April

28, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome Level II and III students from St.

Mary's All Grade School in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The

students are accompanied by their teacher, Ms Lisa Rumbolt.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the

District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Baie

Verte-Springdale.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Monsieur le prsident, je prends la

parole aujourd'hui l'honorable Chambre d'assemble afin de reconnatre les

membres des services d'urgence de Cap Saint-Georges, spcialement le service de

pompiers volontaires et le service d'ambulance de Cap Saint-Georges. Le 27 mars,

la municipalit de Cap Saint-Georges a officiellement reconnu les efforts et le

dvouement de ce groupe d'individus ayant, pour certains, 30 ans de service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge the members of

the Cape St. George emergency services, namely the Cape St. George Volunteer

Fire Department, and the Cape St. George Ambulance Service. On March 27, the

Town of Cape St. George formally recognized the efforts and dedication of this

fine group of individuals, some of whom with thirty years of service.

Mr. Speaker, the following firefighters received service pins and medals for

service ranging from twenty to thirty years: George Benoit, Marc Chaisson,

Lawrence Chaisson, Leon Simon, and to the family of the late Norman Chaisson.

Ten year service pins were presented to Lester Benoit, Gerard Chaisson, and

Albert Benoit. Service pins for five years were also awarded to Donald Chaisson,

Melvin Rouzes, Alvin Simon, and Cornelius Benoit.

Members of the ambulance service were presented with service pins as well.

They were Patrick Costard for fifteen years of service, and Nadine Tallack and

William Jesso received their five year pins of service.

Mr. Speaker, our communities benefit greatly from the support from these

individuals who give of their time year after year and often put their own lives

at risk to save others.

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

celebrating and recognizing these individuals for their selfless giving and

their invaluable contributions to our communities.

Merci Monsieur le president.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a

long time citizen of Summerside in the Bay of Islands District, Mr. Leslie

Loder.

Mr. Speaker, Leslie was ninety-four years of age on his birthday on April 10

and is leading a remarkable healthy life. He continues to take his daily six

kilometre walk regardless of weather conditions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Loder is also known for the volunteer work he does for his

church. He has committed seventy-five years volunteering for the St. Paul's

Anglican Church and even today enjoys the fellowship of the Men's Service Club.

Mr. Speaker, Leslie and the late Joe Lundrigan are responsible for building

the majority of the furniture contained in the church today, as both of them are

master craftsmen.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Loder has been volunteering in other organizations, and in

fact was the first Mayor of Summerside when it was incorporated some forty-five

years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members here today to recognize Mr. Leslie Loder

on his ninety-fourth birthday and who proves that volunteering does not stop at

any age.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise in this hon. House today to applaud Valmont Academy of

King's Point for winning national and provincial banners for three years in a

row!

The K to 12 school, with a population of about 150 students, was awarded the

gold level banner by School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador and by Physical

Health and Education Canada. These prestigious awards were based on the school's

participation, success, sportsmanship, variety of sports offered, and the

quality of its physical education program.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the school recently captured Valmont's first ever

provincial title and also the most sports-minded team award at the fortieth

anniversary Hoopla basketball championships that was held in St. John's on March

18 to March 21. Their boys' basketball team defeated St Mary's All Grade in the

championship game. Congratulations to coaches Danny Williams and Ryan Kelly for

a job well done. Also at that same tournament, Mr. Speaker, Dillon Budgell

captured the sportsmanship award and Felicia Rideout captured it for the girls.

The school is to be applauded for its strong commitment to quality, daily

physical activity that helps to combat obesity and inactivity among our youth,

and also for its strong extracurricular program, Mr. Speaker. The extraordinary

community support and the outstanding leadership provided by Principal Kim

Budgell, physical education teacher Roger Jacobs, and the entire staff of

Valmont have contributed immensely to the students' success.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in celebrating the achievements of

Valmont Academy and we wish them well as they continue to be a leader and a

strong advocate for active, healthy living which, as we all know, ultimately

enhances the academic performance of students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize that today, April 28, marks the

twenty-sixth anniversary of National Day of Mourning in Canada. This occasion

recognizes workers who have been killed, injured, or suffered illness due to

workplace hazards and incidents.

