put children into personal care homes, and that is good. I think that is a real step forward, but there is a real challenge to our programs because of not having people in institutions, and it is a challenge that we have to meet. It is not a challenge, I do not think, from a financial perspective, because there are all kinds of studies - and my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, made reference to some of this - that indicate that it is less expensive to have people in their own home being taken care of in the community than have them in institutions. I think that those statistics, those studies that have been done, the information that is out there, cannot be refuted.

The challenge with regard to taking care of people in their own homes is not a financial issue, so then we have to ask why we cannot do a better job than we are doing. What I want to do is refer to some of the needs that people have when they are not in an institution, and how we are taking care of them.

One obvious one, of course, is housing itself; they have to have a place to live. Very often people who have disabilities, people who have needs, are people who are on social assistance or receiving disability assistance, and getting housing to meet their needs is not easy. One of the things that I encounter, for example, as an MHA here in the City of St. John's, is that we do not have adequate housing under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing; we do not have adequate units for people with a disability - the units that have the access into the apartment, and the apartment is structured in such a way that wheelchairs and other paraphernalia can be used in the apartments. So, there is always the problem of waiting to find a place for somebody who has a need.

I know, for example, we recently had, I think, five new units that were created in St. John's under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and they are located on Froude Avenue - I think it was five that were created there - but already that is not enough. We need many more units. Whether we are talking about housing here in St. John's, which is my particular concern, or anywhere in the Province, I think, with our aging population we are going to have an increased need with regard to units that will accommodate people with disabilities. That is a real concern, for example, of people who are dealing with the aged, people who are dealing with the elderly. The aging network, for example, of Newfoundland and Labrador indicates, studying information from Statistics Canada, that of the people over sixty-five in Newfoundland and Labrador right now many have chronic diseases and 50.9 per cent have arthritis or rheumatism. Now, that is quite a high number of elderly people who have arthritis or rheumatism, both of which cause physical disability, difficulty with walking for sure and mobility. Fifty per cent have high blood pressure and 20 per cent have heart disease.

Now, all of these diseases have physical implications and create needs for people in the type of housing they live in. One just may be being on one level so that they don't have to go onto a second level. Others may include having to use wheelchairs, for example, and walkers and things of that nature, so that the unit they live in, or the apartment or the house they live in, has to accommodate those needs.

As I said, because so many people as they age – we have a large number also who are requiring various financial assistance. We need to up the housing that is there for people with disabilities. It is a real need that we have. It is something that we are dealing with regularly in my constituency office.

We have just spent, for example, with one person, one man, who is in hospital – he still has a partner and his needs have become greater since his hospitalization. My constituency assistant has just spent, I think, five weeks trying to get a place for that person to live. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing just didn't have an empty unit for somebody with disability. They didn't have it. They couldn't create it. This couple, with the help of their son, had to try to find something out there in the community. They eventually, as of this week, came up with something that now Newfoundland and Labrador Housing say they will cover. A tremendous amount of time, both on the part of the family and on the part of my constituency assistant, went into trying to get housing for that one person. That is multiplied many times over a year. It is one of the issues that most comes to our office. We get phone calls on all kinds of issues, like any other constituency office, but the one that we get the highest number of calls on is housing. Very often - not always, but very often - the housing has to do with people who have disability needs. If we are going to have people in the community, living in the community, with disabilities, we have to make sure that we have adequate services, and one of the adequate services is housing.

Another issue for people living in the community and people with disabilities of the type that I read out of the act that we are repealing, and there are all kinds of others, another big need is transportation. Every now and again in the news we see issues with regard to the transportation program – it is not really a program, but I will put that word on it – that we have for transportation for people who have physical disabilities. Again, it is an inadequate program. This program in particular is private companies who receive government money subsidies to help with running the program. Of course, it does not exist everywhere in the Province. All kinds of people with disabilities cannot get a public transportation system to ferry them around. The system that we have here in St. John's, for example – and, once again, it is an issue that comes to me from my constituents - the system that we have here in St. John's is inadequate for the needs. Yet, we put people out in the community and we expect them to live full lives but we do not have adequate services for them as they try to lead those full lives.

If we are going to not have institutions and if, in the long-term care homes that we do have, we are trying to limit it to people who are really needy – people, in the terminology that we use, who are at Level III or Level IV levels of care - then we have to make sure that the services that we have for them as they live in the community help them have the greatest quality of life.

Unfortunately, there are many people who are living with disabilities, with infirmities, with physical and other needs, and mental health needs as well, out in the community who do not have the greatest quality of life because we are not offering the best quality to them.

So, when we took away the homes and we came into a system of having people live in the communities, we took on a responsibility to make sure that, in their homes, they would have homes were they could get around. We wanted to make sure they were homes where they could have heat and could afford that heat. We also took on a responsibility that they would be able to be mobile within their community through a transportation system. We also took on a responsibility that, with regard to their personal care, if they could not take care of themselves personally, which is also talked about in the act that they are repealing, then the services would be there for them to have personal care in their homes.

I will not say it is the worst area, because I think the lack of enough affordable units for people who have disabilities to live in is a big one, but probably even worse than that is the inadequacy of our home care system; that people who require personal care do not get adequate care in their homes. That is another issue that the Aging Issues Network is really concerned about and something that they have quite a bit of facts on, and that we need to listen to.

I know that they really tried during the election, during 2007, during our General Election, to get their issues out. They came to people like us, to all parties who were running, and they told us what their concerns were, and they questioned us on what our policies are.

In doing that, they provided quite a bit of information, and one of the things that they came up with, and I think it is something that the government needs to look at, is having a minimum care standard of a certain number of hours a day, per person. That minimum care standard is something that is happening in provinces, some of which are as well off as we are, and others that are not.

Nova Scotia has come up with a minimum care standard. New Brunswick is phasing in a minimum care standard. They are supposed to be in the process, having it phased in by this year. Ontario already has it, I think. Alberta has been slow to do it, and I find that really interesting because it is the wealthiest province in the country. Yet, they don't see the need for having a minimum care standard as yet. They have to work on this.

Having this recognized standard of so many hours a day is something that is really growing across our country. If we are going to have people living in their own homes, then they have to have that minimum amount. In order to give them that minimum amount it is not adequate to say we are going to do it, if we were to consider it and I think we have to consider it, we also have to make sure that there is a system, a structure, that can offer them the minimum amount of home care a day. That means we have to have enough workers, and in order to have enough workers we are going to have do something both about the salaries for home care workers in this Province and something about the standards of the home care and the personal care that is provided, standards for the agencies that hire the workers, and we also have to do something with regard to the training of people who are doing the work.

We took on a major responsibility. I say to the Minister of Heath, that when my colleague started talking about home care she was sort of stretching it a bit under the act that we are repealing, but I don't think it is stretching it at all, because when this act was no longer needed, and now we are saying it hasn't been needed for a long time, when that happened, when the homes were closed, we took on a major responsibility.

I only have a couple of minutes left, so the other thing I want to get to is the needs with regard to mental health. Unfortunately, there are many times, both for children and adults, when mental health – and I shouldn't say unfortunately, but there are times when if you have a mental health problem you might need to be in an institutional situation in order to get the therapy that you need. It is one of the biggest weaknesses we have right now in the Province, that we do not have residential therapeutic programs for children or adults in this Province. Yes, our health care does pay for people to go outside of the Province, but paying for people to go outside the Province is not adequate. Whether it is children or whether it is adults, it doesn't matter. The reality is that there are times when that residential therapeutic care is needed.

We should be putting in place residential situations for people to get that therapeutic care. Of course, that is going to mean putting together the programs that are needed. It is a different situation than having a physical crisis where you need to go to hospital, you are there for a week, the crisis is dealt with and you leave. Sometimes you may be there for a month.

When it comes to mental health, sometimes you may have a condition that at a certain point requires maybe a couple of months of therapy but it needs to be residential. The nature of the therapy needs to have people in a very closed situation so that not only can there be intensive therapy but people could be monitored during the therapy, et cetera. It is the nature of some mental health conditions.

So it is one of probably the weakest areas for us here in the Province. I do not think that we can say we do not need them because we do not have adequate numbers. I think there is absolutely no doubt, we have adequate numbers of people requiring sometimes long-term, sometimes shorter term residential health programs for mental health.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. If I could just clue up, by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does she have leave?

