December 13, 2010                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVI  No. 48


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit visitors.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. Member for the District of Topsail; and, the hon. Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Cloud River Academy Girls Volleyball Team from Roddickton on their gold medal victory at the 2A Provincial Volleyball Games that took place in Middle Arm on December 3 and 4.

After an undefeated tournament they lost in the first match of the final, but won the last two matches to take the championship against Gill Memorial Academy of Musgrave Harbour. It was the team's fourth year provincial victory. The coach, Rhonda Martin, is to be congratulated for dedicating her time and efforts to these girls and to the sport of volleyball.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Clara Humby, Robyn Brenton, Billie Brown, Terri Simms, Brittany Randell, Rebecca Randell, Taralee Ropson, Abby Budden, Lorraine Mitchell, Terry Pittman, Chantel Newman, Ocean Ellsworth, and coach Rhonda Martin, and wish them well in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Ms Georgina Ollerhead of Harbour Breton.

On June 5 of this year, Ms Ollerhead was recognized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Minor Hockey Association with its 2010 Meritorious Award for the Central Region, in recognition of her outstanding service and dedication to minor hockey in Harbour Breton.

Ms Ollerhead has been active with the league for over fifteen years, serving as secretary, treasurer and president. She has been instrumental in ensuring the league's success and always gives 110 per cent to everything she takes on. Very well respected by her colleagues, Ms Ollerhead exemplifies what it means to be a volunteer.

It is not just minor hockey where you will see this active lady. She is also involved with the Lion's Club, Chair of the local Children's Wish Foundation, Chair of the Remembrance Day service, and Chair of the school council for King Academy, just to name a few.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the volunteer efforts of Ms Georgina Ollerhead. We look forward to her continued commitment and dedication to helping others for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Rotary Club of Avalon Northeast. This club, which serves the Towns of Conception Bay South and Paradise, was founded in 1989 and currently has a membership of forty men and women.

As a result of its collective efforts this dedicated group has earned a reputation of doing more than expected from a club of its size. The organization has earned recognition from Rotary International, receiving two "Significant Achievement Awards" due to its role in developing two major community projects, namely the Topsail Beach Rotary Park and the Rotary Paradise Youth and Community Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the club provides local community with a variety of projects as well including high school scholarships, junior achievement, and DARE programs along with a monthly lifestyle clinic. The club's current initiative in partnership with the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society is the construction of a modern, multi-million dollar education and visitor centre at Manuels River Linear Park.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Rotary Club of Avalon Northeast and its continued efforts and contribution to our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship winners for 2010. The Province awards approximately 200 high school graduates annually.

It takes a lot of hard work and dedication to achieve a high school diploma. These graduates are to be acknowledged and congratulated on their commitment over the past several years. They are now prepared to pursue their post-secondary studies knowing that they possess the skills and knowledge that a secondary education offers them. These students are considered to be ranked among the top of their graduating classes and have been awarded the provincial scholarship in recognition of this achievement.

I would like to congratulate in particular Brian Peach, Jennifer Smith, Lindsay Collins, Colin Dominic, and Benjamin Riche of O'Donel High School, and Kaitlin Quinlan and Nicole Wheeler of Mount Pearl Senior High.

I would also like to congratulate Ashley Linehan of Mount Pearl Senior High School, and Amy O'Driscoll and Tyler Smith of O'Donel High School for being awarded the Centenary for Responsible Government Scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all of the recipients of the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship, and wish them all the best for success in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2009, the provincial government contracted Conestoga Rovers Limited to conduct soil testing in the Town of Buchans, as a result of environmental concerns arising from the former Abitibi mine site. The testing identified elevated levels of heavy metals in some of the samples, and the provincial government made a commitment to address the immediate health concerns of the people.

I am pleased to rise today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Charlene Johnson, Minister of Environment and Conservation, and report that the provincial government has honoured its commitment to Buchans. We have concluded the work on the two major sources of contamination in the town – the tailings spill area and the Mucky Ditch. This ditch, which flows from the tailings spill area through and under the town, was identified as a place of concern. Furthermore, based on a feasibility study, we selected the cap-in-place option for the tailings spill area, as it met the objective of protecting human health and the environment in the most feasible manner.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government held two public meetings in Buchans to inform the people of our findings and to assure them that we would act upon their concerns. Subsequently, in Budget 2010, we committed $9 million for projects to address the two main source areas that were contributing to the lead in soil levels in Buchans. Along with the capping of the tailings spill area and remediation of the Mucky Ditch by the Department of Environment and Conservation, the rehabilitation of the tailings dams and capping of exposed tailings by the Department of Natural Resources is also ongoing.

The provincial government has made blood lead testing available for any concerned residents through the Central Health Authority. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the department placed a mobile air quality monitoring trailer near the remediation activities in Buchans to monitor total and fine particulate during the project. This information was made available on our Web site in an effort to keep residents informed.

Our government has been proactive and responsive to the needs of the people of Buchans, Mr. Speaker. The completion of this project is a testimony to the great emphasis we place on our environment and the remediation of areas of concern.

The provincial government will continue to promote a sustainable environment and healthy ecosystems to meet the social, physical, cultural, and economic needs of our people.

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 her statement and to say that I know this is an issue that was presented to the Official Opposition by residents of the area. We are very pleased to know that when government made a commitment, now that commitment has been honoured; and to know that the two main areas - the tailings spill area and the Mucky Ditch area - have been, I guess, done to the satisfaction of the people because, as the minister said, there were public meetings held and those people were kept informed.

Another issue I am glad to see in this statement is with regard to the blood lead testing, because that was an issue that was also brought forward at that particular time. It is good to see any improvements when it comes to our environment.

Mr. Speaker, as good as this statement is, we encourage government. We praise them for the work they have done here and encourage them on other projects in the future to proceed the same way. We know that there are concerns with regard to the Vale site, also possibly with the Abitibi site. So, we are just asking government to continue with this approach and see that all areas that are contaminated in our Province end with a successful conclusion as we hope this one will turn out to be.

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, too, thank the minister for a copy of the statement. I am very glad to see that the work in Buchans has been brought to a completion. It was, obviously, work that had to be done for the health of the people and the environment in the Town of Buchans. It took a long time for that damage to happen, and, finally, in a relatively short period of time, it has been cleaned up. I think that is very good, and I hope that it will be the end of the negative impacts, or the potential negative impacts on the health of the Buchans residents.

I do have a concern, though; that we continue in this Province to make decisions environmentally that could have ramifications down the road, such as Duck Pond, the use of Duck Pond as a tailings area and the use of Sandy Pond. Because both of these ponds do feed into a wider ecological system, we cannot be sure that in fifty years time we are not going to have problems in these areas as well.

So, I would encourage the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr. Speaker, to be more judicious in decisions that it is making about tailings.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform the public and members present of the success of the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. There has been an excellent response to the program from the fishing industry and its partners. This initiative is helping to facilitate fishing industry research and development.

Since its launch in the spring of 2007, it has generated a total of $21.4 million for fishing industry research and development in the Province of more than three times the amount invested by our government. A total of 118 industry-driven projects have been funded since the program was created. Investment in the program has leveraged an additional $16.3 million from industry and its partners.

I would like to thank our partners in the industry who have worked with us on so many of these projects, including: the Fish, Food and Allied Workers; the Association of Seafood Producers; Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador; and the Marine Institute.

The program has been a key component of many developments that have taken in place in Newfoundland and Labrador's fishing industry. It has funded projects related to energy efficiency, safety, seafood marketing, and product development. Using this program, the industry has been able to implement innovative projects that are leading to a more competitive fishing industry in the global marketplace.

One of the key areas supported under the program has been energy efficiency projects. As energy efficiency has become an increasingly important aspect of a more competitive and environmentally-friendly fishing industry, the program has contributed approximately $660,000 to help reduce energy costs and reduce the carbon footprint of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, our government is working with industry to build a future that is bright for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have funded projects that will change the way our industry works and enhance our reputation as a global leader in fisheries, oceans, and marine research and development.

The Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is a key provincial component of the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Approximately $140 million has been committed to this strategy in an effort to revitalize the Province's fishing industry. Building on the existing success of ongoing research and development, my department will continue to partner with the private sector and fishing industry stakeholders to continue to grow and develop the industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Certainly, research and development is very important to any industry, and the fishing industry would be no different and no exception for sure. Any improvements in energy efficiency, safety, and marketing are always good to see as well. In this day and age, emphasis on cutting all costs, especially energy costs, is welcomed by the industry, particularly the harvesters.

It is encouraging to see government work with the industry on this initiative, and it is important that government work in partnership with key players in all industries and all aspects of the fishing industry in particular. We saw in the MOU process that key stakeholders were kind of omitted; thereby, they felt that they have been left out and have not had the input that they could have had into that particular process.

It is also important that government needs to look at rebuilding our industry, not just from a technology aspect, but from all areas, including marketing, certainly, which needs to be fast-tracked if we are going to be able to compete globally with our products. Building our entire fishing industry is more than about improving technology, but it is a question of the resource itself and ensuring that it remains sustainable over the years.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a very worthwhile initiative, it has clearly been welcomed by those in the industry, but government must ensure that they do more to make sure that we build our industry. There are a lot of people who feel that it has been neglected by this government, in terms of the input necessary, so we would encourage the government to continue to look at the fishing industry for sure.

Thank you.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good, Mr. Speaker, to see the projects that the minister has spoken about and the efforts that have been made in the fishing industry, especially the project around energy efficiency because this is something that is going to be important to our industry as it continues to grow in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The minister also talks about a project with regard to seafood marketing. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a full plan, a full strategy, in place with regard to seafood marketing. Now, we are all awaiting with bated breath, the MOU, and I am assuming that this is going to be included in the MOU, but this is one of the most long-awaited pieces of paper and documents that we have had in this House since I have been sitting here.

We have great expectations because of the length of time that it is taking, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the length of time is going to be an indication of how good this MOU is going to be, because, as much as we are in the money because of the oil industry in this Province, the backbone of this Province has been and will continue to be the fishery. If we do not have that backbone strengthened, then I fear to think of where we will be in fifty years' time.

I really ask the minister to work hard with the partners that they are working with to get this MOU in place in the latest time that he has now given us, in the New Year. I would love to see a committed date and a real promise that that date will be met.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of Newfoundland and Labrador's top innovators and exporters recently took centre stage at the provincial government's annual Export and Innovation Awards.

Through the Export and Innovation Awards, the provincial government showcases prominent innovators and exporters, and celebrates their accomplishments and successes. The event, which was attended by upwards of 200 individuals, captured the forward-looking nature of a business community whose vision is focused on exporting to international markets.

Ocean Choice International was named Exporter of the Year, while Grand Bank-based Dynamic Air Shelters and Memorial University's Distance Education and Learning Technologies were respectively presented with the Innovation in Business and Distinction in Innovation Awards. These awards carry significant value for winners.

Camouflage Software, a previous winner, described the awards as "bolstering the company's courage and giving it the energy required to make repeated attempts, perform endless demonstrations, and to succeed in convincing clients of the value of its software."

Mr. Speaker, while there were three winners named, many others were equally as deserving. Small- and medium-sized businesses and organizations are a focal point for the positive activity being experienced in the Province and have been a force in the diversification of the Province's business community.

As a government, we are a champion of business growth. A key conduit to encouraging business growth is supporting local businesses to become successful innovators and exporters.

In the coming months, the provincial government will be leveraging relationships through the Province's trade alliance with the Southeastern United States. Through this relationship, we will work with our network of women-owned businesses to help them sell their products and services to larger corporations and public organizations which have implemented diversity policies.

The provincial government, in collaboration with local businesses and regional partners, is also in the early stages of exploring export opportunities in the vast markets of India, China, and Brazil. Given the size and interest in these markets, officials are carefully identifying parameters for market entry, key contacts, and partnership opportunities.

With a business community that is thinking global, the provincial government additionally intends to sit down with business representatives in the new year to proactively discuss emerging opportunities in markets and how we can assist turning those opportunities into reality.

By facilitating new export activity, the provincial government is supporting the development of a vibrant business community and setting the stage for even greater celebrations at future export and innovation awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I would like to acknowledge the winners of the awards that were presented: Ocean Choice International, Dynamic Air Shelters, and Memorial University's Distance Education and Learning Technologies program. It is great to see. As testimony by previous winners, it is very important in terms of boosting their confidence and it certainly looks good on their resumes and so on. So it is a good initiative, and I would commend the minister for the same.

It is good to see the network of women-owned businesses as well, something that is being looked at and obviously exploring opportunities in the vast markets of India, China, and Brazil. There are a lot of global opportunities there as well. Small- and medium-sized businesses make up a large portion of our exporting and when we look at the Canadian statistics, we know that the number of Canadian companies that have fewer than 100 employees are somewhere around 98 per cent, and yet they make up more than 45 per cent of the GDP. Being able to support the small businesses to get through the growing pains and from the development stage to the exporting stage is certainly good. It is good to see those recognitions here today.

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am very pleased to join with the other two parties in the House in congratulating Ocean Choice International, Dynamic Air Shelters, and Memorial's Distance Education and Learning Technologies. I am particularly pleased to see Ocean Choice International there; it goes to what I was saying to the Minister of Fisheries earlier. I think we have so much more potential in the whole area of the fishery that I would like to see this built on, obviously.

The other thing that is so good is the concentration on small- and medium-sized businesses because they really are, again, part of the whole basis of our economy. We know the contribution that small- and medium-sized businesses make to an economy, both in terms of employment, there may be small numbers in each place but the small numbers build up, and in terms of the actual economy through the sale of exports that are going on.

I am very pleased with the whole thing on the concentration on the network of women-owned businesses. We have heard about this before, and I am glad to see that it is being strengthened and continuing. I would encourage the minister, not because of anything she has not done, she has not been in the position long enough, but encourage her because of some experiences I have heard of, to make sure that the programs - especially for women-owned businesses - are not so rigid, that sometimes things that are designed by a group of women themselves cannot find funding. There are some loopholes in supporting women who are into, especially craft businesses in trying to make international connections. That is something that I would be happy to speak to the minister about at another time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The Chair would like to recognize a couple of people who are visiting the House of Assembly today. Sitting in the Speaker's gallery is a former Member of the House of Assembly and a long-time Cabinet Minister, Mr. Tom Hickey.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize Mayor Harold Murphy, from the Town of Parkers Cove in the District of Burin-Placentia West.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is going to be the most expensive power in Eastern Canada. Ratepayers here will pay well over 100 per cent more for electricity.

My question today concerns industrial users and the cost of energy to business. I will quote something the Premier is quite familiar with, "…can the Premier explain how we can ever use our expensive power as an incentive for new businesses to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs, and purchase goods and services from our companies, when it is much cheaper, in fact, for them to buy their power in Quebec, on the other side of the border?" That is a question that former Premier Williams posed to then Premier Grimes back in 2002, and it is just as apt today when it comes to the Muskrat Falls deal.