In observing National Day of Mourning, we are raising awareness about the

importance of workplace health and safety. Workers in this Province, their

families, friends and employers, have a great deal to reflect upon at this time.

Already this year we have had accidental workplace fatalities in both

Newfoundland and Labrador, and fresh on our minds still is the terrible tragedy

of the Cougar helicopter crash of 2009.

There were twenty-five accidental workplace fatality claims reported last

year in this Province, the highest in twenty years. An additional seventeen

fatality claims were reported for occupational disease.

Mr. Speaker, the most important message we can deliver today is one of

prevention. These tragedies must remind us to be constantly vigilant for our

safety - particularly in high-risk areas. We must continue to encourage a strong

commitment toward occupational health and safety in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just last week, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission

reported that the number of workplace injuries dropped below 4,000 for the first

time in fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the dedication of workers and employers,

unions and safety organizations, volunteers and others across the Province, who

have made a difference and helped ensure we get home safely to our families at

the end of the day.

I applaud everyone who is making an effort to enhance health and safety

practices in the workplace, and I ask that the losses we reflect upon today

always keep us mindful of the price that is paid if we slip in our vigilance.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the contributions made by

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and the Occupational

Health and Safety Branch of the Department of Government Services. Both play a

key role in the administration of regulations and the development of promotional

efforts that help keep our workplaces incident-free.

With government, business and labour working in partnership, I am confident

we can ensure the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and minimize

the kinds of unfortunate losses we are called to reflect upon today.

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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and to say that we,

in the Official Opposition, join all others in marking the twenty-sixth

anniversary of the National Day of Mourning in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we, too, want to recognize the workers who have either lost

their lives or were injured or suffered various illnesses in the workplace, and

we join with their families today. I cannot help but think back, Mr. Speaker,

and I am sure every member can to their district; I remember the tragedy of the

Ocean Ranger, the fire that took place in Come By Chance when lives were lost,

and more recently a resident from my own hometown who was tragically killed

during the Cougar helicopter crash.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, prevention is the way to go, but then

again many times in the industries, whether it is in the construction or in

larger facilities where we have many people working, sometimes incidents do

happen. Education and prevention is the way to go. It is good to see that the

number has dropped. Like the minister said, it has dropped below 4,000 - the

first time in many years.

Workers and employers and unions in various organizations have to keep

working together, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to recognize the Occupational Health

and Safety and the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission because

those people play a very important part. I know in the past twenty-two years I

have attended many appeals on behalf of people through Workers' Compensation.

One thing I would suggest to the minister, I understand the external review

board of the workplace health and safety has a couple of vacancies with regard

to public representatives. I ask the minister, probably, if this can be filled

because those boards play a very important

part in regard to the compensation of

those injured workers.

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

am very pleased to stand, along with everybody else in the House here today, in

recognizing the National Day of Mourning. It is a very important day for us to

mark. I think it is very significant that here in St. John's the ceremony takes

place out in the front of the Confederation Building on the main floor. I think

that is very symbolic.

While our Province has achieved much over the past twenty-six years to

improve workplace health and safety, we all know we still have much work to do.

The accomplishment of the lowest number of workplace injuries in fifty years is

unfortunately marred by the fact that we also, last year, recorded the highest

number of workplace deaths since 1980.

The recent tragedies are fresh in our minds, and I would like to express my

deepest sympathies to these families and all families affected by workplace

accidents and industrial disease. I could not help but notice during the

ceremony out front that there were some families from the Cougar helicopter

disaster and others - one particular widow whom I saw. You can still see in

them, physically, the pain of the loss that they have gone through.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Commissioner Robert

Wells and the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry for taking the initiative to

correct serious gaps in helicopter safety prior to the conclusion of the

inquiry. I think that this action showed deep respect and concern for the women

and men who work offshore on a daily basis. As the minister mentions, this is

the kind of attitude we must promote and put in place in our workplaces.