MS MICHAEL: Just to clue up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say, I do believe that everything that I have pointed out is relevant. I could stay here all day listening to you laugh.

Just to say that I do think that everything I raised here is relevant to the bill that was on the table because of the nature of the act that we are repealing and the responsibilities, as I have said, the responsibilities that we took on when we closed institutions.

I am happy to have had that opportunity. I know that the Minister of Health has heard what I have said and I would like to hear from him, when he stands, on how he thinks we are taking care of our responsibilities.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community. If he speaks now he shall close debate.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to make a couple of short comments to acknowledge points made by my colleagues opposite.

I think one of the things that - we just heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi say that there was relevance to her comments. There was relevance to all the comments I heard, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very important topic.

This act, back in 1973, served a particular population of individuals in this Province who needed supports and services. Today, the manner in which we deliver those programs and services may be different, whether we use institutions or whether we use the community or whether we use some kind of other model of delivering care and services, the populations being served are equally vulnerable today as they were then. So, I do appreciate the comments made by members opposite.

I just want to remind individuals in this House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the bill itself is An Act To Repeal the Homes For Special Care Act. Fundamentally, what we are doing here is taking a piece of legislation that no longer is applicable in the Province and repealing it. So it does not have any real merit today because there is other legislation that has replaced it since that time. In fact, this particular piece of legislation that we are repealing today, you will need it to be read in concert with another piece of legislation that has since been repealed. Maybe, in hindsight, it should have been repealed at that time.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. I acknowledge the relevance of the comments made by my colleagues opposite and there are a couple of things I wanted to reinforce, some things I have said in this House, a couple points I would like to make. One of them is our government's involvement today in looking at our whole long-term care and community support strategy. I have said many times that that is a very significant piece of work in providing services and programs to the population that was served in this particular bill here, but it is a piece of work that has turned out to be much more comprehensive than we initially thought. It is a work, I think, when the people of this House see the recommendations coming from it, they will be impressed with the commitment and reinforced commitment of our government to ensure that people who need programs and services for a longer period of time, whether it is staying in their own home or some other model of care, that the future will bode well for them, and I think it reflects our government's commitment to want to respond to those populations in need.

The second piece has been raised here, because there are a number of populations that have been raised. We talk about individuals needing mental health services, children needing mental health services. We have talked about foster care, therapeutic foster homes. I have heard it all from members opposite, all very critical programs and services, responding to very significant needs, particularly of a paediatric population in the Province and I want to thank members opposite for their comments. I am very glad to comment and respond, though, that these are issues and initiatives government is already very actively engaged in, because we, too, recognize the importance of adequate programs and services to vulnerable populations in our Province.

I thank members opposite for their comments, and with those notes, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act. (Bill 55)

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Homes For Special Care Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 55)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 23, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: It is now moved and seconded that Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry, be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry." (Bill 61)

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Education, that Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry be passed at this time. I want to make a couple of comments.

This bill, the Dental Act, was served to enhance the governance and disciplinary procedures for the practice of dentistry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This ultimately will enhance the public protection by placing greater public accountability on the part of the dental profession and it highlights their responsibilities to the people that they serve. The legislation accomplishes this by outlining an open and a transparent disciplinary process which will be regulated by a governing body for the dental profession in Newfoundland and Labrador known as the Dental Board.

This process grants the board the appropriate powers and authority to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the dental profession. The new act will cover all dentists and dental auxiliary professions. The new governance arrangements and disciplinary procedures outlined in this legislation have been adopted by the provincial government and incorporated in other legislation regarding health disciplines, such as massage therapy, pharmacy and nursing.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that a couple of years back there was a White Paper on self-regulatory professions in the Province. I think this represents maybe about fourteen pieces of legislation that have come forward to this House already making the legislation governing those professions consistent with the recommendations in the White Paper and consistent with each other. As I have said, these measures are all in keeping with that particular White Paper and focusing on greater accountability and more transparency in the regulation of disciplines in this Province.

The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, rather than amendments to the existing legislation, the bill serves to introduce a whole new bill. I am not going to get into all of the sections of the bill, but consistent with my comments here, I just want to highlight a couple of areas in particular where the bill itself is entitled an act, will be cited as a Dental Act of 2008.

There are couple of sections in here, section 5 in particular, that talks about the dental board itself, its composition and its role, that I think is important because this is what the legislation actually speaks to. There is another piece here that talks about the licensing process and what takes place with issuing licenses (inaudible) process. These are all aspects of the legislation that provide for the protection of the general public and give the mandate, the role and responsibility to the board to issue licenses for the practice of dentistry in the Province.

There are a couple of other areas here too, Mr. Speaker, which speak to the whole process of public accountability and how the general public of the Province, if they have a concern or a problem with a dentist who is in practice in the Province, it talks about a process, Mr. Speaker, to register complaints, how those complaints will be heard, and how the general public, through their participation in a complaints procedure - a committee will be established made up of people from the board. There is a piece here that becomes very important. Section 27(3) says, "Three members of the complaints authorization committee, one of whom is a person appointed by the minister to represent the public interest, constitute a quorum of the committee." At all times, I say, Mr. Speaker, this brings in this whole piece of public accountability and greater transparency.

I just wanted to highlight those couple of sections because they are important to the thrust of the new legislation, the thrust of the repeal of many of the other acts that we have had, and the thrust of the White Paper that deals with self regulatory bodies.

That is the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker.

If I just could, for a moment, talk a little bit about the practice of dentistry in the Province, because one of the things that we as a government are extremely proud of - and last year in fact we made enhancements to this program – is that we have one of the strongest children's dental health programs in the entire country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, that is something that we can be extremely proud of. Last year, or the year before last I think it was, our government introduced some changes to that to change the fee structure to allow or to ensure that the services were accessible to many more children in the Province, and the dentists who were providing these services would be adequately compensated relative to the current fee structure in the Province.

The other piece of this that I think is noteworthy of some mention as we deal with this piece of legislation and talk about the practice of dentistry, is one of the big things that we have done to ensure that we have an adequate supply of dentists in the Province, the introduction of our new Dental Bursary Program. We are committing to about $275,000 annually in our Dental Bursary Program, and students in the program of dentistry, who want to come back to practice in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, have an opportunity to make an application to a bursary program that provides for $25,000 annually, up to three years, which could conceivably give a dental student some $75,000 to assist with their educational program, and will see them provide a commitment to return in service to the Province.

I think it was important to note it as we introduce this bill, and timely to talk about it as we introduce this bill, a new dental act for the Province governing the practice of dentistry in the Province. As I have just indicated it is consistent with other acts we have introduced in this House dealing with self regulatory bodies that provide for a greater transparency and a greater accountability and a greater public participation in the regulation of disciplines in the Province. I thought it was important, as well, to highlight what I believe are two very significant investments made by this government, both the dental bursary program and to highlight the significance of our children's dental program. I am very happy to report to the House as well that officials in my department are very actively engaged today in developing a much more comprehensive oral health strategy for the Province. We hope to be introducing some changes in the not to distant future to expand on the program that we already have.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of short words with respect to this bill, and I welcome comments from my colleagues opposite.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly keep my comments brief on this bill.

First of all I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the professional services that are provided by dentists in this Province are very important to the public and to the people of the Province. It is only appropriate that, as a professional organization, they fall under the same governance and structure as the other professional associations within the Province. I am pleased to see that this legislation does speak to the accountability of practice of dentistry in Newfoundland and Labrador and also to the licensing component.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Canadian average for dentists across Canada, there are 57.5 dentists per 100,000 people in Canada. In Newfoundland and Labrador that is less than 32 per cent for 100,000 people. In fact, we probably have the lowest in the country in terms of the proportionate dental services to the population of the Province. Mr. Speaker, that has been felt in a number of regions but it has really been felt in my own district. I raised this issue back in the spring session of the House of Assembly in which there were communities on the Coast of Labrador, at that time primarily in Black Tickle and Natuashish and Cartwright, where there were no dental services being provided. In fact, in two of those communities it was up to five years, and there had never been a dentist go into the community to provide services. This was all at a time when government was continuing to announce programs for free dental services for children under the age of twelve, but children in those communities were not able to access the service. It really was not being able to take advantage of the fact that there was a program there where they could financially afford it, but they had no accessibility to it.