I ask the Premier: How are you going to make it happen, Premier? How are you going to grow our economy while using the most expensive power in Eastern Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental essentials in growing your economy is that you have energy to sell to industrial customers. Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to maintain the current customers in our Province if we are not able to do something about our generating capacity over the next ten to fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is not a problem for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, is the solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

One of the reasons Muskrat Falls power is so expensive is because there is such a small amount of power being created for such expensive infrastructure. Muskrat Falls will provide only one quarter of the energy as the original Lower Churchill Project but still cost this Province $6.2 billion. The lion's share of the Lower Churchill power at Gull Island will remain untapped. It is the vast power at Gull Island, of course, that would have made the Lower Churchill project in totality and would have made it financially viable.

My question for the Premier is: Why burden the taxpayers of this Province with another $4.5 billion in debt to finance a project that is only part of a project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest alternative that is available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard last week that the acting Leader of the Opposition had been commenting on the Muskrat Falls deal without having read the Generation Planning document, which speaks to the load forecast that we have here for the next fifteen to twenty years, that talks about the capacity that is going to be required to meet that load forecast. Mr. Speaker, it talks about its legislative responsibility to provide the people of the Province with the least expensive power possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the documents provided as part of the Muskrat Falls deal do not show any transmission lines leading back from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls. However, we understand such lines are necessary and are a necessary part of the project. Their cost is certainly built into the $6.2 billion project cost.

Can the Premier confirm that there will indeed be two lines coming from Muskrat Falls back to Churchill Falls, and briefly what the purpose of those lines are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, redundancy is required and where it is necessary it is provided for in the planning of this project. As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, we were happy to provide members of the Opposition with a briefing when we did an announcement of this project. I have offered again, because it is a large, complex piece of work, Mr. Speaker. To offer further briefings to the Acting Leader of the Opposition and members of his party, I make that offer again, Mr. Speaker, so he understands the nuances of this deal in a very particular way. Perhaps we can have a more enlightened discussion here on the floor of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say to the Premier, we did have a briefing and we will request whatever further briefings we consider necessary. I also thought the purpose of Question Period is the Premier could explain to the people of this Province some of these obvious, simple questions. To suggest that you are going to slough it off onto a briefing meeting when the people have a right to know is absolutely irresponsible.

I say to the Premier, the power plant at Muskrat Falls will not be built in isolation of the bigger generating plant at Churchill Falls. In fact, our understanding is that because of its size, Muskrat can only provide a twenty-three hour guaranteed supply of energy on any given day. It will need the backup of the Upper Churchill in order to offer customers a guaranteed, firm supply of power.

Can the Premier confirm that this is indeed so? If so, has the Premier or Nalcor had any discussions with Hydro Québec about a swap deal in order to have a firm supply of power at Muskrat?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we can all rest assured in, in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that the expert team that we have put together at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro understands power transmission and what they need to do to meet their commitments, not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but to their customers.

Mr. Speaker, we have been running Churchill Falls through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L)Co – we are working our way towards sixty years, Mr. Speaker. There is ebb and flow, there is demand, there are reservoirs, there is water management, and there is the capacity we have here in the Province through other generation facilities. We will be able to meet all of our commitments to everyone we have made the commitment to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We all know the Muskrat Falls Project is only a shadow of the original Lower Churchill Project. Not only is it smaller, it is radically different in scope, environmentally. This project is so radically different, in fact, that the joint federal-provincial panel that was struck to examine the environmental impact of the Lower Churchill sees Muskrat as potentially an entirely new project.

My question to the Premier is this: What discussions have Nalcor officials or government had with the joint panel about this new project, and how does it affect your timeline for any intended construction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interests of everybody in this Province to ensure that we undergo the scrutiny of a very thorough environmental assessment. That is all we have asked of the panel, Mr. Speaker. We will provide whatever information they require.

This is a very good project, Mr. Speaker; not only good for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, but this is good for all of Canada. We are sure that environmental assessment will show that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I asked the Premier last week about the Province's position with regard to the Wells' Recommendation about an independent safety board, separate from the C-NLOPB, and the Premier at that time responded that she was awaiting the report of the C-NLOPB with regard to that decision.

Well, they had a press conference this morning, and the C-NLOPB's position, with regard to that recommendation, is that it is a policy issue and it has to be government, and not the board that would have to deal with that issue of a separate safety division for the protection of offshore workers.

I ask the Premier: Government has received the board's brief, particularly with regard to recommendation 29 of the Wells Inquiry. Is this government prepared to change the mandate of the C-NLOPB and have discussions with the federal government about changing the mandate, such that we can create an independent safety regulator, rather than as it is currently structured?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the final report of the helicopter inquiry is a significant piece of work. I, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, would like to thank Justice Wells for his work, and also say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that we fully support all of the recommendations of Commissioner Wells, including recommendation 29. I will be contacting the federal government to begin discussions about the setup of a standalone regulator, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Fisheries stated that the infamous MOU – Memorandum of Understanding, or, as some would call it, the months of uncertainty - would finally be in his hands at the end of the week.

I ask the minister: Has he had an opportunity to review the details, or even the executive summary; and, if so, can he share with the public any information or recommendations contained in that report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the memorandum of uncertainty. If that does not paint a negative picture, Mr. Speaker, on what people perceive of this process, I do not what it does.

Mr. Speaker, this MOU is of paramount importance to how the fishery is going to proceed in the future here. This finalized document got to the independent chair early in November because the parties engaged wanted some more time to deal specifically around the marketing issue, as was alluded to here in the statements earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I have not received the report yet. The technical detail of this report is being finalized at the request of the independent chair working with our officials. I can assure the people of the Province when this comes to our government, we will preview it and then the public will know what is in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest failure on behalf of the minister to answer the question I asked is a part of the reason why many in the industry are calling it as I have just stated a moment ago.

In July 2009, Mr. Speaker, the minister allocated up to $800,000 for the MOU process, and it was expected to be completed within five months. It is now seventeen months since the process started.

I ask the minister today: Were there any cost overruns associated with the long delay in the MOU process; and, if so, can he indicate to us the amount and provide us with a breakdown of the expenses now that the report is all but complete?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this process started in 2009. As I said before, this is a process that is being industry-driven for the industry.

Mr. Speaker, the issue around the funds, I do not have a particular issue. The money was allocated. I cannot speak specifically to the exact dollar amount, but I would have no problem sharing it with the member. It is all done in the best interest of making this industry the best that it possibly can be in this Province and that we start to paint a positive message around the fishery rather than a negative image, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in 2006 this government invested $15 million in a broadband initiative, and then, on February 15 of last year, the government quietly announced that the Government's Broadband Initiative was cancelled in the fifth paragraph of a lengthy news release.

My question to the minister today is: Now that the initiative has been cancelled, what plans does government have in place to provide broadband to the hundreds of schools, government buildings, health facilities, public libraries, and others who have no access to broadband throughout our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than committed to providing broadband access across this Province. The project was not cancelled, Mr. Speaker; the project was put on hold because it was not cost effective. In fact, half a billion dollars was not a wise use of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker. The monies that we have spent, Mr. Speaker, have leveraged some very good benefits for the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The $15 million for the trans-gulf connection, Mr. Speaker, has netted us some benefits that are applauded right across this Province: 80 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador now has access to high-speed Internet and high-speed capability, and about 90 per cent to 95 per cent of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. So, the monies that have been spent have been well spent, and we are certainly very committed to seeing that things will be expanded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the 20 per cent of the communities that are not connected today, I am very familiar with many of them. The answer as to why they do not have high-speed at this point is basically because it is not a business case; however, government has a record and an obligation, obviously, of providing services and facilities throughout our Province, such as roads and other things, which are not necessarily a business case as well.

It is not acceptable that the growth of our communities, the existence of business, and the attraction of new business be held at ransom because of the unwillingness of private companies to provide service where there is no business.

I would ask the minister: Will this government intervene to make that happen for the people in these communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the parts of the Province that still do not have the kind of connectivity that we would like to see. As MHAs, I am sure we have all been dealing with that, but we do not have the leverage that we would like to do that. That is federally regulated. That is the CRTC. That is Industry Canada. I would suspect that the member opposite is aware of that. Those are the areas where we need to lobby. We need to be putting pressure there.

Business cases need to be made for some of those areas, there is no doubt about that; but we certainly have been doing our part, and we have been aggressively lobbying with Industry Canada and with the CRTC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the opportunity to the Minister of Transportation to answer the question I asked last week, because we got carried away in the calculations of ferries that were afloat and sheds that were to be built in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, concerned citizens have called on the government to re-establish the provincial user ferries committee to generate common sense improvements to the ferry service. It is my understanding, Minister, that last spring you made a commitment and expressed support for the re-establishment of this committee.

I ask the minister: Why the about-face when you wrote to Mr. Jim Forward from Little Bay Islands with a resounding no to the re-establishment of this committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the ferry services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, for which we are responsible for, are the key to these communities that we serve. There is nothing better to find out what their needs are than to be dealing specifically with each and every one of them.

Now since I took over this post about a year ago, I have made sure that I have been in direct contact with each and every one of these committees. As I look down from last year to this year, I have attended over thirty meetings and have made contact with them. To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is where I should be: right on the ground, finding out what the needs are, and responding in the most appropriate ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the minister has met with the committees, but many of them feel that this is a divide and conquer policy. Mr. Speaker, the ferry issue is more than numbers; it is about delivering quality service to the ferry communities. Residents feel that the provincial ferry service remains substandard. There are conditions where there are no washrooms and no decent ferry terminals in many communities.

I ask the minister: What do you intend to do to address the inconsistent service in the Province's ferry communities? Why not resurrect the provincial ferry users committee to initiate a dialogue and general solutions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I will just refer back to me rising in the House last week and talking about making sure that we are dealing with these needs. I very clearly articulated that we do have a strategy, and a very important strategy. A strategy that we picked up in 2003 because it was abandoned by a former Administration that had not provided anything in the way of a new ferry or shipbuilding since they cancelled that program back in 1991.

I say to the hon. member opposite: we have heard, we have consulted, we have heard, we have listened, and we are responding as a government in a very big way but it is going to take time. Unfortunately, ferries do not just appear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on August 24 of this year I sent a letter to the Minister of Health regarding the lack of dialysis treatment in St. Anthony. I requested a meeting to discuss the issue; however, no response was ever received. Upset dialysis patients and their families have been calling my office and they do not understand why they have to move to some other area of the Province when dialysis equipment is available in St. Anthony. People are waiting months and months on a wait-list to get back to the region. The dialysis unit is currently only open three days a week; staffing appears to be the only issue, is my understanding.

I ask the minister today: Will the government commit to funding additional staffing so dialysis patients can return to their region to receive treatment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2003-2004 there was $14.6 million spent on dialysis, Mr. Speaker. In 2010-2011, we are spending $22.7 million annually; a 55 per cent increase over a period of years. There has been an expansion of dialysis since it was created in St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, we currently have other areas in the Province where people are looking for dialysis. For example, there are four people, I think, on the wait-list in St. Anthony, whereas we have eight or nine people in Burin waiting to have dialysis.

Mr. Speaker, not only do we have areas where people are waiting for dialysis, we have areas of the Province that do not have dialysis. We have heard representations from the people of the Harbour Breton area. Mr. Speaker, we have heard representations from the people of Baie Verte, Bonavista. They do not have dialysis. We have to balance all of this, Mr. Speaker, and use our monies wisely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the fact that St. Anthony is a satellite site, and normally these sites will accommodate twelve patients. The problem is that the demand is growing for dialysis services in that region, and, as indicated by the minister, other regions in the Province as well. We are all sensitive to that. We have a Tele-Dialysis Program where patients can be monitored by a specialist from a distance.

I ask the minister: Given the demand for the treatment and the ability to closely monitor patients through video conferencing, will government revisit the satellite program to ensure that more people can return to their homes for dialysis treatment?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the greatest sympathy for the people from St. Anthony who have to seek dialysis treatment elsewhere. I also have the same sympathy for the people from Burin; we currently have four people in Stephenville.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the people from Port aux Basques approached, and I remember one lady in particular, her husband had to drive to Corner Brook for dialysis. We, Mr. Speaker, last year announced in the Budget dialysis for Port aux Basques. I attended in Lab West, last November 27, 2009, and heard the plea from the people in Lab West for dialysis. In Budget 2010, we announced dialysis for Port aux Basques.

Mr. Speaker, our Province currently has the second highest number of dialysis stations in the country and the lowest number of patients per station. Unfortunately, what we are encountering in St. Anthony is encountered in other parts of the Province. What we have to do, Mr. Speaker – and, again, I say this with all due respect. The people of the Connaigre Peninsula are looking for dialysis; we have other areas of the Province that has dialysis. These are tough decisions to make, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 90,000 people in our Province suffering from arthritis; that is one in five people. We need at least ten rheumatologists to care for these patients but we only have four. Of the four that we have, those doctors make up about 2.8 full-time equivalents, as they are also responsible for teaching and research.

I ask the minister: Do you feel this level of care is acceptable to the people of the Province, and, if not, what are you willing to do about it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated in this House recently, we currently have 1,098 physicians in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the highest we have ever had. We have 558 specialists. Fifty-six physicians, Mr. Speaker, have been retained and recruited since September 30, 2009. Mr. Speaker, our bursary program, our recruitment and retention program, and hopefully our – if we can reach a deal with the NLMA in the not too distant future, will all result, Mr. Speaker, in attraction of specialists.

There are certain areas where there are difficulties in recruiting specialists, Mr. Speaker. Rheumatology is one of them. I am certainly acutely aware of the difficulties that we face with recruitment in that area; but, Mr. Speaker, we are trying, Eastern Health is trying, and we will hopefully continue to recruit and retain in areas that are hard to find specialists, such as rheumatology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, people who live outside of St. John's are at a higher risk because arthritis is more prevalent, and there are no rheumatologists in their region. Paul Fitzpatrick is one of those patients. He, like many arthritis patients, is in need of in-patient care. The Arthritis Society has asked for four protected in-patient beds and a medical team to assess and treat these patients. That is four beds for potentially 90,000 people.

My question for the minister is this, Mr. Speaker: Why has this government and the Eastern Regional Health Authority refused to provide this level of service for these suffering patients?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I just indicated, we have had success in recruiting specialists in many areas, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to attempt to recruit specialists.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the wait times in terms of rheumatology are certainly long. Mr. Speaker, we will attempt and we are currently, I understand, in conversation with a rheumatologist in terms of trying to bring someone to the Province.

What seems to be implied in the question of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not doing anything for people outside in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this summer I had the opportunity to view a lot of the health facilities around this Province; and this summer, Mr. Speaker, we put over $25.4 million into capital equipment, repairs and renovations in facilities outside the St. John's area. Mr. Speaker, rural health care is a major concern for this government and something that we are certainly committed to.

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 must say, I was very, very pleased to hear the Premier say earlier that she and her government are accepting all of the recommendations from the Wells report. That is very, very good news for the Province and for the people working in the offshore. One thing that the commissioner did not do was set out a timeline for his recommendations. He explained that he did not think he was the appropriate body to do that.

I would like the Premier to give us an idea of what the government is going to do with regard to working with the C-NLOPB and coming up with timelines for each of the recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB operates at arm's-length from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not direct the C-NLOPB in any kind of a way.