Clearly, we are making strides, Mr. Speaker, towards a safety work culture

but there is much more to be done, and I know that we are all committed to see

that it will happen.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ministers of Justice and Natural Resources issued

a news release that said the people of the Province would not be responsible for

environmental liabilities associated with Abitibi properties that were

expropriated. I have to question, based on that comment, if either of the

ministers has read the recent court decision on this matter in which the

Province lost that case.

In the recent Environmental Protection Act case the judge ruled in

section

202, and I quote, "In all fairness, a regulator can hardly pretend to

realistically order that a person responsible' carry out actions upon

properties that it no longer owns." The judge also stated in

section 208 of this

case, "The Province, as owner and occupier of the lands, is clearly a person

responsible' under s.99 of the EPA."

I ask the minister today: How can you continue to say that we are not on the

hook for this case, when the courts clearly state that we are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Environmental Protection Act, as well as Bill 75, state

quite clearly that the polluter pays, regardless of who owns the properties.

That is the principle that we maintain. That principle is why we are asking for

leave to appeal the ruling in the CCAA process.

Mr. Speaker, we know that AbitibiBowater will do everything that it can to

relieve itself of its responsibility to remediate its properties here in the

Province. Mr. Speaker, our own legislation protects us here in this Province

from that happening if something happens in terms of the broader law.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the numbers that are being tossed around, hopefully,

I will have an opportunity to deal with that as we move along in Question

Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister to table for the House the sections of our

EPA legislation and the sections of Bill 75 that says that the polluter pays.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this information is available on-line, but I

know that the Opposition from time to time has challenges, and we will certainly

provide the sections to the Opposition on the issues that they have just

requested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The judge also stated in another court challenge, known as the Data Room

case, and I quote, "The Court notably concluded that the Province had not yet

provided reasonable and convincing evidence in support of its alleged status of

potential creditor for environmental problems resulting from Abitibi's economic

activities."

I ask the minister today: Why didn't government complete its due diligence to

support our claim before bringing it to the courts?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that the Minister of

Environment has outlined time and time again in this House in terms of how the

costs of remediation are arrived at. Those orders are provided to the offending

company in case this time - in this case, AbitibiBowater. They are told what is

required of them. They come back in response to those orders and from their

response we are able to determine the cost of the clean up. AbitibiBowater has

not done that, Mr. Speaker, and they continue to try to avoid their

responsibilities with regard to environmental cleanup here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: There is no explanation as to why the Minister of Environment

did not do her job and complete the due diligence prior to the court case.

Let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the data room case which we

also lost in the Quebec courts related to Abitibi. Under questioning in the

House of Assembly in December, government stated that it would not be proceeding

with the case because they felt Abitibi had insufficient funds. In actual fact,

Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that government had pursued the case and they

lost the case and were ordered to pay all the legal fees of Abitibi.

So I ask the minister today: Why did you say that we were not pursuing the

case, instead of stating upfront that we had lost it because we did not provide

any evidence to support our claims for taxation, severance and environmental

liabilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think again the hon. Leader of the

Opposition should do a little bit more homework. The case was pursued, Mr.

Speaker, and lost. End of story. We did not take any further action following

this court decision and we could not get access to the data room. We were

pursuant up to that stage. When that decision was made we did not go any further

and that is the position we took in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, on December 9, when I questioned the Minister of

Justice in the House of Assembly with regard to these claims he did not say that

they would not go to appeal. In fact, this is what he said: With regard to the

action on CCAA claims of monies owing to the Province, the position of the

government is that we are not pursuing these claims because there are

insufficient funds.