I am pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that after I raised that issue in the House of Assembly last spring and talked to the minister about it and also talked to officials in his department and the CEO of Health Labrador, that government did make a move to hire another dentist in the Labrador region. They also put forward monies to renovate spaces in both the clinics in Cartwright and Black Tickle and Natuashish, so that they could accommodate dental services in those communities. Mr. Speaker, at least now, when this is done – I know the work is ongoing, it is not yet all completed – but when this is done, at least they will be able to access that service in their community. In the meantime, these patients are now supposed to be able to more easily access a voucher, which is a subsidized travel voucher, to be able to travel out to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to access that particular dental service.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to know that Dr. Kan Chandra has now been appointed to the board, and is the first dentist in Labrador to be on the Dental Health Promotion Committee for the Province. I can ensure you, knowing Dr. Chandra, myself, that he will push really hard to advocate for improved dental services to communities in Labrador. He has been there for a long time, he has worked there for a long time, he knows the communities, he knows the people, and I know that he will certainly make all the necessary efforts to see that services are improved there as well.

Mr. Speaker, dentistry in northern communities is not just a problem insular to our Province, it is happening right across Canada, and a lot of people who live in First Nations communities and remote communities do not always have access to dental services and therefore it complicates the dental problems within the children and the population. That is why we see a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, where children oftentimes have more extractions than they do have fillings or other kinds of work completed. This is unfortunate, but it is the fact of what happens in our northern society in most cases.

Mr. Speaker, there are health issues around this and we want to ensure, with more regular and improved dental services to areas of the Province like this, that our children will be able to access things like orthodontic care and be able to get fillings and bridges and caps and whatever is required, braces and so on, for their teeth, and not just have to have extractions as a form of treatment of dentistry.

I think they deserve to be able to access the full gamut of services, but if it is not provided for on a regular basis and there are only interventions every so often there is very little choice that is left often in cases for these dentists to be able to further help those children. It is nothing magical about any of this. It is basically that the service has to improve. It has to be more regular, if you are able to cut down on that.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the accessibility of the program to children under the age of twelve, making it affordable to them and their families, has had a huge impact on dental health in our child population - there is absolutely no doubt about that - and many of these families who receive low income now are able to access subsidies for their children for dental work up to the age of seventeen, so now we are seeing much more improvement and regularity in dental services being provided to our youth population as well. So, all of these things are important.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of brief words on orthodontic services. Again, I want to talk about the fact that there is a need for improvements in orthodontic services in the Province as well. I know in my area alone children, which is not a lot, I think there were fourteen children in my district who required orthodontic services and they were all being seen by an orthodontist out of Corner Brook. He would travel into Goose Bay and they would have the option to go to Goose Bay to see him, when he was there, or go to Corner Brook to see him.

Well, of course, when the ferry was operating on the Strait of Belle Isle, these families would take their children to Corner Brook to see the orthodontist, simply because they could drive there and it was cheaper. In the winter, they would have to fly to Goose Bay to see the orthodontist, which was very expensive. You are talking about $1,500 a trip, to get your child in there to see the orthodontist and get them home, and in lots of cases the parents would have to travel with them which would compound the cost. Mr. Speaker, it is still a problem.

Health Labrador did, for a short time, provide the travel vouchers to the children who needed orthodontic services, so they could go to Goose Bay and get that service, but then they cut the program out and they would not provide it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have met with the minister on this, I have met with the officials in his office, I have raised it in the Estimates Committee, I have met with the CEO of Health Labrador, and it is still a problem. It has not been fixed.

You know, the problem is not as prevalent right now simply because they can access the ferry service to Corner Brook. Come January, when the ferry goes off and they cannot drive, and their children need to have their orthodontic checkups in Goose Bay, they are not going to be able to afford those services again.

I want to encourage the department and the minister to look at this and to make a decision on it. They have all the information. It was all provided to them, even down to what it would cost the government to provide this service.

Mr. Speaker, people might say, well, orthodontic work is cosmetic so why should government have to pay to get children out to see an orthodontist? Well, it is like this, Mr. Speaker, not all orthodontic work is cosmetic. A lot of these children have injuries from sports and other things that they are involved in, accidents, snowmobile accidents in one case, and they need to have the service. It is part of the health treatment that is required as a result of the accidents they have had. It is not cosmetic in all cases, so don't look at it in that light.

The other piece of this, Mr. Speaker, is most people in this Province can access orthodontic services at a reasonable cost, but if you live on the North Coast or the South Coast of Labrador that cost becomes irrational and not reasonable, let me tell you. I mean, when you have to pay that much money to access any professional service in the Province it is absolutely ridiculous; it doesn't matter what the need is or what it is for. It is a case where children should have the opportunity to access orthodontic services if they need to have it. They pay for the service. They just have trouble paying to access it on a twelve-month basis. Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can see some decision from government on that very soon.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude my comments, I just want to say that in discussions that we have had with people who are connected to oral surgery in the Province, there is a need for more oral surgeons, there is no doubt about that. I think the need has been identified that there should be at least three oral surgeons in this Province. We have one, and for a long time that position was vacant. We have oral surgeons who travel into Newfoundland and Labrador now from New Brunswick, providing some of that service; but, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the people who provide the service and work in the system, and the patients that use the system, the need is obvious: more oral surgeons need to be recruited in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Realizing that there are only about four of those that graduate in Canada on a yearly basis, our chances of recruitment, I am sure, are very difficult, and I understand that, but maybe efforts need to be made to recruit these people from outside of the country as well and to look at where we can fill the placement. It is going to need to be done, and right now the wait-list really depends upon the kind of oral surgery that you need to have done. Depending on what your need is, you could find yourself on a wait-list for a long time or maybe a shorter period of time.

We certainly have no problem with the legislation that the minister proposes here. Bill 61 really falls into line with the other acts that we have passed regarding professional services in this Province, whether they related to physicians, to nurses, to judges, to lawyers and so on. Mr. Speaker, most of those bills were passed over the course of the last two years in the Legislature, so this one really just falls in line and we will certainly be voting for Bill 61.

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

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

I am pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill 61, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry. I do not have a lot of comments but I do have a couple that I would like to make.

Recognizing, along with my colleague, and as the minister pointed out, that this act or this bill comes out of the response to the 1997 White Paper, and is just another one in a series of statutes that are being amended because of that White Paper, there have been a couple of things in this that are new in terms of comparison to the act that has been in place.

One is, I understand, incorporating the disciplinary process that was recommended in the White Paper in 1997 and updating of terminology, that king of thing. I know that the dentistry association has seen this and has worked with the department with regard to this bill. I think it has been a while in the making. My understanding is they are very happy that finally it is coming to the floor for approval, and I will be very happy to approve that bill.

I do want to acknowledge, as was pointed out by the minister, and I am very happy to acknowledge this, that we have an absolutely excellent dental program for children in this Province. It is probably the best in Canada, and I would say if it is the best in Canada it is probably close to being one of the best around the globe.

I do congratulate this government and the work that has been done in getting good dental care for our children. We have done so well, I hope that we can improve a little bit so that the barriers that exist from age thirteen to seventeen, or to eighteen, can be removed as well so that all dental care right up to the age of seventeen is free, not just up to the age of thirteen. I would hope that would be the minister's goal, to bring us to that point.

Dentistry is extremely important because healthy teeth are so important to our overall health. That is why anything that is required to be done with regard to teeth is something that should be seen as an essential part of our health care and a free service that is available. Healthy teeth means good health, so I am very pleased that we do have such a good program.

However, we do have some areas that need improvement and I recognize that one of these that I am going to speak to is probably a weakness right across the country. I am aware of it certainly in other provinces. That is the assistance that is available for people on social assistance with regard to their needs when it comes to teeth and healthy teeth. Unfortunately, we think it is all right, both here in this Province and in other provinces as well, to say that money will go into the extraction of teeth if somebody is on social assistance but not into helping them with maintaining teeth.