Mr. Speaker, we support all of the recommendations of Commissioner Wells. The one that affects us most directly is twenty-nine, and that has been now moved into our court. What I do commit to is contacting the federal government immediately and as soon as is possible to commence meetings on the setting up of a stand-alone regulatory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want the Premier to try to speak for the federal government and suppose how things will come down as they begin discussions, but could she give the Province an idea of what her hopes would be for a timeline for getting these separate safety authorities set up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would be misleading the whole Province if I were to say anything other than as quickly as possible. There is nothing more important, Mr. Speaker, than human safety, and human safety in our offshore. This is a matter of high importance, and we will work expeditiously with our partner, the federal government, to ensure that this happens as quickly as possible.

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 well understand the independence of the C-NLOPB, however, they are accountable to the federal and the provincial governments. Today, the C-NLOPB, in its response to the report, said that it would be starting to put things in place in the spirit of the concerns of the commission with regard to the safety issues and what a safety authority would cover.

I would like to ask the Premier: What kind of a dynamic does she think should go on between the government and the C-NLOPB to make sure that steps that they are taking in the interim are steps that will lead to the safety authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Wells well understood the relationship between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the C-NLOPB, and understood clearly that we do not direct the C-NLOPB. What he did say in recommendation 29; while he preferred to see a stand-alone regulator, he also recognized in the absence of that, that a stand-alone department or piece of the C-NLOPB be set aside for regulation of health and safety in the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the C-NLOPB, as I understand it, has committed to in their news release this morning. That is a good first measure, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C-NLOPB, while the provincial and federal government go through the next steps for the setting up of the stand-alone regulator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday is the Official Opposition's Private Members' Day and I would like to table the private member's motion, moved by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile:

WHEREAS there are insufficient long-term care facilities and services to care for our aging population; and

WHEREAS this government committed to a long-term care strategy back in February 2008 but has failed to live up to its promise; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the fastest aging population in Canada and that by the year 2020 one in five people will be over the age of sixty-five; and

WHEREAS seniors are often spending months and months in acute care beds waiting to move into a long-term care facility; and

WHEREAS seniors moving between facilities causes Relocation Stress Syndrome which can result in a serious decline in their health; and

WHEREAS these acute care facilities are not providing the appropriate social and recreational opportunities to our aging population; and

WHEREAS the improper care of our seniors creates severe stress on families and friends; and

WHEREAS government policy has failed to provide the proper long-term care and community support services to the people of this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls on government to consider committing sufficient resources in this upcoming Budget to address the long-term care needs, facilities, equipment, and appropriate staffing for the aged in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present yet another petition on behalf of the residents in the District of Port de Grave, I guess in not all of the communities, but in the communities that encompass and use the Coley's Point Primary School. The petition reads:

WHEREAS Coley's Point Primary is a wooden structure built in the early 1960s; and

WHEREAS a consultant's report recommended that a new school be built to replace this facility; and

WHEREAS the student population is increasing yearly and constitutes a K-3 system; and

WHEREAS this forty-nine-year-old wooden structure should be replaced for the safety of both staff and student;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to take action and proceed with the construction of a new primary school for Coley's Point.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated there was a consultant's report back probably three or four years ago where it was recommended that this was a high priority for that particular area and for that school system. As probably most everybody knows, in the immediate area in the Bay Roberts system, we have the high school Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts, then we have the intermediate school, the Amalgamated Academy, and the primary school is this particular facility at Coley's Point.

We know at that time that even though the consultant's report recommended the building of the school, I believe the school board at the time and all of those involved with the east district and so on totally agreed that this was a top priority, and I know it is today. I hear from different individuals that there are no major air quality issues there at the present time; there was some remediation work that had to be done a few years ago.

This structure, Mr. Speaker, is one that should be considered. I know that the building of new schools and the restructuring of the education system in the Province – we hear talk of the changes coming here in the St. John's area; hopefully when the new budget comes down, Mr. Speaker, that the people of that area will hear the news that they thought they would have heard a few years ago. I am sure the powers to be know that this is a situation that has to be dealt with. The population is ever increasing there. I know this year in Bay Roberts alone there were some sixty-seven new homes constructed; that is new families coming in with young kids who will be going to that facility.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those who signed this petition I want to present this and ask the House of Assembly to urge government to see to it that funding may be announced this year in the upcoming Budget to help with building of this facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper I am going to go through the motions, first reading. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3, Bill 44 and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3, Bill 44, and that Bill 44 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3", carried. (Bill 44)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 44 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion Bill 44 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 Natural Resources to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 45, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 45, and that Bill 45 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 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 Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act", carried. (Bill 45)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 45 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 45 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador, Bill 46, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador, Bill 46, and that Bill 46 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador", carried. (Bill 46)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 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 Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, Bill 47, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, Bill 47, and that Bill 47 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47 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 Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act", carried. (Bill 47)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 47 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 47 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 Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 48, 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 Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 48, and that Bill 48 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 48 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 Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2", carried. (Bill 48)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 48 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 48 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 Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, Bill 49, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, Bill 49, and that Bill 49 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 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 Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act", carried. (Bill 49)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 49 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 49 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 Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, 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. Minister of Municipal Affairs shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, Bill 50, and that Bill 50 be now read a first time.

All those in favour that Bill 50 be now read a first time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act", carried. (Bill 50)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (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.

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 Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 51, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 51, and that Bill 51 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 51 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. Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", carried. (Bill 51)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill 51)

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

When shall Bill 51 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 51 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 Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, Bill 52, 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 Health and Community Services shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, Bill 52, and that Bill 52 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 Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005", carried. (Bill 52)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 52)

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

When shall Bill 52 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to call Order 12, second reading of Bill 43.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 43 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999". (Bill 43)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it was only this Friday past that I was happy, very pleased, and, as a matter of fact, I was honoured to be out on the Island of Fogo in regard to an amalgamation process that has been undergoing within government for the last three-and-a-half years or so. It finally came to fruition with the signing of an MOU on Fogo Island on Friday past. It was welcomed by all of the communities in question.

There was a lot of work that went into that particular process by various mayors in the past, by various stakeholders and various leaders within the communities, as well as MNL, and all of my officials in the Department of Municipal Affairs, of which one now has just recently retired. As a matter of fact, I made it a point that that particular person would be on Fogo Island to witness the amalgamation of those particular communities into one community: the community of Fogo Island.

That process, as I said, was a process that was welcomed and also initiated by the communities in question. We followed it through because – I have to state up front, as well, Mr. Speaker, that we do not force amalgamation but if there are communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that would wish to follow that process, then we will follow that process along with those particular communities to see, number one, if it is feasible; to see, number two, if it is a benefit to the particular communities. Once we find certain things out and we decide to go forward to make sure that that actual process and that actual government works - because that is exactly what has to happen. If we are going to go forward with regard to amalgamation, it not only has to be a benefit for the communities in question but there also has to be a benefit on the governance side for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to make sure that the actual governance would work, that they would run their communities responsibly, that there would be fairness under the process, and that each and every community would not lose its identity, as was proven in other amalgamations; such as down in New-Wes-Valley a number of years ago.

From my point of view, only being the Minister of Municipal Affairs - I became aware of that issue the day I was shuffled and sworn in at Government House. It became an absolute priority for me, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because there was a fair bit of time put into it by various people and I wanted to see this come to fruition. They can get started in regard to the governance, in which I believe there will be an election of representatives of that particular governance side on February 22, 2011. I look forward to the outcome of that.

This amendment specifically addresses an issue that arose during that process. This amendment allows an alternate governance structure to be set on a transitional basis until they can get to the point where they can actually elect a council under the present structure that is listed under the Municipalities Act 1999, in that there has to be a ward system and also representatives at large. To move this forward - we could not go into that structure right away. I think that would be wrong, because there are questions to be answered along the way of that process in regard to the transition process. There is certainly some apprehension as well by the people of those particular communities. That will not go away any time soon. It will go away during the process. When they see that the governance structure in New-Wes-Valley works, they will see that the governance structure works in other communities and they will buy into that and see the benefits thereof.

I thought what was referenced in regard to the consultant's report, which is a part of that process as well, it was suggested that we should probably have a structure in place on a transitional basis from now until about 2013, I think, is the next scheduled elections for municipal councils in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a transition period here now to go through and then we will have a structure set in place at the end of that time which will certainly reflect what is now written in the Municipalities Act, 1999 in regard to the ward system and councillors at large.

Essentially, what this amendment does, Mr. Speaker, is allow for a structure that gives equal representation to the communities that are amalgamating; depending on the size. It is structured to depending on the population base in each one of the communities. Not to list them all, but two of the larger communities there on Fogo Island will have two representatives; just two, which gives four. Then in each of the other communities, five; they will have one each. They thought that would definitely give them equal representation in regard to addressing some of the things they have to address now in regard to the location of services, sharing of services, making sure that there is a balance to each and every one of the homeowners on Fogo Island, and that each and every one of those homeowners and those communities are represented and also treated equally under the new governance structure.

I certainly welcome this amendment because, for the simple reason, when I see communities go down this path, Mr. Speaker, I also see - not fear as much as apprehension - the uncertainty of amalgamation. They have been so long - the history of Fogo Island with regard to the various communities there; Tilting being one, it is a National Historic Site. It was actually proclaimed that a number of years ago, which I had the fortunate aspect of attending. These communities go back in time. They have their own unique cultures, unique to themselves. We want that protected under that process as well.

I think it is paramount that they have equal representation to come to the table, work together in a unified system to make sure that this works and it is actually done right. That is what this amendment is all about, is doing the thing right, making sure that they have time to do it right; making sure that we provide the services and also provide the expertise within the Department of Municipal Affairs to provide that service, that background, and that help to these particular people who will be elected on February 22, 2011.

So, Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the piece of legislation; I think it is pretty straightforward. To me, anyway, it is. I think that hon. members across the House will agree that it is probably the best thing to do when we have these types of communities explore and then enter into an agreement to amalgamate, for the best interests of all the residents of those communities on Fogo Island in this particular case. I think this will be used if any other communities would entertain being amalgamated in the future, by whatever government there may be here. I know we are going to be around for a long, long time to come for sure, probably into the 2020s. That is what I think anyway, because we have been getting good representation here in Newfoundland and Labrador from this government since 2003. I do not think anything is going to change any time soon in regard to that. Maybe up around 2020 or something like that, we may have a change. I do not think we will, though, in the meantime.

Anyway, we will continue to go down this path in supporting all those particular communities that may wish to consider any type of structure, regionalization, amalgamation, or whatever it is. We are not into forcing that particular issue on councils. I want to make that clear to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are not into that, but when we are approached to provide solutions, to help them better govern themselves, then certainly my officials and myself as the Minister of Municipal Affairs are always there.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in regard to past Ministers of Municipal Affairs, they were there every step of the way as well. There were a couple, two or three as a matter of fact - three in particular – who were on this file from its beginning. I only handled this file for probably about six weeks after I became the new Minister of Municipal Affairs. It was a pleasure for me to partake in that event. It was a very emotional event. It was a very worthwhile event. The people on Fogo Island turned out in great numbers. They filled the gymnasium of the school, and tears were in their eyes that they had worked this through. They had come together as a full community. Whatever happened in the past, whatever it may be in history was all under the bridge. They were ready to move forward and they were ready to take their own destiny in their hands in regard to Fogo Island.

I see nothing but good in the future of Fogo Island. A lot of things are happening there economically; there is great investment in Fogo Island. There was actually an increase of 20-odd per cent in regard to the crossings to Fogo Island this summer alone. I believe that is a testament to the great work that is being done on Fogo Island, a great testament to this government's support to the people of Fogo Island, and also a great testament to the great work of the MHA of Fogo Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is what I see. The member for the area, for Fogo Island, has been on this file since he was elected. As a matter of fact, he was one of the first persons that asked me for a meeting once I was appointed as the new Minister of Municipal Affairs. I met with him; he brought this to my attention. He instilled in me the importance that it happen and that it happen sooner than later so we gave every bit of attention to that file.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take my seat in this House and welcome any comments by my hon. members across the House. I am sure they are all going to be positive for the simple reason that this is a good amendment. It is a friendly amendment. It is a well needed amendment in regard to the transition piece between the various councils coming together pursuing amalgamation; you need a transition period to get them and make sure that they do it right and proper and then they hold their destiny in their own hands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this act, Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 for a few moments.

The minister made a comment about doing it right and certainly that is important when anything is done in terms of changes of legislation and so on; if it is not right at the moment then we want to certainly see that it is right when it is completed. Hopefully that will be the outcome of this act.

It is a housekeeping amendment; if I understand it correctly. I would just like to go through my synopsis of it if you will so that we understand what the change is doing. If I do state something incorrectly then the minister can correct that for me as he speaks to it a little later.

It adds two subsections to section 14 of the act on wards. Basically, under the current Municipalities Act of 1999, a town council must have a majority of at large councillors. An example of that would be a council that would have seven members and obviously four of those would have to be members at large. This amendment was made to accommodate regional governance as the minister spoke about a moment ago, particularly the initiative of the Fogo Island council that was announced last week. What this does is it allows the new Fogo Island council to elect ward councillors for their first council to ensure that each council has a voice on this new council. It is a bit of a tongue twister, but basically that is my understanding of it.

The issue was identified as an impediment when bringing towns together; they would be swallowed by the larger council. When you talk about regionalization, that is one of the issues that comes from the smaller members, if you will, in the body.

This is only a transitional measure, as I understand it as well. At the next municipal election in 2013, they can elect councillors at large or a combination of ward councillors and so on. For example, the new council will determine the governing body of the council to ensure an equitable way to govern, but it will not be imposed on them by government; that is my understanding of what this does.

The ward councillors cannot exceed the councillors at large as well. At that time when this process unfolds, the current regional council there will be disbanded by this new town of Fogo council and it will mirror the structure of the regional council for now. The only one limitation for this act is that this is for the first election only and then it is no longer in effect I believe.

Regional council, Mr. Speaker; regional government, if you want to call it that, I believe, is a very positive road. For many of us, we see it as a way of the future. For those of us who are MHAs in rural Newfoundland, I am sure that many of us would agree that we need to see more regional co-operation, more coming together in the future. It is the only way really, quite frankly that rural Newfoundland and Labrador can properly survive. To see this initiative being done is a good thing. We are all aware that there are significant concerns regarding the future of municipal governments in our Province and service sharing will help ensure that we remain sustainable.

Some of the concerns that we see in terms of municipalities and sustainability; we understand that 21 per cent or so of municipalities have preventative maintenance for sewer systems – a very, very low number when we understand the importance of sewer systems in municipalities as a part of their infrastructure. Yet we have just a little over 20 per cent that would have a preventative maintenance plan in place. Other statistics that we see, for example; 24 per cent conduct regular preventative maintenance for water

Systems; only 50 per cent of the municipal towns in our Province actually have a municipal plan and many of them – if not half of them or so – are more than ten years old.

When we look at statistics like that and when we see these important measures not in place we understand the stress and the challenge on small municipalities, on small local service districts and so on to properly service its people. The idea of regionalization and communities coming together to form one larger community is a very positive thing.

The case of Fogo pulling together eleven communities to reshape their management approach and their community identity was a great achievement, but there are some concerns that I want to just make mention before I finish speaking in a moment.