At no time, minister, did you state that we had pursued a case, lost a case,

and was not appealing the case again. Why is that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where the hon. Leader

of the Opposition is coming from. The response in the House was a response that

came from a decision that was made in the Quebec court. The Quebec courts, CCAA

did not allow us entry to the data room. Based on that decision, we made the

decision there was no point in pursuing claims any further because the cost of

pursuing the claim would be more than money we will get back. That was our

position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we know that government did pursue the case, did lose the case,

chose not to appeal the case, I would like to ask them to tell us: How much

these court cases cost, what were the third party costs, and how much are we

paying out for Abitibi's legal costs here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those figures at my fingertips

and I do not know to what extent we have them in my department. The costs of

Abitibi were JV'd to Natural Resources. The actual breakdown in these figures, I

do not have at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister, if he could get those costs and provide us

with the information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, any information that we can disclose under

the circumstances, considering the fact that proceedings are ongoing, we will

disclose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the conclusions of the courts in two of those cases, there

appears to be no requirement that AbitibiBowater clean up their former

properties or submit a remediation plan.

I ask the minister today: As the current owner of these properties, what are

your responsibilities to complete such a remediation plan and to outline the

costs associated with cleaning up these sites and the actions required for such

work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we take issues of the environment very seriously and our

Environmental Protection Act is very clear. It is based on the principle of

polluter pays, Mr. Speaker. We have not taken the position that Abitibi is off

the hook for this and that is why we are seeking leave to appeal the decision of

the Quebec court. That leave will be heard on May 12, and we are going to pursue

all the legal options that are available to us to ensure that these properties

are brought back to the state that they were found in when Abitibi came here.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 24, 2009, the Minister of Environment stated, "our department is

doing an inventory of all of the environmental issues. That could range anywhere

from logging camps to bridges and to the mill itself. Certainly, the mill will

have to undergo an environmental assessment process through the decommissioning

of their mill, as was done in Stephenville." She said, "The member can rest

assured that all environmental issues will certainly be addressed." We are

seeing a different picture today, minister.

I ask the minister today - because I questioned her last week on whether the

inventory and the costing of these environmental liabilities have been

completed. I ask the minister today: Has this been done and, if so, are you

prepared to provide it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, at least on this one she has her dates right, because she

stood up in this House yesterday and talked about my comments in the House in

December 2008 and left this House yesterday with the impression and tabled the

notes from that date when in actual fact it was of March, 2009. The fact that

this House was left to believe that I was still here on December 28 was totally

unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. I did say that in March of 2009.

We take the issues of the environment very seriously. We are aware of the

environmental issues and that is why we continue to pursue this case. We are

seeking leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and, Mr. Speaker, we are

going to seek every legal avenue possible to make sure that this environment is

brought back to the state that Abitibi found it in when they came here to do

business here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem, Mr. Speaker, admitting I made a mistake in the date and I

got the minister's date wrong, but I can guarantee you, I did not make any $500

million mistake on the backs of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to direct her remarks to the Chair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that my mistake is not going to cost the taxpayers of

this Province. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, she said the comments, she made the

commitment

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to my left to please allow the hon. member to ask her

question.

MS JONES: They should all be ashamed of themselves, Mr. Speaker. They

should be ashamed of themselves, I say.

I ask the minister: Did you do what you committed to do sixteen months ago?

Did you do the costing? Did you do the inventory on the environmental

liabilities associated with the expropriation of AbitibiBowater?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, speaking of being ashamed, this member had the

perfect opportunity when she stood up in the House yesterday and tabled the

Hansard, she had the perfect opportunity at that time to stand up and say she

made a mistake. She did not do it at that time and left this House to believe

that I was up here giving incorrect information. That was her time to do it, but

I accept the fact now that she has accepted that she made a mistake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

MS JONES: You did not do your job and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously is not going to tell us

whether she did what she committed to do sixteen months ago or not. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that she failed to provide the information under the Environmental

Protection Act in the court case and, as a result of it, we have lost that case.

Mr. Speaker, if government does not have the analysis done of the cost

associated with AbitibiBowater's environmental liabilities, I fear that we may

even be facing even more concerning issues in the months and years to come.