All of us, I am sure - probably every MHA in this room, especially those who have been around for more than a couple of months - have had people who have come to us concerned and upset because they have to have their teeth taken out, if it is going to be covered by social assistance, instead of having the teeth repaired. We all, I think, know of people who have been in that situation. I think it is really a humiliating thing that we do to people when we have a program like that.

It is just not important because of vanity. It is a vanity all right, but it is a vanity we all have. How we appear affects everything. It affects our relationships with people. People with rotten teeth cannot get jobs, for example. I know that there have been cases where we have been able to fight for somebody to have teeth taken care of so that they can get a job. There is one case I know of where the teeth that were repaired in front and had to be fought for meant everything in the world to the person who got those teeth repaired. People should not have to have their teeth pulled and then get false teeth. It just does not make any sense in the world, and very often people on social assistance cannot get the false teeth, so all that happens is that the teeth are pulled. We all know what that looks like, and we all know what that does to a person's self-esteem, and how that then can work against even people being able to get a half decent job.

So, the implications of what is going on in our mouth is actually quite complicated. It is not a simple thing at all. That is why it is so important that we have a bill like Bill 61, which is professionalizing even more the profession of dentistry in this Province, but it is a moment for us to stop and reflect on how frustrating it must be for a dentist maybe to have a person who is on social assistance in their chair, and know that they cannot save the person's teeth; they have to pull them. That is difficult on the professional who has to do that, as well, not just on the person who has to have the teeth pulled.

That is one area that I would like us to think about, and I would like the minister to think about. Of course, in this case it is a combination of not just the Minister of Health and Community Services; I guess we are also talking about the minister of HRLE, Human Resources, Labour and Employment as well, because the assistance issue for people on social assistance comes under that department.

The other point I would like to speak to – and it was raised by my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition - is the issue around orthodontic surgery, and particularly the paediatric orthodontic issue, because we only have one paediatric orthodontic specialist in the Province, and we continue to have a situation where locums have to be brought into the Province to help with the waiting list, which I understand at the moment is between 180 and 200 for orthognathic – that means related to the jaw – surgeries, just for that alone, 180 to 200 on a waiting list, and when locums are brought in, an awful lot of money is expended.

I want to mention his name simply because I talked with him a lot about this issue, and in Dr. Jim Miller's memory I bring forward this issue. According to figures I remember having from Dr. Miller last year it is $50,000 a week to bring a locum into the Province.

I would like to suggest that if we look at the whole framework for paying dentists, for paying dental surgeons and we look at incentives to bring more here, it would be more financially lucrative for us to do that as a Province than to be bringing in locums that cost $50,000 a week to bring into the Province. So that is another issue that I think we have to think about. It is not an issue for this bill itself but it is an issue with regard to dentistry in the Province as we are coming – as we are in budget discussion time and planning, et cetera, that this is something I would like the minister to think about also and to give attention to.

I think these are the two major points that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker and I will not belabour these points but I am glad that I have had the opportunity to speak to them. I would like to hear from the minister with regard to the children's plan. Is there consideration being given to having total free care right up to the age of seventeen?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues opposite for their comments with respect to Bill 61 and their support of Bill 61.

I think the comments made – I just want to acknowledge a couple of points made by my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition as she talks about services in Labrador. I just want to highlight – I think I made a statement in this House last year around a very special project we did in Labrador, we named it Operation Tooth.

We sent a dental surgeon into Labrador, Happy Valley–Goose Bay and at that time I think it was some thirty-odd, almost forty children from the coast of Labrador. We flew them into Happy Valley–Goose Bay and provided that services there. In fact, it was such a success that we have now made arrangements to repeat it, not only in Happy Valley–Goose Bay but we are going to do it in some other parts of the Island portion of the Province as well. So we have been able to enhance services and enhance access through some special initiatives such as this but the points are well made.

The Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi talks about a much broader view of the oral health program. I think I mentioned in my introductory comments, how officials in my department are working on a process now to develop a broader oral health strategy for the Province. I look forward to the opportunity to share it with her and other colleagues in the House some time in the not-too-distant future.

So thank you very much for the comments. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 61 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 Practice Of Dentistry. (Bill 61)

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

Now or Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Dentistry," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 61).

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 19, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57, An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act." (Bill 57)

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill fundamentally, and the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition made a reference earlier that this bill here, Bill 57, was very much linked to Bill 55. Because if you recall the debate a few moments ago, Bill 55 talked about an act dealing with the licensing of and the regulation of special homes.

This particular bill here, Bill 57, makes reference to a private home for special care allowances act. The other bill dealt with the homes themselves, and this dealt with some provision that will allow the payment of funds to individuals who are living in these homes who had some difficulties paying for their own maintenance and care and support. This was, fundamentally, a bill that was passed, again, back in 1973. It was kind of a companion piece of legislation to what the bill that we dealt with earlier would have dealt with; which was private homes for special care. What this bill here did was provided a mechanism to allow individuals who lived in those homes to be paid something to be able to allow them to support themselves. Again, this bill, together with the previous one, had to be basically read in concert with the (inaudible) for institutions licensing act. So there is a real connectivity between this one and the earlier one.

In as much as my comments around Bill 55 and the need to repeal it, because it was no longer applicable, my comments are echoed with respect to this particular bill here. What we are trying to do is repeal the piece of legislation that no longer has any applicability to anybody that we currently provide services for. My same comments again, I say, Mr. Speaker, as we talked about those individuals today who are being provided with home support services or living in a long-term care home. We have mechanisms now through those programs that are licensed under the Regional Health Authorities Act or governed by the Regional Health Authorities Act. We have mechanisms now in place to ensure that individuals who find themselves under some kind of a care arrangement, whether it is in a personal care home or receiving home support services, programs in our department, the Department of Health and Community Services, or in concert with programs within the Department of HRLE – Human Resources, Labour and Employment - between both departments we are able now to provide the programs and services, together with the income programs and the support programs, that will allow individuals to have the ability to stay there, have the ability to be able to provide for their own maintenance and upkeep, and have some personal expenses covered. As a result of some enhancements we have made, we are able to also provide a level of income for individuals who are living at home with parents or family members who are also needing the kind of supports that are either provided by the family themselves and augmented by what we, as a more formal system, through one of our four health authorities, would also provide.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation, and the bill is simply to repeal a piece of legislation that no longer has any application in our system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome any comments from members opposite, and I am only too glad to answer any questions they may have.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to confirm, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition who had to be absent as a result of other commitments, she did, as indicated by the minister, have her comments earlier when she spoke on Bill 55, with respect to this bill as well, Bill 57, and I guess this is pretty straightforward. If we are getting rid of 55, we certainly do not need 57 any more, which is tied in intimately with 55.

So, with that, there will be no further comments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I acknowledge the comments by the member opposite and I, too - this is pretty straightforward - do not require any additional comment or adding anything to what I have already done.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 57 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 Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Private Homes For Special Care Allowances Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 57)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 20, second reading of a bill, An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 58, An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act." (Bill 58)

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is similar to some previous legislation we have introduced. Bill 58 is An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act and it has been moved, and seconded by my colleague the Minister of Education, that this bill be passed.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving to repeal this act because the act as it now exists has been in force since about 1965. There have not been any changes in it since then, really. The venereal disease refers to a portion of what we now call sexually transmitted infections. This outdated legislation actually provides the provincial government with some powers that may actually infringe upon some national and international conventions and charters and the protection of rights of individuals.

For example, this act, as it now sits on the books, if we do not repeal it, fundamentally provides authority for us to go so far as to find individuals or incarcerate them for not receiving treatment from a physician. It also violates some privacy statutes by requiring physicians or heads of various institutions to report individuals with such a disease directly to me as the minister.

Additionally, this legislation is also redundant currently as all sexually transmitted diseases are required to be reported as a part of the Communicable Diseases Act, which is a very different piece of legislation and is much broader, obviously, and covers a variety of other diseases.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the language in this legislation is dated and no longer reflects the current operations of the Health and Community Services system, as our current knowledge and approach to treating individuals with sexual diseases are very different than it would have been back in 1965.

This again is a piece of legislation that has been on the books for quite some time, and in this case since 1965. Not only doesn't it reflect current day realities and processes, but there is another piece of legislation that has been passed since then that makes this one redundant. There are some provisions in the legislation, if we were to keep it on the books and follow it, as I have said, that would provide us in contradiction with individual rights of individuals as currently would be prescribed for in the charter.