Certainly, the $5 million that government allocated was a very important and necessary part of this initiative because it would indeed allow those Combined Councils to have a fresh start without the burden of debt. Without doing that there probably would be no way forward. The announcement of the $5 million to help accommodate that certainly is a good thing.

Unless this government makes some immediate headway on working out a new municipal fiscal framework with the municipalities then our concern would be that this debt will only reoccur over time. The towns still have to provide for the same services that they do today. They are still providing for road maintenance, they are still providing for snow clearing, they are still providing for garbage disposal, they still need the resources to be able to carry out that type of work.

So, Fogo Island very well could be a model for other communities who are contemplating coming together to cut costs, enhance services, and so on, but without this new municipal fiscal framework then, again, our concern would be that in a few years all of these towns and local service districts will simply go back into debt where they find themselves today.

The MNL are to be commended for taking a leadership role in promoting and encouraging regional co-operation as well. I certainly hope that we will see more of it throughout our Province as time goes on.

We had the October conference of the MNL this fall. I know one of the key messages that came from there was the heavy challenges that are facing the municipalities in terms of sustaining themselves fiscally. Communities are facing declining tax bases, they are facing aging populations, they are facing expanding services and so on, and more downloading of both federal and provincial governments. Government has promised a new revenue sharing arrangement and we are looking forward to that, hoping that it will come very soon. Certainly, we would like to see that in the not-too-distant future. While we understand that there is a good dialogue on the go between the MNL and government on this process, we certainly would urge government to seriously consider looking at the short-term support, including the expanding of MOGs and so on.

Some of the issues that were raised and made light to us in terms of the implementation of the changes of this act – not everyone, of course, would be pleased with the creation of one council for Fogo and the new partnership approach. I suppose that not everyone would be pleased with any suggested change because we know that sometimes we resist change; yet, we know that change is the only real constant that we have. We see change around us all the time; yet, when we are in our comfort zone, when things are going well, and we are used to the present, changing it is not always something we want to do.

One e-mail that came into the office spoke to the fact that the democratic process may have been compromised. It expressed concern about the need to safeguard the loss of identity and symbolism as a community. So, that would be important.

Also, a comment from MNL that I thought was important for us to see was from Robert Keenan. He says allowing for an all-ward system council is good for an amalgamated community and helps amalgamations, but the main problem that he understood or sees with it is that it confines the all-ward system to only the first election. In 2013, the new Fogo Island community municipality must have more at-large representatives than wards which means the smaller communities will likely have fewer representatives in 2013. That would be a concern, not necessarily a bad thing, as noted, because it will hopefully force some island-wide candidates to emerge.

It does not give the council a long time to come together and to overcome decades of competition, tension and so on, which is not uncommon in regions where there are smaller communities that have competed against each other for a number of years and now suddenly they are coming together. So a proper time frame to work through that and to get through it and so on is important.

Those are just a few comments on this particular amendment, and we certainly will be supporting this amendment, Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

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, too, am happy to stand and to support this bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

Basically, it is all pretty straightforward as has been described both by the minister and my colleague from the Official Opposition. Just to make a couple of comments, I think that it is a wonderful sign, actually, of where we are in our Province at the moment that the Island of Fogo with, I think, its ten communities has been able to come to this agreement.

It should not be surprising to us, though, because we remember what happened on Fogo Island when they ran into problems with the fishery back in the 1960s, and the process that they went through of bringing their community together and forming what initially was a boatbuilding co-operative, and that then became the fishing co-operative of Fogo Island. They do have a history of facing a problem together, then dealing with that problem together, and coming up a co-operative way of dealing with it.

I think this latest move by the communities on Fogo Island is a sign of the co-operative way in which they can work together. We all know funny stories from the past in Newfoundland, not just on Fogo Island. I know a number of people from Fogo Island. So, I am speaking from their experience, the stories of communities where on one side of the harbour there was the Catholic side, on the other side the Protestant side, and on Saturday night they got on the bridge and fought together. Certainly, there are communities on Fogo Island that have those stories, and they laugh about it.

In spite of that history, here we have these ten communities saying we can work together. We do have to acknowledge that this kind of an action by a group of communities can leave smaller communities feeling left out. I think it is extremely important that this piece of legislation is being passed here together in this House, so that it allows the smaller towns on the Island – towns like Seldom and Titling, which are really quite small – to know that they will have a voice on the new council. Then it will be up to that new council - they will have a couple of years in operation before the next election - to decide how they are going to move forward when they continue their process of elections.

In the beginning, we now have a system - by passing this bill today - whereby every one of those communities will have somebody on the council, and then that council will elect their mayor. I have to say last week I did hear the Mayor of Fogo which is, I think, the largest community on the Island talking about this; he was being interviewed on one of our radio stations. He was proud of what they were doing, and I am sure he must be very proud today that the Legislature is going to pass this bill that is going to allow them to do what they need to do to recognize each other, to be respectful of each other, and to work in a co-operative way around the table.

We always have to remember while, in one way, we look at nature and we say expressions like the survival of the fittest, the majority rules, et cetera, we always have to be aware of the minority voice. We always have to be aware of those who have less power in our systems. This piece of legislation that we are passing today is recognizing that. It is recognizing that we have a responsibility to make sure that every voice is heard; that it is not just the survival of the fittest or the rule of the majority; that even in elections where we have majorities, majorities have to be aware of the minority voice of those who do not have the same position.

I am not going to beat this to death, Mr. Speaker. I think we have had a fair bit talked about with regard to the bill itself. It is straightforward now that instead of favouring the councillors at large - because the current legislation says that the number of councillors elected at large shall not be less than the total number of councillors elected for the wards plus one councillor. In other words, you have more councillors at large than you have ward councillors. We now see a variation which will have equality, or you could even have all ward councillors without a councillor at large in the model that is being proposed here. It shows a favouring of the ward system, a favouring of the voice of all, and that voice should be a voice of equality among all of them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, number one, I congratulate the Island of Fogo on facing adversity together, because they are having financial problems up there. They are certainly hoping that by this amalgamation they are going to be able to deal with debt and with the financial problems they have. It is also a moment too, for us to recognize that the government does have to look at the needs of the rural municipalities in particular.

I think we do have to come back to a grants program that will meet the needs of the smaller communities, because even with the amalgamation, Fogo still has some major infrastructure that it is going to have to deal with – the island, I mean, when I say Fogo. It has infrastructural needs, like the other rural communities in particular. It is not just rural communities, infrastructural needs internally to the municipality that they do not have the population base to cover.

Government really does have to look at the reinstating of a grants program for the municipalities. Let's not just support the municipalities by changing this legislation today, let's also, I ask the government, look at how to put in place the grants program so that we are showing financial support for the municipalities as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House again to close debate in regard to Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

As I suspected in regard to the comments by the hon. members across the House, that all of it was positive. They see the absolute benefit of this amendment in regard to setting up a structure that would help any amalgamation process to really transition to what is expected, and what has to happen under the ward system and the councillors at large.

In this case, it is the amalgamation of the municipalities on Fogo Island to a new municipality of the Town of Fogo Island is what essentially it is going to be. They will transition over the next couple of years to 2013; we will help them through that process and move them forward. We will be along there every step of the way, and I am quite sure, as shown out there on Friday in regard to the leadership on that island, that this will happen and this will happen right. It will be the best for the future of the Island of Fogo.

It certainly shows, as referenced by my hon. colleagues across the House, a sign of co-operation; a sign, not only of co-operation of the municipalities and the communities there, but also in regard to this government. We are there - we have been there right from the beginning, the get-go in 2003 - to assist the various municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador; the LSDs and even the unincorporated bodies as well if we possibly can do it. It is a little harder but certainly we are there, because we are all people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all have our wants and needs. We all have our challenges and issues. That is what we were elected to do, to try to work through all of that as a unified body, being of Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot see anything but good coming out of these amendments. I am sure that the amendments will be used in future governments, future Ministers of Municipal Affairs, when and if other communities decide to go down this path in amalgamating their communities into one municipality.

I heard the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North mention that in some cases, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, this might be very well needed. That in regard to the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador you are going to see a lot more co-operation; you are going to see a lot more regionalization; you are going to see a lot more of shared services.

Again, I will say this in this House, where I am clear: we are not promoting amalgamation as a government. That is up to the communities. That is up to the people of those communities. That is up to the leaders in those communities to take that direction and take that process, or to start that process. All we are here for, as a government, is to help them in the case of whatever they choose. If they choose to stand alone as a municipality or if they choose to have some type of a regional government or whatever shared services they might want to entertain - such as fire and emergency services - or if they want to amalgamate, we are there to support whatever they decide. I want to be clear on that here today, Mr. Speaker.

In turn, I was quite pleased to be on Fogo Island on Friday past because it was a part of history. It was a very historic event on Fogo Island; a long, long history with regard to this Province. They played a vital role in our fishery. They played a vital role in regard to the culture that we are so proud of here in this Province. To see this come together and see the tears in their eyes and to know that the future of Fogo Island is in the best hands and in a place in time that it could not ask for any better. Yes, we did write off some debts and we did some other things out there as well. The most important piece of this has nothing to do with writing off debts, it has nothing to do with the other investments we made, it is about co-operation, it is about the pride, and it is about the vision of the future of Fogo Island. When you have that vision and you capitalize on that, and you capitalize on the strengths within the various communities and the stakeholders and the leaders there, the outcome will be nothing but good for the people of the Island of Fogo.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. I welcome any other questions, or if there are any questions once this piece of legislation enters the committee stage, I will try to answer them and bring clarity to the amendments proposed in Bill 43.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 43)

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: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 43)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 10, second reading of Bill 41.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to move – and moved and seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services - Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: It is now moved and seconded that Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005". (Bill 41)

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me read into the record, this is An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act. Section 30 of the act "…is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (c) the following: (c.1) providing for the issuance of different classes of licences".

Mr. Speaker, licensed practical nurses in this Province are a self-regulating body. There are some limitations and restrictions in the current legislation that prohibits the council for LPNs to issue certain classes of licences.

For example, if a licensed practical nurse were to move from another province to Newfoundland and Labrador and was eligible for registration, but had some temporary limitations or restrictions on their practice, for example, then the current licensing body in this Province cannot issue a licence with a restriction. Or, in the event that the College of Licensed Practical Nurses wanted to place a restriction on the practice of an LPN who is practicing and licensed to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador today, there are some limitations within the current legislation that prohibit the council from issuing a licence with a restriction to practice in some fashion, Mr. Speaker. Or, at some point in time, depending on how that profession evolves, there may be opportunities to have various classes of licence to be issued, based on training and certification.

So there are a number of very practical and pragmatic reasons, I say, Mr. Speaker, to have this amendment made to the legislation that will allow the licensing body to issue certain classes or place certain restrictions or to provide certain provisions attached to the issuance of a licence. I might add, Mr. Speaker, this would be pretty consistent with the licence for the practice of nursing in the Province. The ARNNL, for example, who have an ability to issue a licence of practice for RNs in the Province, would have such a provision in their current legislation. I say, Mr. Speaker, this practice and this amendment would, in fact, make a provision for licensed practical nurses that is the same provision that is available to and applies to other types of nursing practice in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are very blessed in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a very strong network, some 2,700 LPNs in practice in Newfoundland and Labrador, all making a very valuable contribution to their profession, all making a very valuable contribution to the health system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the pleasure last Friday evening, to attend a graduation ceremony of the College of the North Atlantic, Clarenville campus, where they are graduating and honouring twenty-seven new graduates into the profession, Mr. Speaker. This is one of a number of locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where people can enrol in the program and respond to the need for an increased work force.

There have been many changes in this profession in the last eight or ten years, I say, Mr. Speaker; a number of changes that have seen significant enhancements in this profession. A few short years ago licensed practical nurses in this Province were not able to dispense medication, for example. The nature of the practice is advanced such now that they are now in a position to administer medications and various medications within hospitals and community settings. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is one of many changes that has occurred in recent years that have seen the nature and the scope of practice for LPNs expanded in a very dramatic way in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years. This has come about as a result of advances in training; come about as a result of change in the governance structure for LPNs that practice in the Province. The amendment that we are making here today, in as much as it is a pretty simple amendment – some may refer to it as a housekeeping amendment to the legislation – is an important one as we advance the practice of licensed practical nurses in this Province who we believe are a critical component of our health system. The number is, as I said earlier, currently at 2,700; that number has grown significantly in recent years and we forecast that as time moves forward this number will increase in a very significant way as well.

One of the other things that changes in legislation like this – and this is a real good example, Mr. Speaker, where this kind of change improves the portability of licensed practical nurses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador as they move from various jurisdictions in Canada. We are a part of a broader arrangement with other jurisdictions such that there is a freedom of mobility, an ease of mobility between various jurisdictions. So it is important for the legislation that governs our various disciplines in Newfoundland and Labrador to be consistent with that of other jurisdictions. If we are going to facilitate the easy movement of LPNs from other jurisdictions into this Province and should Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are licensed to practice in this Province wish to pursue their careers someplace else in Canada, they need the flexibility to be able to move in an unrestricted fashion to those jurisdictions. Many times when we have self-regulating bodies like this our legislation will be governed and influenced by what is happening in other jurisdictions as will our legislation here influence what happens in other jurisdictions.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce this amendment to this piece of legislation that is currently in place that deals with the practice of licensed practical nurses in the Province and makes a very friendly amendment to the current legislation. Let me repeat it, there is only one small section being changed, we are adding the words "providing for the issuance of different classes of licences," which provides a greater flexibility and a greater autonomy for the licensing body to issue licences that have a special class or special provisions for licensed practical nurses in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege as Member of The Straits & White Bay North, to be able to stand and just say a few words, have a few comments, about the simple amendment, as the minister just phrased it, to Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

We all know how important a licensed practical nurse, referred to as LPNs, is in the profession and throughout the system. They are professionals who are able to perform a wide variety of tasks, as indicated a moment ago by the minister, under the supervision most often of a registered nurse, a doctor, or whatever the case might be. They provide a wide range of services and we see those services broadening all of the time, of course, including whether it is in the hospitals where they work, whether it is in the residential care facilities where they work, or whether it is in private homes. We see LPNs every day in action throughout our communities and throughout our regions, see what they do, and certainly recognize that it is very, very important.

Once an LPN or a person has gone through the program and they have been certified, of course, they can provide patient care at different levels. There are routine nursing tasks, if you will, whether it is assisting with patients' bathing, going to washrooms, or going to physical therapy, and many other things. Often that is the kind of work that we find an LPN involved in. Of course there are also other things, whether it is starting intravenous drips and doing minor procedures in the hospital and in the rooms, changing the dressings, and engaging in similar tasks under the supervision of a doctor or an RN as I said.

We are lucky and we are blessed that we some 2,700 to 3,000 - or whatever that proper number is – in our Province, of licensed practical nurses who hold their licence under the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, which this act speaks to.

The changes to legislation that are suggested here this afternoon in section 30.(c) is changing so that the college will have regulation-making power, if you will, respecting the issuance of different classes of licences for practical nurses. If we look at the registered nursing profession, for example, I believe they are able to classify nurses as being active, or inactive, or retired and so on. There may be other types of classifications that would be made as well. This would appear to be a similar thing that is being proposed in this piece of legislation here this afternoon. Really, it is just allowing the college to give the LPNs different classifications for whatever reason that this college feels it needs to classify those particular individuals.