I ask the minister, in the spirit of openness and accountability: Can you

provide any information within your department as to what the total price tag of

Abitibi's environmental liabilities is to the people of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, when she cannot get the facts right and she does

not do the right research then she turns to fear mongering. That is the tactic

that we see here.

I have said time and time in this House and in media reports for her to

review that in order for us to get the actual

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - cost of the remediation, Abitibi has to submit a

remediation plan. That was all spelled out in the orders. They have one year to

do so. They already had a great piece of the work. So one year to do that was

not unrealistic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Until those remediation reports come into us and we are

satisfied with them in the Department of Environment, that environment will be

brought back to the standard that it was when Abitibi came here to do business

and to benefit from our resources, only then can we give an actual cost.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the member might like to read her own

Environmental Protection Act as well which defines persons responsible, and she

will find out that the owner is of a substance or a thing. That was written

right in her own act.

Obviously, no answers, let's see if we get some answers here. When they do

not do their job, Mr. Speaker, or they want to cover things up, they do not want

to give you answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, since the government expropriated the assets of

AbitibiBowater, it has been revealed that government also expropriated some of

the liabilities, as we all know - hundreds of millions of dollars of them.

Government has stepped up to the plate, they have covered off the employees'

severance payments so far and they have lobbied the federal government to ensure

the viability of employee pensions. One group that have been left out are the

local contractors who accepted work at the mill site once the mill closed, and

these contractors are now out hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I ask the government, now that you are the employer, now that you own it all:

What are you going to do to ensure that these contractors are paid?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, the premise upon which the question is asked is a false

one. We were not the employer. We did not engage any contractors to do any work.

We did not issue any contracts to any people to perform work. Therefore, we have

no obligation to the people who did the work on behalf of AbitibiBowater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the courts are saying that you own it. You guys

know that you own it. These contractors were commissioned to do work on your

property, and now, Mr. Speaker, they are out the money.

I ask the government today: Who is going to cover the bills of these

contractors who acted in good faith, took on a contract in good faith, and

deserve to be paid?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is half correct. She is correct in the

assertion that they were asked to do work. She is correct in the assertion that

they performed work. What she is incorrect in is that she is trying to imply

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador asked that that be done, and

that is incorrect.

What is correct is that they were asked to do that by AbitibiBowater. The

answer to the question as to who is responsible for the payment for the work

that was performed, the answer to that question is the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: person who asked the work be done, the company that asked

the work be done, and that company was AbitibiBowater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to clarify for the minister that I never said that the

government hired them. I said you own the property, they were hired in good

faith, they went to work in good faith, they are doing the work on your property

that you own, and I ask you today to do the right thing, pay those contractors

the more than $300,000 that they are owed.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. If there are questions asked,

obviously, the minister to whom the question has been directed has been unable

to hear the question if there was a question asked.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: As usual, Mr. Speaker, they are not listening. If they were,

they would have heard the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose her question.

MS JONES: The question was quite simple, Mr. Speaker. These individuals

are out there, they have completed work on your property and they are owed more

than $300,000. Will you pay the bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member cannot ask questions, sit down and then continue to answer by

shouting at other people across the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Important questions are asked, and I call on the Deputy Premier to answer the

question, but when members ask a question, please allow the answer to be given

and vice versa.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we expropriated the assets of AbitibiBowater in Central

Newfoundland, we did so on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

While the members of the Opposition might have bailed ship, which is no surprise

- I have to tell you, quite honestly, I was surprised they got on in the first

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it was the absolute right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete her answer.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have invested tens and tens of millions of

dollars in Central Newfoundland since the closure of that mill. We were able to

do things like over $30 million in severance because we own the assets. Mr.

Speaker, members of the Opposition are throwing numbers around all over the

place in the last few weeks. If we own the assets, and because we own the

assets, they do not have to pay remediation costs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - then we will deal with it from the assets, but we cannot

be paying them for the assets and then paying them for remediation at all. The

whole premise of their question is ludicrous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Yesterday, in the Justice budget Estimates committee the minister confirmed

that the pre-detention correctional facility for women and youth that was

intended to be constructed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay was placed on hold

indefinitely. There was not a single public statement or release, Mr. Speaker,

that this project had been stopped.