I say, Mr. Speaker, again I welcome comments from members opposite, but fundamentally this is a housekeeping piece of legislation to make it more in line with current day practice and reality.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 58, The Venereal Disease Prevention Act. This is one we would certainly be agreeable with, because it is a repeal. Sometimes there is legislation that clutters your books, that you do not use any more and it is absolutely antiquated, so you would get rid of it. We would certainly concur, in the Opposition, that this act is no longer needed because we have the Communicable Diseases Act which we had, I believe, implemented.

in 2004 - unlike the Pickersgill endowment fund, I might say, which was a repeal that I think was absolutely misguided, unnecessary, and never should have been done. Anyway, this is one we do agree with, and the government are quite right here to clean up the books as part of their Red Tape Reduction Committee, to get rid of this one, but they did glitch, they did make a major mistake with regard to the Pickersgill repeal.

It does permit and, in fact, it was very interesting when we did our research and I went back to look at some of the circumstances surrounding this, because again you talk about explanatory notes. There is an Explanatory Note here saying, "This Bill would repeal the Venereal Disease Prevention Act." It does not say that we do not need it any more or that it has been replaced by anything, so obviously you can see we do not get a lot of direction in the Opposition - or anybody, I guess, who is looking at this legislation - to try to figure out what this is all about. Why are we repealing this? That is the first thing that comes to mind. We are repealing the Venereal Disease Prevention Act. The question is, why? When you look for an explanation it says, we are repealing it. Again, the question still stands, why?

In the course of trying to figure that out, of course, we went asking some questions, did some research, did some enquiries, and we did find out that it is replaced by the Communicable Diseases Act of 2004. It raised a lot of questions and a lot of concerns, and I would just like to make a few comments because it is very relevant in our society today.

For example, even understanding of the difference between the diseases. For example, some are bacterial infections where some are viral infections. I personally was not aware of the difference. I do not know if the minister is. He worked in the health care institutions before getting into politics; he is probably more aware of these things than I would be, but I was certainly never aware, for example, bacterial infections, which would include such things as chylamidia, gonhorrhea, syphilis and LGV are curable. You give antibiotics and they are curable, whereas viral infections are not curable. You have them for life.

That is why it is very important, of course, that we do have some act, if not the Venereal Disease Act, it is very important that we do have some act, some piece of legislation which outlines how we deal with people who have these types of diseases.

Viral infections, of course, the non-curable types that exist, include HIV and AIDS, which are very prevalent in today's society. We have had reported incidents in our Province where certain areas became well-known, actually, for the incidence of HIV-AIDS. We have even had cases in our court system where individuals have been accused of doing bodily harm to someone because they had HIV/AIDS and they had unprotected sex with someone knowing they did it, which was an offence and a crime.

Hepatitis B, for example, is a viral infection, a non-curable disease, as is Herpes. Another one is what they call HPV. Basically, that is genital warts. What I did not know about for sure was abnormal cervical cells and cervical cancer. I did not know at all the connection, when we talk about sexually transmitted infections, that we would even be into this realm of abnormal cervical cells and cervical cancer.

MR. WISEMAN: Because of the HPV (inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Because of the HPV, yes. That is correct, as the minister says.

One statistic jumped out that I was not aware of. Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rates of cervical cancer in Canada, the highest rates in Canada of cervical cancer. HPV, which is a sexually transmitted infection, is the most common cause of cervical cancer. It is the leading cause. Cervical cancer, of course, is the leading cause of sickness and death of women worldwide. It is the eleventh most frequently diagnosed cancer among Canadian women, and here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have about a 36 per cent participation rate of women receiving Pap smears. According to the literature that we have read, that is absolutely unacceptable.

Thirty-six percent of our female population get Pap smears, and apparently that is nowhere near the Canadian average. That is a very poor record and we need more education in our communities, in our society. The vast majority of women who do end up with cervical cancer in this Province, they are amongst the 60 per cent to 70 per cent of women who are under screened or have never been screened. There is a connection here. There is a very serious connection.

When we talk about how it is transmitted - it is not only sexually transmitted by the way. Anybody who listens to the news media, it is not only STIs or STDs, as the minister refers to them, it is not only these sexually transmitted diseases that are of concern. For example, it can be transmitted through breastfeeding. It can be transmitted through sharing needles. It can be transmitted through toothbrushes; sharing toothbrushes, razors, drug injection equipment.

We have a program down here, it is controversial with a lot of people, and that is the drug exchange program. It started out in B.C. Drug addicts were deliberately - the government created a program and they gave drug addicts clean needles. Some people went crazy and said: What are you doing giving these people clean needles to engage in an illicit activity? We do it down here I understand in St. John's, the City of St. John's in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some people do not like it but it is all as a preventative thing. If the activity is going to take place anyway, why do you risk having the same individuals, not only have to deal with the trauma that they have to deal with the drug issue, but then they have an additional issue of the transmission of a potentially deadly disease in any case. So, there is more than a sexual piece to this. It is transmitted in many, many ways and it is all diseases that we have, as a society, end up having to deal with and government has to deal with because it impacts the government bottom line, particularly the Department of Health because the Department of Health needs to educate people with respect to these diseases, to provide medicine to these people when they need treatment, and so on.

The other comment I would like to make with regard to the cervical cancer piece is the rates of cervical cancer in our Province is 67 per cent higher than the national average. That is an amazing figure. Not only do we only have a 36 per cent show rate by women who should have Pap smears but we are 67 per cent higher than the national average. That is unacceptable, I say to government. We need to be able to do more in terms of education, whether it is through our Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, whether it is through an advertising campaign, whatever. If one reviews the statistics in Newfoundland and Labrador, you will see that the incidents are far higher in rural Newfoundland than it is in the urban areas.

You get so many government press releases that sometimes you cannot read them all, but in the course of doing a bit of research for this particular issue I came across a press release that was put out by the government last year and it deals with the HPV, as the Minister of Health referred to. That is a sexually transmitted disease which causes the cervical cancer. I was not aware that we actually have a vaccination program in our schools here in this Province. I was not aware of that. There is so much going on, you get so many press releases and everything else, and health is not one of the areas that I have normally been a critic for. We actually vaccinate girls in our school system. I believe it was started with Grade 6 and now it has been expanded to go to Grade 9.

Now there is some concern that we have missed a year there; that it should be expanded further. That you get the girls in Grade 6 and get the girls in Grade 9 now but there is a group in between that we missed, the Grades 7 and 8. So that concern was raised, and I am sure the minister will get an opportunity to speak to that.

I understand that the program is funded, by the way, from the federal government. There is a trust fund. There was one-time funding from the federal government, the minister says. There was a trust fund set up and the federal government provided the funding and that program was there. So it is good to see that we are pro-active in that regard.

Again, these issues of health, of course, they are very serious. They impact everybody's lives when they happen. The first concern is, why are we repealing this act? That is why the question of why is so important, because we have such an incidence of this and it is so costly to us, not only in dollar terms but in terms of what time and resources it takes up in our medical facilities, that we need to be aware of this thing.

I wanted to make sure that we are not just getting rid of one act and we did not have anything to replace it. In the course of doing that, as I say, we ended up getting educated a little bit as to some of the problems we do have in this regard. Now that we appreciate and understand that there is, in fact, a communicable disease which will incorporate and include anything that was in the Venereal Disease Act, we realize that it is no longer needed. You do not need to have it and therefore we will of course be speaking and voting in favour of it.

Thank you.

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

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

I am quite pleased, actually, to speak to this act because there is an issue here that I am very concerned about, and I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to it.

The bill actually, Bill 58, which is An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act, makes all the sense in the world because the act is so old and only covers four diseases. Of course, we have the more modern act, the Communicable Diseases Act, which not only covers more diseases but handles the issues in a much better way. Informed by the knowledge that we have today with regard to communicable diseases, I think what I would like to do is just hone right in, actually, on the one issue that I am concerned about. Unlike my colleague from the Official Opposition, I actually do have concerns over the HPV vaccine and would like to speak to that.