Again, it is housekeeping, a simple amendment, whatever the case might be, but if it gives them the ability to do as required then, certainly, we see that as a good thing. Again, it is a piece of legislation that we have no problem supporting, and there is not much more to be said. It is the college that administers the program, we are giving them the ability to basically be able to have classifications, and we are satisfied to be able to support that today.

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 am very glad to have the opportunity to stand in support of Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. Of course, housekeeping is part of what we have to do here. Housekeeping in the sense of there will always be changes that have to be made to pieces of legislation, some of them very minor in terms of space they take up but very important in other ways. I think that this is an example of that, Mr. Speaker, putting one more clause into the act of 2005 but a clause that gives power to the College of Licensed Practical Nurses, the power to provide for issuance of different classes of licences.

As has been explained by the minister, this is something that is becoming more and more required because of the mobility that is going on across the country of people coming and going, people coming here looking for jobs, LPNs looking for jobs, and because of the different classifications across the country, they are probably having problems getting jobs here. I think that this piece of legislation will certainly enable the college to make sure that the licensing of LPNs is on a par with that across the country and is current with what is the practice across the country. It is extremely important that such is the case.

The LPN is, in some ways, fairly new in general, fairly new in the Province. There have been many changes to the program over the past ten years. Moving to eliminate any issues with regard to labour mobility is one of the key things they have had to deal with.

There have also been changes too, both in what LPNs do as well as in the requirement for becoming an LPN; upgrading is extremely important. I think there was money in the past Budget to cover tuition for nurses to get an upgrade. I think that this would be good, if additional funds are needed, so that all LPNs can complete their training.

Right now, for example, you have new entrance requirements that were not there in the past. When the LPN program started, there was no need for the nurses, for example, to be able to do a health assessment or to have training in pharmacology, but these are now entry-level compulsories. This is extremely important that we continue to make sure that everybody in the health field are all professionals in their area of being professional. It does not matter whether you are an MD, or an RN, or a licensed practical nurse, an LMP, or a nurse practitioner, an MP, technologist, technician, they all have professions and they all have professions that are essential to the health care system. We should be doing everything in our power to making sure that they are enabled to keep up in their profession, and to be able to hold their heads high with their professions in the rest of the country. Right now, I think 74 per cent of the members are working full-time. This is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize the work that is done by the professionals in our system. I think we really have to be doing a review of how we can increase the participation of LPNs and also of practical nurses, and a restructuring in our health care system here in the Province so that nurse practitioners and LPNs, in particular, can take on roles that, right now, probably are being done by RNs and, in some cases, even by MDs that do not need to be done by them.

Now, obviously, what a nurse practitioner takes on will be much more than what a licensed practical nurse takes on, but I think that we have a long ways to go in our health care system in the Province to maximize the use of LPNs and of practical nurses. I know the bill has to do only with LPNs, but I am just looking at the big picture right now. We need to maximize the use of these other levels of professionals within the health care system. I think it is an essential part of the restructuring that is needed. It is part of helping with wait times in emergency rooms, for example, in particular, Mr. Speaker.

So, having said that, I am really happy to support this bill, and I hope that it goes to helping the college itself support its own members and become as professional as they possibly can.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Business speaks now, he will close debate on Bill 41.

The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues opposite for their comments and contribution to this bill.

As I was listening to the Leader of the NDP make her comments, I could not help but think how far ahead we are in our planning and how far ahead we are in our actions to be well ahead of her thinking and her own comments here today. She has highlighted a couple of things that I just want to make some mention of.

She, firstly, commented about the need to provide continuing training for LPNs so they can advance their practice in the areas of pharmacology, for example. It was our government - I think it was back in the Budget of 2008 - that announced one million-and-a-half dollars, if I remember it correctly, to do just that because the LPNs who are currently in practice had not, in their training program, completed that particular program. As a requirement to continue to be licensed - I think it is next year sometime that they all need to have completed that course - it was our government who made that commitment to work with the health authorities and the council for LPNs to ensure that all current LPNs had that certification, and we invested the money and stood up to the plate to ensure that was a reality.

The other point she talked about was with respect to the mix of LPNs, RNs, and other practitioners working to the full scope of their practice. The scope of practice has been something that has been very much on our government's agenda since 2003 when we came to power. We have been working with all of the regulatory bodies to advance their respective professions so they are able to practice at the full scope of their training.

In fact, my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in October - just a couple months ago - announced a review as a part of the work that we are doing with the Long-term Care and Community Supports Strategy. My colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, committed to working through with the council of nurse practitioners, the ARNNL, and the Nurses Union to review the skill mix in the long-term care setting.

I say, Mr. Speaker, as that skill-mix review is undertaken - and a process has already started, as I understand it, to engage in that process and to engage people it that discussion - I think what we will find are some interesting recommendations coming forward that will see some improvements in the skill mix that we currently have in our health system. It will also result in, I believe, different disciplines - LPNs being one of them, RNs being others - that will be able to see advances in their scope of practice to be consistent with the level of training that they have. I was very pleased that she highlighted those points because we, as a government, have already been there. In fact, our actions are far ahead of her thinking.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make these few comments and I thank my colleagues for their contribution to the passage of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. (Bill 41)

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: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 41)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 41 and 43.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 41 and 43 and that I do now leave the Chair.

Is it the pleasure of the House to do so?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Kelly): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005". (Bill 41)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999". (Bill 43)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 41 and 43.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 41 and 43 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley and Assistant Deputy Speaker.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 41 and 43 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 43 and 41 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to call Order 11, second reading of Bill 42.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act". (Bill 42)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House this afternoon to bring forth legislation to amend the Regional Health Authorities Act, to permit regional health authorities to join group purchasing organizations.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had the opportunity to attend, on behalf of our then Premier, the Premiers' Conference in Winnipeg. One of the issues that was discussed among the Premiers during that conference was the issue of the sustainability of the health care system. There was an agreement of the Premiers, Mr. Speaker, that Health Ministers were to look at ways – to put it in its most basic – to save money.

The sustainability of the health care system, Mr. Speaker, is one that we have heard a lot about in the media and we have heard on the national scene. It is important that we understand: What does the word sustainability mean? Mr. Speaker, before I get to the actual amendment here, because the thrust of this amendment is that it will allow the health authorities and thereby us as a government, to save money. That money that is saved, Mr. Speaker, can then be utilized for other purposes. Group purchasing programs are one issue that the Premiers spoke about.

Mr. Speaker, sustainability can be looked at in a number of ways. I will give you an example as it applies to us. In our health care system, Mr. Speaker, we have a budget of $2.7 billion. That budget, Mr. Speaker, is broken down among the various health authorities. For example, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health has a budget of approximately $1 billion to $1.2 billion. Eastern Health has approximately 13,000 employees and it covers an area from St. John's – tertiary care, psychiatric care in St. John's, children's care at the Janeway – all the way to Bonavista as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, down to the Burin Peninsula.

The other three health authorities, Mr. Speaker, have a budget between them of approximately $600 million to $800 million. Then when you get to Central Health, Mr. Speaker – the Central Health authority covers from approximately Glovertown area to Baie Verte on the other end, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander – our two main hospital systems – all the way to the Connaigre Peninsula and covers again, a huge area of approximately 90,000 people. The Eastern Health Authority, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health covers approximately 300,000 people – again these are very rough numbers. We have Western Health, Mr. Speaker, which services approximately 60,000 people with the main centre in Corner Brook, hospital in Stephenville; covers all the way from Burgeo up to Port Saunders. Then we have the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority, Mr. Speaker; again, while the population is not big it covers a huge area including the Lab West area, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the North and South Coast of Labrador, and the St. Anthony area and the Northern Peninsula.

So each year, Mr. Speaker, each authority is given an amount of money and they are asked to run their facilities and to run their budgets based on what they are given by government. Mr. Speaker, the majority of money goes to employees within the system. That is approximately $1.8 billion of the $2.7 billion. Then we have approximately $700 million or $800 million which is spent by the Department of Health. Of that, Mr. Speaker, approximately $400 million goes to physician services and again that is the budget that pays our doctors throughout the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, the money is broken down that way. It goes out to the authorities and it is spent within the department. Now, last year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, just to put it in perspective as I am using the word sustainability and whether or not we can sustain the financial growth; there is an automatic – approximately 8 per cent – growth in the health care system, Mr. Speaker. As many people are aware – I suppose as everyone is aware – our nurses received a big raise over a four year contract. A lot of other workers within the health care system received a 21 per cent raise and so, Mr. Speaker, there is an increase in wages each year as that goes out at eight, four, four and four, then the accumulated effect of that. So, when you look at all of the annualized cost there is an automatic 8 per cent growth, Mr. Speaker, which is a significant sum of money.

In last year's Budget process we kept the new growth into approximately 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent, I think it was around 1.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Our budgets are broken down in different ways; we have capital equipment, repairs and renovation budget whereby we try to provide the best possible equipment to all the facilities in the Province and as I think I indicated earlier today, Mr. Speaker, over this summer we spent approximately $25 million in various health facilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in rural areas.

I visited, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health, clinics throughout the Province. We were in, for example, clinics in Port au Port, clinics in the health centre in Springdale, the health care centre in Harbour Breton, the clinic in St. Alban's, and the hospital in Bonavista; trying to see for myself these facilities so that when they came up in the Budget process I would be able to know for myself what repairs and renovations were needed, what equipment was needed, and what the morale is like on the site. We went, Mr. Speaker, for example, to the Isles of Notre Dame and visited the New World Island clinic, went to Change Islands where there is a clinic, and the hospital in Twillingate.

So, Mr. Speaker, each one of the authorities will come in then looking for money for the budget to sustain their economic demands. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have tried to do is to ensure that the health authorities do not run deficits. In fact, they have to have the permission of the minister if they run a deficit. Also, Mr. Speaker, under, I think it is, section 6 of the Regional Health Authorities Act, the minister can direct the health authorities to take certain courses of action.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that over the last year we have not had to engage in that kind of process because there has been a very good relationship between the Department of Health, myself as minister, and the health authorities. Vickie Kaminski, Mr. Speaker, is the CEO of Eastern Health, and Vickie has done a great job. Karen McGrath is the CEO in Central Health, Susan Gillam in Western, and Boyd Rowe in Lab-Grenfell. I am in continuous contact with the CEOs, Mr. Speaker, as is my Deputy Minister.

So we are now into the Budget process. They come forward with their asks; we look at everything. There was some discussion today, Mr. Speaker, in this House for example on the issue of dialysis. We looked at the areas that we have people who need dialysis, in St. Anthony, and a lot of who are looking for dialysis in Burin, and these are to expand sites that already exist. We then, Mr. Speaker, have all of the people who are looking for new dialysis sites. This government has opened five dialysis sites since 2005, not including, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, Lab West and Port aux Basques last year.

This is an issue of sustainability. How can we continue to spend money without identifying efficiencies and savings within the system? Eventually you reach the point, Mr. Speaker, whereby so much of your budget will be taken up by the health care dollars.

At the Premiers' meeting, Mr. Speaker, and then at the Health Ministers' meeting, which we hosted here in St. John's this year, again the issue of group purchasing programs and sustainability were issues that were to the front and centre. Some of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, indicated that their health care budgets were as high as 47 per cent and 48 per cent of their revenues. In this Province we are currently at around 38 per cent, but that 38 per cent is lower because of the increase in our revenues. If you look at education and health, Mr. Speaker, between the two of them, that is approximately a $4 billion budget.

Mr. Speaker, we have had to look at ways: How we can save money, and use that money that is saved to bring in new programs, to bring in new drugs? If you look at some of the programs that have been brought in by this government over the last number of years – the insulin pump for children comes to mind. We expanded that last year to age twenty-five. Look at the vast array of cancer drugs that we have brought in; the improvements to the Medical Transportation Assistance Program. Mr. Speaker, a phenomenal increase, more than 55 per cent in terms of the annual operating budget for dialysis; where we have gone up now to $22 million, that was less than $11 million seven or eight years ago. Mr. Speaker, what we look at is: How can we save money to spend money on new equipment, new programs? This amendment to this act is one way that we hope to do that.

While the Premiers in Winnipeg directed their Health Ministers to look at group purchasing options, there was no concrete plan, Mr. Speaker. The Premiers did not indicate, obviously, as everyone is aware; the Premiers had a vast array of topics that they were dealing with. The health care system, I can say it, though, Mr. Speaker, was front and centre; because not only of the concern of all of our citizens, as the health care system affects each one of us so deeply and personally, but also as a result of the financial costs to our society. So, not only, Mr. Speaker, do we have the emotional cost, there is, in reality, an economic cost. If we do not get those rising costs under control or come up with new ways to save money, then eventually we will reach the point where the health care system will be unsustainable.

Mr. Speaker, we spend enormous amounts of money in Canada on health care; yet, what happens is - again, I have said this so often, Mr. Speaker. If an individual has had a contact with the health care system, whether it is sitting in the emergency for five hours or six hours, having a surgery cancelled, or having to wait to see a specialist, Mr. Speaker, that is something that evokes emotion in them, and rightfully so. In many people it is anger. It is anger at the fact that the system, with so much money, is still not responding to their needs the way it should. It is no good for me to argue logic here. Look at all the money we are spending. The individual who is affected deeply and personally does not want to hear that, because he or she is responding in a way that we all respond as human beings when a loved one's health is affected or our own personal health is affected.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done as a government, what governments across this country are doing, is looking at ways to save money. A group purchasing organization is one that is set up in a way that allows the regional health authorities to experience considerable savings. I will try to explain this in a simple way, by giving examples of how much money can be saved. In order to save this money, Mr. Speaker, we have to exempt - under section 17.2, the proposed amendment - the authorities from the Public Tender Act with respect to goods and services that it acquires through a group purchasing organization of which it is a member.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we currently spend $2.7 billion for health care. This is double what it was ten years ago. Now if you read the newspapers, if you listen to the media, if you listen to the questions here in the House of Assembly, one would have to wonder: Where is all the money going? Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the costs, for example, of the provision of doctor services, nurses' services, there is a market demand out there whereby a lot of our physicians do have the ability to travel throughout the country and to find jobs. In order to keep physicians here, in order to keep nurses here, Mr. Speaker, we have to be competitive. Again, we have to find money within the system.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, as a result of being the Chairman of the Federal-Provincial Territorial Health Ministers - and that is just something that goes by rotation; no special skill or appointment required. It was Newfoundland and Labrador's turn to be the chair. I happened to attend with the federal minister at the World Health Organization meetings in Geneva. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that it was an eye-opening experience. We realized how lucky we are in Canada. Even though our health care system may be flawed, compared to what is going on in the rest of the world, Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing.

I remember so clearly the Minister of Tanzania - I think this gentleman indicated that his population was 45 million people - he had a health care budget for 45 million people of $750 million. He was talking about the advances they had just made. They had a sidecar that could go on the motorcycle and go into the rural regions and allow them to bring people out to hospitals. Again, I am not saying that simply to say that everyone should be happy with the system. What I am saying is that we have a lot to be happy about; but, again, back to the basic premise. If I am waiting to see a specialist or my mother or father is waiting for dialysis, or I am waiting six hours in emergency, then, Mr. Speaker, again, that kind of argument does not work.

I guess my point, the lead-up point to all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to look at creating efficiencies in the system and finding ways to save money. One way we can do that, Mr. Speaker, is through this group purchasing organization. The Public Tender Act - again, I am sure there are members in this House, some of the more senior members, who were around and have debated this act over the years. Essentially, my understanding of the Public Tender Act, Mr. Speaker, is that it was brought in to ensure that when it comes to bidding contracts, you remove, to a great extent, the politics from it because it is based on the lowest bidder. There is a competitive process, there is an advertising process, and then basically it comes down to who is the lowest bidder. We see this process utilized a lot in relation to roads construction and major expenditures of money in this Province, but the Public Tender Act governs all purchases or all contracts entered into by governments or government agencies.

There is also a process called the Request for Proposals, whereby there are certain rules where a government or an agency may not have to go through the Public Tender Act. There are also other types of processes used, such as an Expression of Interest; but the Public Tender Act governs issues such as the purchasing of services and health care supplies and goods. It might be surprising to some, but the cost of health care supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador is estimated at $250 million annually, Mr. Speaker. That is a quarter of a billion dollars annually. It represents the second-largest expenditure associated with operating hospitals, after salaries.

Mr. Speaker, what a group purchasing organization does, it helps manage and reduce the costs associated with purchasing supplies. As the Public Tender Act is now written, you cannot do that; because the regional health authorities are bound by the Public Tender Act. So, to give you an example - and this may be a very poor example, but one of the reasons that some of these bigger stores - whether it is the Costcos of this world, the Canadian Tires, Sobeys, Dominion - can offer better prices is that they are purchasing in bulk, and a lot of these are purchasing in bulk right across the country. At least that is what I read in The Globe and Mail one day, Mr. Speaker, about why Costco can keep its prices down to 1.25 per cent: because their purchasing power is so large then, when they are going back to the consumer, they do not need as great a profit margin because they are making money; they are selling a lot of goods. So, a group purchasing organization, Mr. Speaker, commit to purchasing a certain quantity of a given product.

Mr. Speaker, one of the dominant group purchasing organizations in Canada - and there are a number of them - is called HealthPRO. Several others include a company such as Medbuy and Contract Management Services. Mr. Speaker, HealthPRO is again this company - its product and services categories include: pharmacy services, clinical services and clinical specialties, energy management, nutrition and food services, special services, and on-site managed services. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the HealthPRO appears to have virtually everything consumed by the regional health authority.

Again, this is one of the examples I am using here, Mr. Speaker; I refer to the fact that there are other facilities, but HealthPRO is a Canadian corporation governed by a board of directors with offices in Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver. The members of HealthPRO, Mr. Speaker, each hold a common share in the company and pay an annual membership fee. The members then gain access to the HealthPRO purchasing program. HealthPRO - again, this is just one of these group of purchasing organizations - agrees to use its best efforts to obtain other sources of funding for the HealthPRO group, including purchase rebates.

Mr. Speaker, in 2009 there were dividends of HealthPRO's members of $25.1 billion. Mr. Speaker, our regional health authorities are participating in HealthPRO to achieve greater value for money. So, the total membership cost, Mr. Speaker, for all regional health authorities is approximately $25,000. These regional health authorities have a shared position in HealthPRO's board of directors and one is currently filled by the vice-president of Corporate Services in Eastern Health.

Mr. Speaker, a group purchasing organization will first issue – in my understanding - a request for information through an open process to determine which companies are available and would be interested to supply the required products. Pricing information is not requested nor supplied at this time. Once the request for information submissions have been evaluated, Mr. Speaker, by the advisory committee, which includes the member I mentioned earlier from Eastern Health, a Request for Proposals is then issued. Then it is evaluated, Mr. Speaker, and a successful proponent selected.

Mr. Speaker, this process, although transparent, open, and accountable, does not technically comply with the Public Tender Act. If our regional health authorities, Mr. Speaker – and the savings we are estimating here are anywhere from $7 million to $11 million a year with the health authorities even estimating higher savings. Mr. Speaker, we are not simply talking here about saving a couple of thousand dollars, we are talking of millions of dollars of savings that are spread throughout this Province, and it can go into other programs that the health authorities can then utilize to improve the system.

Mr. Speaker, in July 2010, the Newfoundland and Labrador hospital boards association, of which the CEO of each health authority are a part, looked at the procurement process because that is what they are doing, they are procuring goods. The health authorities agreed at that time that HealthPRO would perform a lot of the purchasing functions that had been previously provided by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association.

Mr. Speaker, in order to make this comply with the laws that now exist there are two things we have to do here. Since there have been some purchasing which has gone on - I think it is HealthPRO that is being utilized and the contracts they have entered into – the first authority, at section 17.1, says that an authority that joined a group purchasing organization, before this section came into force, is considered to have joined with the approval of the minister because section 17.1(1) deals with the need for the approval of the minister to join a group purchasing organization.

Section 17.2(1) states, "An authority is exempt from the Public Tender Act with respect to goods and services that it acquires through a group purchasing organization of which it is a member." Again, HealthPRO, Medbuy, and I think the other one I referred to, Mr. Speaker, was a company called Contract Management Services. Subsection (2) says, "An authority that acquired good and services through a group purchasing organization before this section came into force is considered to have been exempt from the Public Tender Act with respect to that acquisition."

Sometimes I get these words confused, Mr. Speaker; this is a retroactive or retrospective - I do not know if my learned friend here, the Minister of Justice, can help me out with this term. In essence, Mr. Speaker, what has been done to date is now being given legislative acceptance. So, Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is that it is hard on one hand to say to health authorities do not run deficits, try to save money but do not engage in a way that allows you to save money. So, the health authorities, Mr. Speaker, have tested the waters here and they have found it to be a very satisfactory process.

Section 17.3 (1) says, "An authority shall report to the minister on its acquisition of goods and services through a group purchasing organization and shall include a summary of contracts entered into…" So, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is allowing for the regional health authorities to engage in a transparent, open, and accountable process without technically being bound by the restrictions of the Public Tender Act. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what we have learned from the regional health authorities in their bid to save money and thereby to improve services for the taxpayer of this Province is that this act does not allow for that.

Now, as a government we are not simply going to come in, Mr. Speaker, and say get rid of the act. What you can do is you can look at parts of it. You can repeal, you can amend, or you can say I am going to take that section out. What we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, and what is the intent of the Legislature, we, as every one is aware, make up the Legislature and we bring in laws, but it is the public who speaks to us as lawmakers. It is the public who says to all of us, as MHAs and Cabinet ministers: We want the best possible health care system. We know that health care costs money; therefore, if there are ways that you can save money, again, by keeping a system transparent and accountable, but if there are ways that you can save money, then do it. That is what the Premiers indicated in Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, in August, that is what the Health Ministers agreed upon here in St. John's in September, and that is what we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as the perfect piece of legislation. In my years as a lawyer we often argued, when you are looking at legislation: What is it that the Legislature or the legislators intended? What was the purpose of the legislation? Why was that piece of legislation brought into force? Mr. Speaker, this one is quite simple. It is to help sustain the health care system, to help save money, and to help provide an enhanced service but meanwhile allow for valuable taxpayers' dollars to be used elsewhere. So that is how simple this one really is, Mr. Speaker. It is not quite as simple when you get into the actual process, but that is something that the health authorities will work that out.

The minister is given an oversight process. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have spoken about this in the past, but sometimes what is confused in the public is the relationship between the Minister of Health, the Department of Health, and the regional health authorities. Mr. Speaker, the regional health authorities are responsible for the delivery of services. They are responsible, Mr. Speaker, for making operational decisions. Oftentimes questions will come to me through the media on the floor of the House of Assembly and people will write me directly asking me: Why was such a decision made? Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate in a response to them that this is an operational decision made by the regional health authority and I will ensure that your complaint is passed on to them for investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the minister or department is responsible for the setting of policy. I think that my colleague the Minister of Business, the former Minister of Health, will tell you that it is by working together with the health authorities and the department that we get more of a seamless system, one where you do not have the policy in Western Health being in conflict with the policy in Eastern Health. That is the department's role, to set that policy.

One example, Mr. Speaker, is this particular piece of legislation. Eastern Health, by its very nature as a result of its size, will certainly benefit, Mr. Speaker, but the other health authorities will also benefit. That $1 million or $2 million can buy that valuable piece of equipment; it can provide the service that is required. It can also, Mr. Speaker, allow for the reduction of deficits because the goal is for the health authorities, for governments, to bring in balanced Budgets. Something may happen in the run of a year with the health authority, for example, where the health authority has to hire someone to do a job, but they are responding to pressures that exist at the time as a result of something that is taking place. It could be a crisis; it could be something that is occurring in our health care system. So, Mr. Speaker, this kind of money, these kinds of savings, allow them to access and to have better access to the kinds of money.

Mr. Speaker, again, I refer to HealthPRO here, but there was quite a bit of due diligence going on before the health authorities started dealing with HealthPRO; there was interaction with what is called the Government Purchasing Agency, and there had been discussions at the time with the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association. Mr. Speaker, they looked at who provides these kinds of services, the group purchasing services, in the country, and they looked at where can we get the best value for our money, and HealthPRO, at that time, was chosen to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment of the Regional Health Authorities Act, being the act that governs the way regional health authorities do business, the regional health authorities will be exempt from the Public Tender Act for purchases made through group purchasing organizations in which the minister has approved membership. So, Mr. Speaker, this is consistent with the message that came out of the Premiers' meetings, consistent with the message coming out of the Health Ministers' meetings, and consistent, Mr. Speaker, with the overarching message that is coming out of the health care system of this country that we have to do something to stem future financial growth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to spend on the health care system, then we are not necessarily going to improve the system. There is a question, Mr. Speaker, whether or not now there are efficiencies to be found within the system. This is an example of one that is a multimillion dollar efficiency that was out there, and I commend the health authorities for going out there and finding these cost savings. That is what we have to look at, Mr. Speaker.

The message out of the Health Ministers' meetings when we met this year was actually quite startling. I can remember at one of the scrums either on day one or day two discussing this issue of sustainability. Mr. Speaker, the general consensus among the Health Ministers was that without improving the system, without improving efficiencies in the system, without going back and examining programs that exist, and questioning whether or not they still serve the same purpose, then the growth, Mr. Speaker, will be such that so much of our money, our taxpayers' dollars, our budgets would be going to health care that there will be less money for other departments.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great start, it is a great start to implement that dire message coming from some Health Ministers. I can tell you that I did not see the situation as dire as some of my compatriots, however, I recognize the seriousness of it. I can also remember during the ministers' meetings and saying, well, look, you have also, in your budget process, have to go back and look at the number of positions that exists in terms of funded, vacant positions. You have to look at the programs that exist. You have to re-examine the system to see if there are savings within the system. If we could ever get to the point, Mr. Speaker, where we could balance that annualized growth with efficiencies found in the system, then the growth of the health care system would be certainly much more sustainable, especially if we could keep it that 1.5 per cent mark.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to put this in perspective – again, I am doing this by memory – I think the 1.5 per cent on the health care system worked out to be approximately $30 million to $40 million last year in terms of new spending. We did a lot with that new spending, Mr. Speaker. Also, when the health authorities come in, we say to them: Well, have you looked at whether or not there are savings elsewhere?

So the Budget process, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, is a complicated process, one that takes many months in government and not one that simply results in everyone getting everything they want. That is my response to the questions earlier today, Mr. Speaker. We would love to do everything for everyone. We would love to provide the services that everyone requires out there, but there is, Mr. Speaker, a vast geography in this Province. The delivery of services is complicated so much by the rural nature of our health care system and the sheer size of our Province that we have to make tough decisions. You have to have a plan, Mr. Speaker, and that plan has to be implemented step by step, year by year, to get you to the point where we have achieved results.

There is a reality that we cannot do it all in one year, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at the way we are aggressively building infrastructure, if you look at the way that we are maintaining our buildings, replacing those that need to be replaced, and responding to the needs of the people, well that requires money. That money, Mr. Speaker, can come with new revenues, as we have seen as our oil production has been a good year. The price of oil goes up, but then we still have the Canadian dollar going up. So you have to balance it all. Health is not the only department that requires new funds, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at an example right now of governments that are running deficits in this country, well, how do you eliminate a deficit, whether it is in your health authority, in a department, or in a government? You either have to reduce services or you have to raise taxes. Now, I do not know, there may be other ways – or your revenues increase – but we are lucky in that respect, that our revenues are increasing. We always have to plan for the future, Mr. Speaker. We cannot simply continue to spend, spend, spend as if that will last forever.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker - again, I am looking at the future because that is what we are doing as a government. That is what the legacy of our former Premier and this government will be, is looking to the future, building those hospitals and those long-term care facilities that will last thirty and forty years out so that our children and our grandchildren do not have to worry about that part of it. The facilities will be in place.

Now what we have to do in order to run those facilities, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at: How we can improve the delivery of services within the facilities themselves? How can the health authorities improve the delivery of services? That is what we are there to help them with. For example, when you look at a situation right now like we have in the delivery of services in the Corner Brook long-term care, there have been issues - part of it, for example, is the sheer size of the building, when you have a 236-bed facility. If there is new staffing required we provide that staffing, but it may be a matter of going in, conducting a review of the way services are provided there, look at ways of managing the operations and finding efficiencies within the system. There may be a way of better delivering services. These are the kinds of things that we are looking at, but, again, Mr. Speaker, all back to that overriding theme of sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of breath has been expended in getting to the point of trying to explain to the public, because I think it is important that the public see that what we are trying to do as a government is find ways to save their money; find ways to use taxpayers' dollars as wisely as possible, and this is a good example. Now, Mr. Speaker, will this piece of legislation please everyone? Well, I am not sure that any piece of legislation pleases everyone, but what I will say to the people of this Province is that this is a way that we can provide services to you, through the regional health authorities, save significant monies that are probably, conservatively estimated at $7 million to $11 million a year. I am sure that is something that the people of this Province are saying: Good, good job!

So, Mr. Speaker, I started with the message from the Premiers in Winnipeg, I talked about the message from the Health Ministers in September here in St. John's, and I suggest that what we are doing here today is entirely in line with that message. It speaks to our attempt to find efficiencies in the system, to find savings in the system, and by doing that, Mr. Speaker, that is money that can be spent elsewhere.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak for a few moments again to the amendment to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act.

The minister started speaking about sustainability. We realize that the budget for health is a large budget; it is interesting that it is a budget that has doubled practically in the past few years to an amount of about $2.7 billion. Yet, we see where the health care system in general delivery throughout our Province is challenged. We are here today debating something that hopefully will help with that. I do not know where it is in terms of priority, but nevertheless, it is where we are.

Allowing us to save money is obviously good, and talking about the group purchasing organization that essentially - this amendment allows health authorities to go outside the Public Tender Act and to purchase from group purchasing organizations which are often referred to as GPOs. If there is a means of saving money, if there is a means of better buying patterns and so on for health authorities, either as a group or as individuals, then obviously we would see that as being a good thing. Again, the minister mentioned $250 million as being the amount of money that we spend on health care supplies. One has to wonder, what exactly are we expecting to see here in terms of savings by bringing in this piece of legislation, by amending the legislation to allow for the GPO style of purchasing to be in place rather than just the Public Tender Act?