I have no problems with vaccinations, but we always have to make sure that we know as much as possible about a vaccine that we can know and that it is absolutely essential. There are two schools of thought about the HPV vaccine and I think that we have to beware of those two schools of thought. We were quite concerned, as a party, when the federal government so quickly put funding in place for this vaccine because we really believe that the jury is out on this vaccine with regard to giving it, without any questions whatsoever, to girls.

I know one of the arguments for that is that if you have the vaccine, if you get the HPV vaccine before a girl is sexually active, that it is effective as a vaccine, but in actual fact the HPV vaccine is effective as long as you do not have the virus in your system, and the virus can come and go. You can be tested for the virus and not have it in your system and get a vaccine for it. Any woman here in this room could be tested and fine out she does not have the virus and get the vaccine for it if she wanted to. That is the important thing, not having the virus in your system.

The other thing is that Gardasil, the vaccine that was developed by Merck, getting the vaccine can give us a false sense of security with regard to the virus, and therefore with regard to the potential of getting cervical cancer. All of this information is out there. This is all documented.

There is a real concern that if girls get the vaccine and they are not at the same time well educated with regard to cervical cancer, that they won't think they still need to get Pap smears, and in actual fact, the vaccine only eliminates the risk of two of the most common types of the virus. There are quite a number of varieties of the virus, and the vaccine only deals with two of the types of the virus. Now, we do know that those two types do cause 70 per cent of all cervical cancers, but they do not cause all cervical cancer.

It is absolutely essential that young women, older women, all women, still get Pap smears regularly. The concern in our Province is, we have a very poor track record with regard to women getting Pap smears. We already have a bad track record with regard to that, and now we are vaccinating young girls with regard to the virus that partially can cause cervical cancer, and there is a real concern that they will not have further education. We are not doing a good job anyway with regard to having women understand how much Pap smears are essential, and this can make it even worse in terms girls becoming women and not taking Pap smears seriously.

There are quite a number of questions with regard to this vaccine.

Another fact which is very disturbing is, the U.S. Centre for Disease Control has also uncovered over 1,600 adverse effects among Gardasil vaccinated people in the general population; 371 of those adverse effects were serious reactions. This vaccine has not been around for very long, the vaccine does not cover all the viruses. The vaccine also, because it only deals with two of the viruses, there is research that indicates that there is a real concern among specialists and researchers in this area that taking Gardasil, becoming vaccinated by Gardasil, could actually women more vulnerable to the HPV strains not covered by the vaccine.

I know we have had a program this year, and I know some of the people are pushing for their children in Grade 7 and 8 to have this vaccine. I really urge the government, I urge the Minister of Health & Community Services, to really look at the information that is out there, the cautionary information with regard to this vaccination. I really think that the government has a responsibility to do full education on this vaccine.

It is not clear that it is the best way to go or, if we thought it was the best way to go from a medical perspective in terms of, well it will not cause any terrible reactions and it will be okay in the long term, it will not be okay in terms of fighting cervical cancer because it cannot be the only way to fight cervical cancer. If we see it as the only way to fight the cervical cancer then you will still have women getting cervical cancer from the virus, mainly because it is a virus that was not covered by the Gardasil, and maybe getting cervical cancer because they are becoming more susceptible to the viruses that are not covered by it because of the immunity that has been built up to the other two to three viruses.

I am really concerned that we have gone into this really quickly. I understand the federal government started it and I was quite concerned that the federal government went into it so quickly, because the information is out there, the cautions are out there and the concerns are out there.

I really was quite pleased that I could get an opportunity today through this bill to at least bring this issue more strongly into the House. I think I mentioned it once before in the spring. I do not think we are taking it seriously enough and I really would ask the Minister of Health and Community Services to look at getting full information on everything about the vaccine and making sure that the parents of girls and the girls themselves have all the information about this vaccine before they make a decision. Even with that, that we increase, really in a big way - and I think this is an issue for our community services program - the information to women in this Province with regard to the need to have Pap smears.

We have too high an occurrence of cervical cancer and we have too high a fatality rate of cervical cancer. Without Pap smears, by the time women are diagnosed with cervical cancer very often it is too far gone. Pap smears are essential. It really does shock me, as a woman, how low our rate is of women who get Pap smears.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that I had the opportunity to bring this forward. If the minister is ever interested in having further conversation on this, I would really be happy to do that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the members opposite for their comments. They have raised some interesting points. I think it is important, and I was particularly impressed with the Opposition House Leader for his research. Obviously, without having a clinical background, he seems to be well-versed on the topic and I commend him for his clinical research on that issue.

I want to highlight something he did point out which is a critical point, I think, a real critical point in all of this. He highlighted the low rate of cervical screening in the Province, as did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raise that issue as well. It is a really important point to highlight.

Members opposite may recall, several short months ago I was involved in a relaunch of a campaign to bring attention to the need for cervical screening in the Province, Mr. Speaker. As a government we launched – a few short months ago – a mayor media campaign highlighting the significance and importance of annual Pap smears. We had some women who had found themselves with a diagnosis of cervical cancer who became part of that campaign. They have let their stories become the campaign. I wanted to commend them for the great work that they have done, and the commitment they have made to encourage other women in this Province to have an annual Pap smear.

Fundamentally, and as much as it is not the subject of the bill itself, both members opposite raised a very important point when it comes to women's health issues in this Province and I, too, will add to their comments and encourage women of this Province to get an annual Pap smear; because, if we are truly going to deal with the high rates of cervical cancer in this Province, we really have to make a significant difference and an improvement in that 30-odd per cent uptake on an annual cervical screening.

I say to both members, thank you for their acknowledgement and contributing to the same message that we as a government have been trying to reinforce for a number of years. We have invested heavily financially. We have hired regional co-ordinators to assist us with the campaign. I really want to thank them for highlighting that very important point.

With respect to the HPV vaccination program, I appreciate the member's comments opposite, and some of the issues she has raised. It has been a topic of a lot of public debate and, she is right, there are varying opinions on this. I do want to suggest to her, though, that this was not just a natural thing to do because everybody else was doing it. It was a considered position of the Province. We had people involved in our public health agencies involved in dialogue and discussion with us, a lot of discussion around the country with their colleagues, so as a Province we have acted on the medical advice that has been provided to us. So, it was not done without a great deal of thought, a lot of consideration, and without an understanding of some of the pros and cons that she has highlighted here for us.

I do thank members opposite for their comments with respect to the bill, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 58 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 Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Venereal Disease Prevention Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 58)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, 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 49)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in the House today to speak to the Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 49.

In regard to that act, in 2004 twelve jurisdictions across Canada signed into the passport system of securities regulation, and these amendments are required to implement round two of Phase II of the passport system of securities regulation in Canada.

These amendments are certainly a requirement in regard to harmonizing our requirements with all other Canadian jurisdictions except Ontario, which has chosen not to participate in the passport system.

These requirements are updated and harmonized and will benefit investors in a number of ways. These are, and a couple of examples of that: individuals and companies that buy and sell securities on the direction of investors; individuals who provide advice to investors on what securities to purchase, and how risky these investments are; and also individuals who manage investments on behalf of investors who have given the individuals discretionary authority to buy and sell securities.

Also, in regard to these amendments, we are reducing red tape by providing for the reliance on other passport jurisdictions by accepting the disciplinary decisions that jurisdiction would enact. This also gives us another tool to provide protection and clarity for investors in the Province.

We are also, too, Mr. Speaker, providing investors with the right to take legal action against companies distributing securities for misrepresentations in the offering documents provided to them. As an alternative, they may have the opportunity to request their money back.

These are just a couple of things that the amendments to the Securities Act would do, and certainly it would be to the benefit of any Newfoundlander and Labradorian who would be considering making an investment in regard to securities and on the stock exchange.

We believe that the consumers have a right to know what they are dealing with, and under the current legislation there are grey areas there that they certainly would not have that right and they would not understand what the securities dealer, the investment advisor or portfolio manager can and will do for them. They have the right to understand what the associated risks are for investments that are being recommended.

The bill also enhances the ability of the consumer to obtain information. They need to become an informed investor to have a remedy, I suppose, when misrepresentations occur, and to know we are looking out for them. So that brings a certain amount of security in regard to this process and in regard to anybody that would be an investor in the stock exchange and securities.