I know this change gives the Minister of Health the authority to approve or to not approve, I would assume, the authority of being a part of a GPO. I guess it would look at who that GPO is; what the organization is all about and so on. It would be interesting to hear from the minister in his response as to what criteria, so to speak, would be established or has been established, or will be established in terms of either the health cares being a part of a GPO or a particular vendor being approved as a GPO for a particular health care.

My understanding - and the minister can correct me if I am wrong - of a GPO is that it is really an entity that is created to leverage purchasing power, to leverage buying power for a group of businesses or just to obtain discounts from vendors and so on. It just puts them in a position to be able to purchase at a better rate. The example of Costco is a good example, or the Home Depot, or any other large organization that goes off to a World Trade Show, I guess, and does a significant purchase of different types of materials. They obviously are getting those materials at a better price. They are obviously getting a greater discount than the competitor down the street who has to buy at market price, so to speak. Instead of buying ten he is buying one; instead of buying 100 he is buying ten, sort of thing. Obviously, the pricing that comes with that makes it much more significant more times.

A health care GPO, or group purchasing organization, assists in supplying and promoting quality health care relief and assists diverse providers in effectively managing their expenses and so on. This is what we anticipate of this legislation, allowing our health care groups in the Province, boards in the Province to be able to accomplish. Basically, the GPO, as I understand it to be, really aggregates the purchasing volume of its members for various goods and various services, and it develops contracts with suppliers through which members may buy at group price, and so on.

One of the concerns that I would have, and we as an Opposition would have - and probably the minister can speak to that for us - is he talked about the $250 million of health care supplies. Is the intention of this government, of this legislation to be only in the procurement of health care supplies? Is it possible that it could be something that would come into effect as well in terms of contract work around our facilities, where we would see a GPO established that would really be able to take the health care boards outside of the Public Tender Act and so on? Obviously, there is a concern in terms of local businesses that probably have a contract with particular health cares today in our Province, who take advantage of the Public Tender Act, if you will, to be able to sell supplies to these health cares. In this situation, then, those businesses, obviously, are going to lose out on that ability. There is a savings on one end, but I believe there probably would be a cost on the other end, if indeed that would be the case. Probably the minister can elaborate a little bit more on that for us as well so that we can understand just who, on a local level, is going to be impacted by this decision, if anyone. I think that is important for us to know.

The idea, obviously, I assume, is the fact that if you are a part of a larger group then you have greater buying power; and that, in and of itself, should happen, presumably, by being a part of that larger group. I do not know if the health authorities would buy as a group, within a group, so to speak, at times, or if they would be always buying as individual health authorities. Again, these are some of the things that would probably impact the pricing here in this particular piece of legislation.

I guess it is not a significant piece of legislation in terms of changing health care in the Province and so on, but if it is a way to see savings for the health care system, if it is a way to bring some coppers back into our purse for additional purchases of items and so on, then, obviously, at the end of the day, it would have to be good.

I would see no problem with supporting this piece of legislation. I would like for the minister to be able to answer some of the questions that I just asked him in his response when he speaks to it a little later. I am sure that he is making note of that and so on, and will do that when he is ready to speak to it a little later.

Again, the procurement process and using group purchasing organizations, in essence, it is a good process. It is a process that economically means better buying, better pricing, and, at the end of the day, shall see us savings. Then we can put those savings back into offering more important programs throughout the Province, like the air ambulance and many other things that are dear to all of our hearts.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is all I really would say about this, this afternoon. Thank you for the time to do it.

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

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

I am very glad to stand this afternoon and speak to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation that we are dealing with today. Basically, as has been explained by the minister, and spoken to already by the critic from the Official Opposition, "This Bill would provide that a regional health authority is exempt from the Public Tender Act with respect to its acquisition of goods and services through a group purchasing organization of which it is a member."

I am very glad to hear that the health authorities out there are taking part in group purchasing organizations because it certainly is one way to make sure that we are saving money within our health care system. We all know it is a part of marketing that when you buy in groups or in bulk, you can come up with deals that you cannot get when it is one person doing the buying or one organization doing the buying. So, I am very happy to know that these group purchasing agencies have formed across the country. There are a lot of hospitals across Canada who are involved in this. It makes really good economic sense.

I remember when the current CEO for Eastern Health was first in her position. I cannot remember how long, but it was not that long, and I think it was a public interview that was done with her. I remember her talking about how she was quite surprised at some of the ways in which purchasing was done and lots of money could be saved from changing the way in which purchasing was done. I am delighted to know that they actually are doing this. Eastern Health, maybe, was doing it already before she came in, but maybe they have increased what they are doing. I do, very specifically, remember her speaking to that in an interview in the media.

Obviously, this bill does not permit authorities to be completely exempt from the Public Tender Act. There will be cases in which they will have to follow the Public Tender Act, but when we are talking about goods and services that they are getting through the group purchasing organization of which they are a member, that is when the Public Tender Act will no longer apply. It does not mean that the health authority is not going to be accountable because such in 17.3(1), which will be of the new act, requires that an authority shall report to the minister on its acquisition of good and services through a group purchasing organization. The bill says that every six months there will have to be accounting for how much purchasing was done through the group purchasing agency, therefore not done under the Public Tender Act. So, every six months a report will have to be made to the minister by the health authorities. So, accountability is built into the act, and accountability is extremely important.

We had similar amendments made to a couple of other statutes, Mr. Speaker. One, with regard to the Research and Development Corporation and the other with regard to Nalcor; both of which, of course, are Crown corporations. They, too, have amendments that are similar to the amendment that we are making today to the RHA Act; but, once again, in those cases they also have to be accountable to the minister for the times in which they are not purchasing under the Public Tender Act. This is an extremely important point. When the minister receives the reports from the regional health authorities reporting how much they have purchased outside of using the Public Tender Act, those reports will then be passed on to the Clerk of the House by the minister. So, there is full accountability to the House of Assembly, which is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

When these regional health authorities were put in place – well, first of all, we did have the first regionalization in the Province take place in 1998 when we got the creation of the hospital and community health regions across the Province. Then, in 2005 there was further regionalization, which formed the four boards that we now have. So, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been twelve years with regionalization in our health care system. At the time, there was no external evaluation done in 2005, and there was no external evaluation done of how things had gone since 1998. So, we were seven years with a regionalized format and, without any evaluation, government came in and suddenly, almost overnight - they were elected in 2003 - in 2005 brought in the four mega authorities that we now have, Mr. Speaker. No evaluation, no assessment, just saying this is the way it is going to go.

We have been hearing from people ever since this has happened, ever since 2005. Problems have occurred because of the 2005 amalgamation. We hear from people within the system constantly that there was not enough study of policies and processes that would change, no transition agreements, no standardization of practices, communication; no system set up for communication both within the regional authorities and between the regional authorities.

There were problems in purchasing, and I am hoping that those problems are starting to get ironed out and that this legislation is going to help with that. The orders that were being made were too small and money was being wasted. I am hoping now that – it seems like we have more of a use of purchasing agencies, that the RHAs are a part of - we will see larger orders for supplies and a better use of tendering; tendering as required, not tendering for everything. While I absolutely agree with tendering, sometimes when you are dealing with really small items and really small services, tendering can really be an obstacle. I think in this case we are removing an obstacle that would be unnecessary because we are going to save money, because of the RHAs purchasing in groups; therefore, making the change so that tendering is not required is absolutely essential.

The minister, when he was speaking to this bill, talked about what government has been doing with regard to building the physical infrastructure. He was, as usual, throwing around all the dollar signs about how much money is going into new infrastructure, how much money is going into buildings, how much money is going into remediation of physical infrastructure. I am glad; we need that. We need the new hospitals, we need the new facilities. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and I would be the first person up here saying that.

One of the things that this government does not seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that we also have to build the social infrastructure. Just as the minister said he wants to build these buildings and get them in place so that thirty, forty years down the road those buildings are there, well I would like to see the minister have the same attitude towards social infrastructure. For example, Mr. Speaker, a home care program. If we do not put a full, publicly funded, totally accessible, home care program in place now while we have the money to do so, then thirty years down the road we will not have a home care program. That is what is going to happen.

The minister says that this government is looking to the future and he wants to make sure that the physical infrastructures are in place in thirty, forty years' time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am also looking to the future and I want to make sure that in thirty, forty years' time –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member to confine her comments to the bill under question, please.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I was responding to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Purchasing is essential to the running of our hospitals, whether we are talking about purchasing of services or purchasing of goods. The bill does not say it - I think it does. I think it talks about both goods and services. Yes, it does. "An authority that acquired goods and services through a group purchasing organization before this section came into force is considered to have been exempt from the Public Tender Act with respect to that acquisition."

This act is also looking to the past, not just to the future, with regard to purchasing, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is going to be penalized if prior to this legislation they did not use the Public Tender Act when they purchased through a group purchasing organization. I think that is really important. I think what this act is trying to do is to recognize a practice that has begun and to, one, validate the practice that has begun because it is saving money. Hopefully, in the saving of money, this government will have money to use on other infrastructure, not just the physical infrastructure but social infrastructure; that by the saving of money through purchasing, that money will be used more wisely. Because that is what we have to have happen here, money has to be used wisely. Whether it is money spent on physical infrastructure or money spent on programs, the money has to be used wisely.

I very sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that by the saving of money by the health authorities because of the use of group purchasing, we are going to start seeing services that are going to be services meeting the needs of the people. The minister referred to this act meeting the needs of people and all the expenditures that government has made is to meet the needs of people. The needs of people have to be met by more than just buildings; they have to be met by the programs that are inside of those buildings, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, yes, I am really happy to agree to this bill, but I will be happier when this government looks at other ways in which the system will become more efficient, other ways in which the system will save money; not to put the money towards debt but to put the money into the programs that are needed inside of these hospitals, the personnel that are needed inside of the hospitals and the services that are needed inside of the hospitals to meet people's needs. People's needs are not met just by being able to walk in the door of a building. Their needs are met if there are people there to help them, if there are services there that they need, and if there are programs that they need.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my comments for today and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to make some comments on this bill that is before the House today as we deal with a significant issue that is facing health authorities in the Province, as we talk about the cost of delivery of health services.

The introduction of this bill today, as the minister commented on as he introduced it, is clear in one of his points, which is a very significant point, and clear in his point with respect to the implications of bringing this bill to the floor of the House of Assembly and its implications for the cost of the revision of health services in this Province. This is not a direct reflection of the cost of providing the skilled human resources that are at play in our health system, whether it is physicians, nurses, Allied Health Professionals, technologists and the like, but this is about the supply cost.

One of the significant challenges facing the health system in recent years has been the escalation, rapid escalation, in costs of supplies and services, the cost of pharmaceuticals. These costs are obviously driven by increased demand for health services and have a significant impact on our ability to sustain the health system long term. This has been a well debated topic; frequently discussed by, not just within our Province but within the entire country, as Health Ministers across the nation grapple with the escalation and cost of health care. Some would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the continued growth in health expenditures is not sustainable in the long term.

If we look at our own Province, for example, inasmuch as we have come to this Legislature since 2003 when we formed government, we have come to this Legislature each and every year and tabled a Budget that saw significant increases in our health budget. When we see year over year over year a health budget increasing by 10-plus per cent, significant investments in the operational costs, significant investments in capital and equipment, there is only so long, Mr. Speaker, that kind of cost and continued increased cost can be sustained in the long term. Any time there is an opportunity to contain your costs, reduce the costs that you are currently experiencing, without having an impact on the quality of care, not having any impact on the direct patient service areas, not having any direct impact on the labour costs, where we rely very heavily on a very skilled and competent workforce, not having an impact on any of those areas at all, but looking at the material costs, looking at the supply costs, looking at the costs of buying goods and services, any time that there is an opportunity such as this to make that change, then it is really important.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, health authorities themselves have been looking where they could, in fact, make a difference, and this is one of those areas where they believe, and I just forget the figure that the minister had pegged on this, but it is measured in the millions of dollars of savings to be accrued to the four health authorities if we were to proceed and go down this road. That is why this amendment is being brought before the House of Assembly. The health authorities have an impediment. The current legislation would prohibit them from pursuing a way of doing business and denies them the opportunity to pursue a direction that would see them save money for the health system. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the minister, today, is introducing a bill that will amend the act that will allow the health authorities to make this change.

I want to go back to something that the minister pointed out as well, and that is in terms of the distinction between the health authority and the Department of Health in making some of these expenditure decisions. That is why it is tied to this particular piece of legislation. The Province has a particular legislation on the books that provides the legislative framework for the operation of these health authorities, gives them the direction that they need to run their operations, and provides a legislative framework for them. It creates a legislative framework that allows regulation to be developed that provides the authority given to each of our RHAs that they need to have in place to guide them as they make administrative policies to run the health system.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this is an important amendment to the act because it gives the health authority the legislative power to change their administrative policies and practices that will see them reduce the cost of the delivery of health services in a very significant way.

Mr. Speaker, the question, as you start to go down a road like this, obviously, opens up a whole range of discussions. Are there other ways? Through a discussion with a firm that provides this kind of service to a number of health authorities around the country, is there an opportunity to do this in other ways? Are there other services that the health authorities currently have available to them that could be done in the same fashion?

One of the benefits of doing something like this, Mr. Speaker, is that there is purchasing power in numbers. The Health Ministers from across the country have finally recognized, and collectively, that they can now, with working together, they are able to reduce the cost on any individual jurisdiction. Newfoundland and Labrador, by itself, would not have the purchasing power to influence the direct prices that we will now have by participating with other jurisdictions. Nova Scotia, by itself, could not; Alberta, by themselves, as big as they might be, would not have an ability to impact the cost of supplies to the system in the same fashion as we all can by coming together.

In as much as this particular amendment here does not necessarily speak to the fact that all provinces in the country, and all Health Ministers in the country have agreed that they should come together and look at how they may pool their resources, and pool their purchasing power for the benefit of the health system in each and every jurisdiction, this bill is not intended to introduce that concept. This bill is not intended to provide the legislative framework for that to happen necessarily. What this bill does, it creates the legislative framework that allows the health authorities in this Province to take part with a larger buying group with other health authorities around the country to, in fact, capitalize on the collective purchasing power that they all will have by coming together.

It does, Mr. Speaker, speak to this notion, though, the same principle, the same practice, apply that same principle to each and every jurisdiction across the country so each provincial health ministry, working through their respective health authorities, can now come together and start having a meaningful discussion around the potential that might exist to collectively co-operate and reduce costs. Without this amendment, Mr. Speaker, not only would the health authorities in this Province not have the ability to participate collectively with other health authorities in a group purchasing process, the Health Minister himself would be somewhat handicapped in that it would be difficult for him, or any future Health Minister, to sit down with their colleagues from across the country and talk about a concept that would see us all coming together as provinces to participate in some kind of a national purchasing scheme to reduce the cost of goods and services to the health system. That was not the intent or the thrust of the legislation.

Clearly though, Mr. Speaker, it creates the legislative framework that would allow the Health Minister to engage in such a discussion. I think we heard him say earlier in his comments that at a recent meeting where he represented the Premier, at a discussion with First Ministers, that it was a topic of discussion. They, in fact, as I understand it, directed the respective Health Ministers to engage in such a dialogue and to start preliminary investigation of that concept and how it might happen.

Now, today in the Legislature, we are introducing an amendment to an act that will facilitate such a process from occurring. It will pave the way, really, to allow our Health Minister to engage in that kind of a discussion and have the assurance and understanding that there was a legislative framework and ability, through legislation in this Province, which would allow him to do that. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the side benefits that will be derived from passing this particular piece of legislation in the House of Assembly.

One of the things that have been interesting to observe in recent years is the rapid escalation in the health care investments that we have made in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of the investments we have made year over year, we have seen some monumental improvements in our health system. With today's introduction of this bill in the House of Assembly, it will provide for another increased revenue stream to our health authorities by cost reduction, and that money will be ploughed right back into enhancements to our health service.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I will sit down, take my place, and provide an opportunity for my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, to potentially close debate.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to close debate on An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act. (Bill 42)

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: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 42)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill, Bill 42.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act". (Bill 42)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 42.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report progress on Bill 42.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 42 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 42 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew you meant Mount Pearl. It is very interesting, actually. There has been a little bit of controversy lately. The City of St. John's is once again making some noise about the A word, the dreaded A word of amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, two things happen every time that there is an amalgamation in a major urban centre. Anywhere in North America, there are dozens and dozens of examples, two things happen every time: tax levels go up for all citizens affected and service levels go down for all citizens affected. So, I was pleased the other day to hear our new Premier state quite categorically that government's position has not changed. There will not be forced amalgamation. We will continue as a government to encourage communities to co-operate, to collaborate, and to work together when and where it makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, one of the best examples of municipal co-operation that I have seen anywhere in my travels is actually right here on the Northeast Avalon. St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise, CBS, surrounding communities are working together and co-operating, and sharing services when and where it makes sense to do so; but, I digress. I am indeed the Member for Mount Pearl North and very proud to stand in this House today and have an opportunity to speak to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and what a speech it was.

Mr. Speaker, politics in this Province, and politics anywhere for that matter, is never dull. It has been an interesting number of weeks here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, I must comment on the recent departure of our former Premier, Danny Williams. He is one of the main reasons I decided to get into provincial politics a few short years ago. He is a great man, as we all know, and a dedicated Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I do not think anybody could dispute his commitment to ensuring that our Province was given every equal right and opportunity within the Confederation of Canada. His achievements during his seven years as Premier are numerous and, of course, they are significant.

The Atlantic Accord was a huge accomplishment for the Province. It finally allowed us to move towards have status, which we have now rightfully gained. It is a great achievement and it certainly would not have been possible without the leadership, without the vision, without the courage of the ninth Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Danny Williams.

Of course, another significant achievement, which I hope to have some time to talk about this afternoon, is the realization of the Lower Churchill agreement. We now are seeing this project move forward. Again, thanks to the leadership of our new Premier and the leadership of our former Premier, this is going to mean great, great things for Newfoundland and Labrador and our future.

Like many members of our government and many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I was sad to see former Premier Williams step away from his leadership role. I know that he has left an amazing legacy though, and as elected members here in this House we are going to continue to protect Newfoundland and Labrador and continue to fight on its behalf. He certainly taught us a great deal and he has built an amazing team. People in Mount Pearl and Paradise regularly ask me how I feel about the Premier's departure. Certainly, I was saddened, but I am very grateful for the fact that he has built such a strong team. We are in such good shape economically, socially, and we have a government that is quite capable of continuing to provide amazing leadership for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am also very excited about working with our new Premier. It was no surprise that she had unanimous support of our caucus in taking on that role. She has had amazing success in her previous roles within our government. She is somebody who is well respected, not only by our caucus colleagues but by people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We are really excited about what the future will hold. I think the future truly is ours. We have never been better positioned for continued greatness in this Province. The best is, indeed, yet to come.

Mr. Speaker, on October 13, the former Premier asked if I would agree to take on the role of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency. I graciously accepted, and I am really looking forward to getting even further involved in these important sectors. I am enjoying this new role.

In just the past number of weeks that I have been serving in this new capacity, I have represented the previous minister and now the new minister in several places. I had an opportunity in my first few days on the job to meet with the Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network that represents organic farmers. I had a chance to learn about this emerging field in farming here in our Province. I also had an opportunity to meet with dairy farmers at their annual conference in Corner Brook. I was pleased to see that there is such great progress, momentum, and energy in our farming industry. I hope to have some time to talk a little bit further about that as well.

It is clear to me after just a few short weeks in the role that good things are really happening in the Province in the area of forestry and agrifoods where we have multi-million dollar industries, and they continue to grow. I am looking forward to, as I said, getting more involved and supporting our new Minister of Natural Resources in any way that I can. He is quite a minister; quite a fine, fine minister. I appreciate him cheering –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: No, I say that because he is paying attention and enthusiastically hanging on my every word, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that kind of support from the front bench of the House.

Anyway, back to my comments related to the industries. I do want to talk a little bit about agrifoods. It is a sector that provides direct and indirect employment for about 4,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador: people on farms, people in food and beverage manufacturing sectors. The value of farm production has grown in twenty-seven of the last thirty years in this Province, with sales of $111 million in 2008, and those numbers continue to grow. Agrifoods processing has reached over $500 million. The dairy industry has led this growth. There has been expansion on farms and in dairy processing of value-added milk products such as cheese, ice creams and so on, which have created new economic activity and new jobs as well.

I should note, though, Mr. Speaker, that higher energy costs are having an effect on agriculture operations. There have been impacts on livestock production. These impacts are direct such as equipment operations, and also indirect, such as higher feed costs due to the demand on corn for ethanol.

Our Forestry and Agrifoods Agency consists of some amazing professionals across this Province, many of whom are located in the Corner Brook area. This agency is going to continue to assist producers, and finding ways to address some of the challenges that I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, the Growing Forward initiative is one that has been very good for agriculture and the agrifoods industry in our Province. It is a funding program that is federally and provincially cost-shared. I think it really does a lot to address the unique challenges and opportunities that are faced by these sectors in our Province. The Growing Forward Programs are being delivered, of course, by our provincial department and the agency.

There are many other initiatives that have been proven to be great news for folks involved in the agrifoods and agriculture industries in our Province. We have an Agriculture Innovation Program that provides assistance to enhance the competitiveness, profitability, and innovative capacity of the industry here in Province. Investments are being made in innovation, diversification, and also secondary processing activities.

We also have an Agricultural Land Development Program, which really maximizes the productivity and the availability of agricultural land within Newfoundland and Labrador. Investments are being made in land development activities that will also promote proper crop rotation practices, increase feed efficiency on farms, and enhance agricultural nutrient and manure management.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other programs available to folks in the agriculture industry as well. We have an Agriculture Opportunities Program. It provides financial assistance for business and marketing opportunities. It enhances human resource development within the agriculture industry. Investments today in Newfoundland and Labrador are being made in business development, in human resource development, and in market planning activities.

We have an Agriculture Sustainability Program. It supports food and safety initiatives, as well as enhancing environmentally-sustainable practices in our agricultural industry. Activities that are being supported through this program include: environmental farm planning, development of on-farm and regional environmental farm plans; activities to improve the environmental performance of farm operations; integrated pest management training and initiatives related to farm planning advisory services and other training that is provided through our department.

We have a New Farm Investment Program that addresses unique challenges faced by new farmers. Mr. Speaker, there is a need for many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get involved in farming. Our government will continue to encourage people to pursue careers in this industry. This program supports the establishment of new farm businesses, it promotes farm succession, and it enhances the competitiveness and the profitability of new farms.

We also have a Mitigating Agricultural Risks Program that enables the agriculture industry to mitigate risks pertaining to the environment, food safety, wildlife, plant and animal health, and even biosecurity threats.

So, lots of exciting initiatives that have been undertaken by this government thanks to the leadership of our previous minister, who is now Premier, and our new minister who is already working hard on many of these files related to forestry and agrifoods. It was just today that we had an opportunity to spend some time together talking about some of the emerging trends and issues that we will be working on in the weeks and months ahead.

Another highlight, I guess, Mr. Speaker, is the development of cranberry farming in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a relatively recent development. A unique approach has been taken by this government to evaluate the potential for industry development in the Province. This approach involved the establishment of numerous pilot sites throughout the Province, and we are really collaborating with the private sector to make this work. There has been lots of positive movement. I am excited about the developments and excited about learning even more about this industry. Blueberries and strawberries, these are also industries where we are seeing lots of growth and lots of economic impact for sure.

Mr. Speaker, I talk lots about agrifoods, I want to also touch a little bit on forestry. Despite some of the challenges in recent years in that industry, it is a sector that has huge value within our Province, continues to employ thousands of people and have a real positive impact on communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The sector has had challenges due to the demand for newsprint, for instance; but, that said, there are still lots of exciting developments in that industry as well.

I certainly want to remind the public that the 2010-2011 Residential Wood Pellet Appliance Rebate Program is currently underway and accepting applications. Applications will be received until March. This is a great new development and, I think, a program that will continue to grow in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting time for both forestry and agrifoods in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to now have an opportunity to be part of all of that.

There is lots of good news in my own district of Mount Pearl North, as well, just in recent months. I am pleased to say that I have been working closely with the school council of the new Elizabeth Park Elementary. We have already opened one new school in the Town of Paradise thanks to the leadership of our current minister and this government. In fact, as I am sure my colleague from the District of Topsail will be pleased to tell you at some point, the new Paradise elementary school is a state-of-the-art facility and one that we have both had an opportunity to tour. I am excited to say that Elizabeth Park Elementary will open its doors in my district late in January, and students who have been currently working out of the School for the Deaf building will have their new home in their community, in their neighbourhood, and it is going to be a great addition to the growing Town of Paradise.

This is fantastic news for the people that I represent in the Elizabeth Park area. There have also been numerous investments at existing schools in Mount Pearl as well. Just recently the minister made an announcement concerning several of our existing schools, and capital improvements continue to those facilities as well.

Mr. Speaker, it will only be a matter of time before the new multiplex recreational complex in Mount Pearl opens its doors. The construction of the second ice surface at the Glacier is well underway. There is going to be a brand new swimming pool built as well, a theatre space available, and other improvements within the vicinity of the Rec-Plex. This is good news for not only the people of Mount Pearl but for people of the region as well.

We have some funding to support the development of a new playground at Mary Queen of the World school. There has been some funding that is going to be provided to support recreational development in Paradise at its youth centre. Lots of other organizations have received support from this government in recent months, such as the Mount Pearl Synchro Club, Mount Pearl Minor Basketball, and Mount Pearl Tennis Club. There has been a huge amount of roadwork undertaken in both of the communities I represent over the past year as well. So, lots of great news.

Another piece of recent great news for the people of my district is the contract in place to clear the way for the extension of the Team Gushue Highway. Both the federal and provincial governments have announced a contract to continue movement toward getting this project in place. There has been some public information sessions recently, and certainly that highway extension is absolutely good news for people all over the region, certainly the people that I represent in Mount Pearl North. My colleague from Ferryland is pointing out that the folks on the Southern Shore will benefit as well, and they absolutely will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: I think that is great news for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to thanking our outgoing Premier and congratulating the new one, as I have done, I also want to welcome Mr. David Brazil to our caucus. He will very soon take his seat in this Legislature as the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. We were all deeply saddened by the passing of Ms Dianne Whalen, who was an outstanding community leader, an outstanding politician, and a great minister within our government.

Mr. Brazil has big shoes to fill and he is certainly up to the task. He has been meeting with members of our caucus and ministers within our government. He is meeting with community groups in the towns that he represents. He has been sitting attentively in the Speaker's gallery observing the proceedings of this House in recent days as well, which I know has been quite an education for him. As the third MHA who will represent the growing Town of Paradise, I certainly look forward to working with him even further in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, which I did rise to speak to, I have not really spoken to yet. I will make a few comments on it, just to point out to this hon. House some of the amazing stuff that is contained in this year's speech and some of the amazing progress that has been made in recent months since that speech, which was actually delivered back on March 22; how time flies. I was pleased to see in the Throne Speech the continued commitment to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Our minister has been hard at work revitalizing our child protection system from the ground up. It is interesting to note that since 2006 this government has strengthened front line child protection services by creating over 220 new positions that have included ninety social work positions and a range of other positions that directly support front line work.

I was pleased the other day to hear the Minister of Education mention the development of our ten-year Early Learning and Child Care Strategy. I know that a lot of consultation is being done. That is going to be really positive in terms of building our early childhood learning framework.

Mr. Speaker, I was also pleased to see in recent months continued consultation by this government to develop our second Poverty Reduction Strategy Action Plan. We are partnering with communities, we are partnering with families. Like the consultation that is being done on Early Learning and Child Care and like the previous Poverty Reduction Strategy, this is truly a government that has engaged all sectors in this Province, all communities in this Province, and there has been many, many opportunities for people throughout this Province to have a say in issues that truly affect their lives. The Poverty Reduction Strategy and the success it has had and the accolades it has received is a prime example of how consulting and engaging people and empowering them to be part of our solutions has made a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech touched on continued investments in infrastructure. Our aggressive infrastructure strategy that is resulting in over $4 billion being spent in the next several years is going to do great things for our economy and great things for communities in every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard talks about improvements to the ferry services throughout this Province, which is much needed. We have launched a new strategy to improve air services in all regions of the Province, and there is so much more good news.

I want to highlight some of the improvements that have been made in the area of education. Just this year we are seeing investments in the Excellence in Mathematics Strategy for our K-12 students; investments in the Futures and Skilled Trades and Technology program for our high school students. Our government, through our Minister of Education, is acting upon recommendations from the ISSP/Pathways report which will do great things to support students who need a little extra support. Our new teacher allocation model is doing great things for students in my district, and great things for students throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen great investments continue to be made at the post-secondary level as well. We are seeing improvements for apprentices; our Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy continues to develop with over $250 million in employment and training programs linking people to opportunities for stable careers. As a result of extensive consultation, Mr. Speaker, we are building and developing our new provincial strategy for the inclusion of people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the things that are touched upon in the Throne Speech. There was certainly lots of good news for the forestry and agricultural sectors as well. That is certainly positive as well, Mr. Speaker. This is a government that truly is listening to what people have to say. We are engaging people in important issues that affect their communities, their families, their lives, and our economy. As a result, we are seeing lots of growth and lots of development, not only in the oil and gas sector, which we often talk about, but in virtually every sector in every corner of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by simply wishing my constituents a Merry Christmas. It is a wonderful time of year. In the last couple of weeks I have had an opportunity to take part in the Santa Claus parades in Mount Pearl and just yesterday in Paradise, where the first parade in the Town of Paradise's history was held. It is a joyous season, it is also a time to remember those less fortunate and do what we can to show generosity and compassion to those in need in our communities. I hope that the folks in my district and people throughout our great Province have a Christmas that is truly filled with love and blessed with peace and much joy for our families, for our loved ones, for our friends and neighbours.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I will conclude. I want to thank the hon. House for this opportunity to say a few words in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House is now adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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