Also, too, Mr. Speaker, I might add that regardless - and we are all hearing about a single regulator these days by the current Finance Minister in Ottawa, but regardless of that, these amendments would have to come forward regardless to harmonize the legislation, regardless of what the structure would be in the future. If we all accept the passport system and the federal government certainly accepts the passport system, which it looks like they will not at this particular time because they are suggesting a single regulator, and Ontario has bought into the single regulator package as well, regardless of that, we bought into the passport system back in 2004. We made a commitment to the other eleven jurisdictions that have bought into the passport system, so we see it only fit to continue until we have a clearer directive and clearer decision made in regard to a single regulator or if not the passport system. These amendments have to go forward regardless of what that outcome could be, might be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good piece of legislation, or amendments to a piece of legislation, with regard to harmonization and bringing clarity to anybody who might want to invest in securities and the stock exchange in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 49 dealing with An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

Of course, securities - what the minister alluded to here, the economy in which we live today and securities commissions, securities regulators, very hot topics, very important, very cogent topics in this day and age, and certainly in the environment in which we are living in the past two or three months.

As the minister said, securities regulations in Canada are dealt with by provincial jurisdictions, not by federal jurisdictions. That makes it tough, because a lot of the things that you do in terms of securities you just do not do in one Province, you do not just necessarily do in one country. There are times you need to know how to interact with each other, different provinces, and there are times that we need to know, how do we act vis-à-vis outside countries and outside jurisdictions when it comes to securities; who can trade inside of your Province; who can trade inside of your country; what are going to be the regulations that apply to those entities? So it is very important. We are not just talking about things that do not affect and impact people; very, very important.

We need only go back, for example, to the debacle called Enron, some years ago. There were people who lost their life's savings as a result of the non-reporting or the malfeasance of actions of the executives, the management people involved in companies like Enron. We have had lots of examples of them. The issues come up of course: Were they regulated? What were the regulations that applied to them? Were there disclosure requirements that they had or did not have, or what they should have had? If they did have them, would this ever have happened in the first place?

That is what led to a lot of the jurisdictions to say: Look, we just cannot have a company for example that may be sitting in downtown Toronto on Bay Street which are involved in the securities industry taking money from someone in B.C. or someone in Newfoundland and Labrador and yet there is no regulation on them. So how do we interact with all of that? How do we make sure that if we, as investors down here, put our money into an Ontario company, what are the regulations? What if the company operates out of Newfoundland and they are in the securities business and somebody from Alberta invests? The same thing, what is the security you have? What assurance do you have that the people who you have entrusted your money to is going to look after it properly?

The problem lies, of course - and that is why you had these nasty incidences like the Enrons of the world, is because people do not understand, in a lot of cases, these complexities. They do not understand these rules. I bet there are a lot of us here – I certainly do not understand every section of this act, even now. Gone through it in detail, tried to understand it, but cannot, for the life of me, fathom every particular detail of it and what it means and what the consequences are going to be for me, as an individual, or as us as a society here on a go-forward basis. A very complex issue.

We need only, of course, look at, not only in Canada, look at internationally what has happened. We are now experiencing – and they talked about it in the United States. It became part of a presidential campaign. In fact, they suspect that President-elect Obama principally won the United States presidency because of how he acted and presented himself with respect to the economic problems. When the United States presidential election started back two years ago, and certainly even as recently as April – and even in August, when he was confirmed as the democratic nominee, the economy was not the number one issue on the agenda, or on the radar. It is only after August of 2008 that we have seen, not only in the United States and not only in Canada, but in the world pretty well, a collapse, an economic tsunami. We are not even through it yet to the point where we have felt the aftershocks, because the storm is not even fully upon us yet. We will be feeling the reverberations of it for many, many months to come. We are not even through it yet, I say, and according to any economic papers that I have read and commentaries and economists, the businesspeople, think-tanks throughout the country, we do not even yet have a good handle on how harsh this economic downturn is going to be.

Guess what one of the major reasons were that was cited to put us into this situation in the first place? The sub-prime lending market in the United States. You heard that word, people heard sub-prime lending market in the United States and it collapsed and so on. The reason all that was allowed to happen of course was because people down in the United States, which had a major, major multi-trillion dollar mortgage industry, did not have the appropriate regulations in place. They certainly did not have regulations to compare at all to what we have here in Canada about the circumstances under which you could lend, how much you could lend, how much securities you had to take back, and so on. They did not do that. They were interested in getting the money out, but not interested in what the terms and conditions were about how you secured it. Could people afford the mortgages?

Millions and millions of people in the United States went in and got money because it was so easy to get and so cheap to get, only to get themselves into the contractual arrangement but find out twelve months later that they could not pay the bill. They could not pay the freight on the new home that they had. That reverberated to the United States economy to the point where the United States government in October, had to put $700 billion into the economy. It looks like they are looking at another $700 billion or $800 billion input some time in the near future when President -elect becomes President Obama on January 20.

I am sure people sitting here in Newfoundland and Labrador who are watching their TVs and listening to the news, and reading newspapers, we did not think about: What does the sub-prime mortgage market down in the States, and the fact that they did not know how to control or regulate themselves have to do with us? Well, I guess we can be thankful. One of the things that we did have in Canada - you have to give the Harper government credit there, and the former Liberal government credit, Paul Martin's government - that we did tighten up our regulations. Our security regulations, our lending regulations, our corporate regulations and our banking regulations, that we, in Canada, did not find ourselves in the same sub-prime mess that the Americans found themselves in. We still have some issues. It still has not all been fleshed out and been made aware of yet to the general public here in Canada, but certainly nowhere on a scale that the Americans have had to face.

Having regulations is very, very important. I do not know if the minister has any information as to how successful our passport system that he alluded to in his notes have been so far, and the fact that Ontario is not a member of this partnership. I think it would be nice to know, and a reason should be out there as to why Ontario refused to be a signatory to the partnership arrangement in the first place.

Anybody who lives in Canada knows that Ontario - if not now, because they have been surpassed, I would think, by Alberta and places like B.C. probably in the last year or so in terms of economic activity, and Newfoundland and Labrador even, but in terms of the Mecca of securities, it was Ontario for years and years. Albeit, they might be in the Province of Ontario, a lot of the companies that trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange, for example, are not in Ontario. Yet they were trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange which took its regulations from the Province of Ontario, because there are no national security regulations when it comes to securities.

I would like to have an explanation, good meat and potatoes explanations, of why would Ontario not join this regulatory authority whereby we try to get our act together. Now, it is nice to see that all the rest are cooperating but big Ontario which is not doing so well today – well, I guess none of us are doing as well as we would like today, but Ontario has been on particularly tough times in the last year or so, given that the auto sector in one is major, major industries in their neck of the woods. It would be nice to know from the minister: Is there any hope that Ontario might join the regulatory body so that, albeit it is not national in terms of a national program, at least we have every part of the nation included in the regulatory body.

Of course, it is important for regulations and it leads me to make a few comments with regards to the economy. Anybody who has watched the stock markets, I think is gone from over 14,000 points back in the first part of September down to today trading at 9,200. You know, 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the value of the companies that trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange were shot in the course of three months or so; shot and gone.

A lot of these people, for example, who have RRSPs here in this Province - I am sure there are people in this House impacted. People who have been contributing to an RRSP, for example, probably for twenty years have had their retirement savings cut in half in the last three months pretty well. That is not going to be easy to recoup. That is why we need regulations of these companies that handle our money. It is not like you are giving them your fun money, in many cases you are giving them your future retirement. The standard that you live at once your work day is over has been determined. If you look at your portfolio today and you looked at it back the first of September, you are probably not going to have as many vacations as you wanted or live in the style to which you thought you were going to be accustomed, because of what has happened in the stock market.

We do not need just to look at Toronto to see where things are falling apart. By the way, nobody likes to see this, none of us. We are all happy if we all take home our pay check, we all do a good day's work, and we see that everybody we know, our friends and our family and our neighbours and our communities, are surviving and doing well. That is what it is all about. That is what we all like to see.

It is not about pointing the blame as to whose fault it is, because sometimes things happen that are is not your fault, you cannot do anything about it. Some things happen in your back yard and, yes, it is your fault. Sometimes there are things you ought to do about it. Sometimes there are things you just cannot do anything about. The reality is, we cannot put our heads in the sand and not consider what is happening. We cannot try to sugar-coat it. If it is happening we have to face it, face up and look for what the options might be.

Just to look at our Province: we talk about impacts, and people, for example, who live in the St. John's area, the northeast Avalon, might not have as ready an appreciation as to how this impacts people and what, even in the last three months, the impact has been. The Northeast Avalon has been fairly busy. The Premier, in one of his answers in Question Period, talked about how we would not have a stimulus package because we did not want to overheat the economy. Now, that was only two days ago, folks. We have had enough news in this Province in the last two days that I do not think we have to worry about overheating the economy. I think we took a bit of steam out of our economy in the last forty-eight hours, and we are being unrealistic if we did not think we did.

Anybody heard the news about Jeans Experts closing? It might not be a big deal to anybody who shops on Water Street but it is a big deal in my town if four or five people get laid off because Jeans Experts closed; and then the other twenty-seven, twenty-eight communities they operated in, in this Province. We cannot close our eyes to that. L.A. Weight Loss Centres closed in this Province. IOC in Labrador – Labrador City, one of the most prosperous cities in this Province, bar none, people with high-paying jobs, skilled jobs, making good bucks, good retirement packages, they got a pretty good double whammy in the last couple of months. Their RRSPs slashed in the stock market and now they are being told that this white cloud of optimism that we saw only a few short months ago, the $800 million expansion, is delayed indefinitely. We cannot close our eyes to that reality.

They said they would be closing the plant down next July for a period, I think it was one month, and there would not be any permanent jobs impacted, and we hope there are not, but there are hundreds of spin-off jobs, work terms, student jobs, that are not going to be in Labrador City next year that were there in 2008. That is impacting people. I do not think Labrador City feels that they are going to overheat their economy in the next twelve months, or twenty-four months, and that is a concern to them.

Wabush laid off 160 people - 35 per cent, I understand, of their workforce out the door - another prosperous community with high-paying jobs. I do not think they are up there singing the praises of being overheated, with 160 people gone, 40 per cent of their production cut. Nobody anticipated that last year, when our Budget was dropped here and we had $1 billion-plus surplus, nobody thought about it, nobody could ever imagine it, and I am sure the government did not either. They would not expect it; nobody did. The fact is, it has happened and somebody has to deal with it. Somebody needs to be dealing with it.

The Placentia refinery, Altius Minerals Corp., they were going to have a $4.6 billion, 300,000-barrel-a-day facility in Placentia. The company is now bankrupt, court action is ongoing, and that project is out the window.

That is the optimism that we had here in Newfoundland. That is part of what went to creating a good business environment to attract businesses here. It is not on, folks; they are bankrupt. That project is gone.

The Come by Chance Oil Refinery; Mr. Bussey, I understand, from the Steelworkers Local 3916 out there, said, last year, about 115 tradesmen who normally would have worked out there during the summer and in the fall were not called back. The company - in a cost-saving effort, they said - went out and contracted that out. One hundred and fifteen unionized high-paying skilled workers gone there last year.

Now Harvest Energy Trust, who owns the Come By Chance Oil Refinery, tells us that there is a "delay" on their $2 billion expansion. If you do the math, we just had $4.6 billion in Placentia, we just had $2 billion in Come by Chance, delayed or gone off the books; a $6.6 billion book of work that is gone out of this economy.

I would think that should have took some of the steam out of the hot economy that the Premier referred to. We did not want to overheat the economy. I would think that cooled it down a little bit.

Now you want to add to that, somewhere that has been doing very well in the past couple of decades, actually – well, 100 years, I guess, the plant was there in Grand Falls-Windsor – we can talk about there is another larger employer out there – oh, the mill is not the larger employer, because the hospital is. Well, folks, the hospital probably has a large employment force because you are fortunate to have a lot of people living in the area. You have loggers, you have mill people who work in the mill, and that is why you need the hospital and the educational and the recreational facilities there, but guess what? Within the last twenty-four hours we have had it confirmed that the mill will be no more. Maybe they will not need all of those jobs in the hospital any more if we do not have the 400 direct jobs, the 400 direct families – because that is direct jobs. If you do a three to one, even, and translate that into families, we are looking at 1,200 people impacted – or four to one. That is to say nothing about the 1,000 indirect jobs, the loggers that are involved in the paper mill in Grand Falls.

It is fine to say, and I agree, government has to do something. We are going to put a task force in place. Well, I hope the task force is very successful, because I have talked to people in Stephenville area who do not feel it was too successful out there, where they lost their pulp and paper mill a couple of years ago. They would much rather have their mill back, than a lot of the piecemeal things that they saw happening, and a lot of the people who had the high-paying jobs out there are not there any more, folks. They are not there any more.

Then, to add to that, we have the Vale Inco Voisey's Bay mine. We were told today, they are shutting down. The price of nickel, the bottom has gone out of the market; they are going to shut down next June, July, for a month they say.

They employ about 450 people up there in the mine, I understand, and the ovoid, which is the richest mining deposit, as I understand it, of any in the world, of any kind of mineral, they are going to leave it in the ground because it is not worth their while to take it out.

Now, if you want to add all that up, we have had a pretty good smack in the head economically in the last couple of months. On top of all that, folks, a barrel of oil, which we could count upon as being our saviour, to give us the programming and services that we want, is down to less than $50 a barrel as I speak.

Now, the former Minister of Finance, call him a prophet or whatever, but he was very cautious last spring when he gave his budget. He said whoa, we are good now. The price of a barrel of oil is way up there, but he said hopefully we will get $87.50, I think it was, $87 a barrel on a go-forward basis, because we were not sure. It is so fluid in today's economy, and we found that out folks in a matter of six or seven months. Bang! Not only are we not getting $87 a barrel, we are way below that. We are below $50 a barrel.

Of course, if you are getting far less than you thought you were going to get from your mainstays - at this time at least your mainstays, your commodities, oil - and you have all of these things happening in your other industries, in your mining industries, and your pulp and paper industries, and you do not have these expansions going ahead, all of that is not good. These projects, they do not only create employment while you are making them and create jobs when they are up and running, there is a corporate tax piece that fits into all of this. There are people who get money to spend in the economy because they have a job as a scaffolder, or a plumper, or an electrician, or a builder. None of that is going to be there.

We do have a rough road to walk in the next short while. That is why my question today to the Premier was: Would he call a summit - because I am a firm believer that the more heads you have, the better chance you have of finding the right solutions. The Premier's answer was: I do not need it. I got me and the Cabinet. I think that is short-sighted, folks. With all due respect to the Premier, I think that is short-sighted. I see absolutely nothing wrong with yes, keep your council at the end of the day, that is the reason you are the Premier and the Cabinet but there is absolutely nothing wrong with consulting with the business leaders, the union leadership, the municipal leaders of this Province to say: What do you think? What do you think our options ought to be? Where do you think we might go with this? That is not the openness, that is not the inclusiveness that we saw today. We were told: No, I am going to run the ship along with my crew. I guess we will see, at the end of the day, how far we sail and just how rough the waters are going to be.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are getting near speaking time being up for today. I have other comments I would like to make, but given that we are nearing the end of the day's business, I will take my leave at this point, at this time, but I certainly will have more to say later as we come back.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Government Services, my understanding is that the Opposition House Leader adjourned the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point, in case the Opposition House Leader would like to continue in the debate. We will not be putting a resolution to adjourn until we finish some of the legislation that we are working on. So if you wanted to continue, that would be fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Does the Chair understand that we will be coming back at 7 o'clock?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess I wanted some clarification. I did not lay down a motion that we would sit this evening but unless I put a motion to adjourn, will we continue with proceedings now past 5:30?

MR. SPEAKER: That is fine.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

It being 5:30, this House now recesses until 7 o'clock, to return at 7 o'clock in the evening. Is that what the Government House Leader is saying?

MS BURKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought if we did not put a motion to adjourn we could continue past 5:30, but if we cannot continue past 5:30, I will put a motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Just for clarification, we cannot sit – if we sit past 5:30 then the House must recess and return at 7 o'clock.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I do move that the House now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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