I ask the minister: Where is the openness and the transparency of your

government, and why did you hide such important information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

At least the Opposition House Leader has modified his language somewhat

today. Yesterday he said to the media that it was scrapped.

Mr. Speaker, there was never ever any intention in this department or this

government to hide, or conceal, or renege on any commitment to the people of

Labrador. This government responded to the pre-detention needs of Labrador by

investigating a number of models and options to work with, which we are still

evaluating.

That now, Mr. Speaker, is being done in the context of re-evaluating all of

our correctional needs, those pre-detention needs, and all of the needs that fit

in that overall picture. When we are comfortable with that overall picture, Mr.

Speaker, we will make a decision as to what option we will go with and where we

spend our money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know the circumstances that demonstrated the need for

this facility. We saw those stories in the news; women being held naked in cells

for days; teenagers being denied a shower while they were in custody. The

Citizens' Representative for this Province even presented government with a

report demonstrating the necessity of constructing a new facility.

I ask the minister: With the demonstrated need, the need already proven that

has been clearly presented to your government, why are you now taking such a

backwards step and cancelling this facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we are taking a very

forward step. We are doing an internal review of all of our correctional needs.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a new direction in recent times because we have come

to the conclusion that the feds are not on-board with respect to a federal

prison. So now we have to look at our correctional facilities to see what option

we can follow to get the best arrangement that we can get.

The Labrador situation, Mr. Speaker, is very much a part of that and will be

a part of the whole picture when we discuss it and when we come to some

conclusions. We hope, Mr. Speaker, by the end of this year to be able to discuss

what options we need to do, where we need to go, how we need to look at our

whole correctional system to see what investments we need to make in it. We have

some serious challenges, Mr. Speaker, in our correctional system. We have to

make some detailed decisions of where we are going to go in them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the current minister stated, in a response to a question from

myself in this House on November 30, "I can tell this House that this government

is committed, in public committed to correctional facilities in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, and, at the present time, the discussions are ongoing with

regard to that pre-detention centre."

I ask the minister: If this facility was such a priority for government,

acknowledged to be such a priority, committed to, how can you justify leaving

the women and youth in such substandard correctional conditions for the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, this government, since the Decades of

Darkness report, has spent upwards of $5 million on corrections. We have

invested, Mr. Speaker, heavily. We have brought to some level of progress

seventy-three of the seventy-seven recommendations in that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: We have invested $5 million, Mr. Speaker. We have

invested in programming; we have invested in services; we have invested in

training, both in mental health for our correctional officers and mental health

services for our inmates. Mr. Speaker, we have contracted with various service

providers. We have spent millions and made tremendous strides as a result of the

Decades of Darkness report, including the correctional institution in

Clarenville which deals with women. Mr. Speaker, our commitment is

unquestionable with regard to corrections, and the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I hear the Minister of Labrador Affairs over there blaring. Well maybe he can

answer this one. A Ms Beals, Executive Director of the Status of Women for Goose

Bay, was in the media last night advising that she spoke to the Minister of

Labrador Affairs just a few weeks ago and was advised by the Minister of

Labrador Affairs that this facility was going ahead.

I ask the Minister of Labrador Affairs: Were you aware that this project had

been cancelled or were you simply misleading the people when you spoke to them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the need has been clearly identified in

Labrador. It has been clearly identified. Mr. Speaker, there is no commitment

here. There is no decision on the part of the government to abandon or sell out

the people of Labrador, as has been suggested by the Opposition. Mr. Speaker,

Labrador is very much part of our plan, our internal review and will continue to

be so.

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.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Health was in Labrador West to meet

with residents with regard to the health care needs. Mr. Speaker, the minister

said he was moved when he spoke to the families who had been affected by air

ambulance delays, but, Mr. Speaker, being moved is not enough. There must be

action -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill has been identified to

ask a question. I ask members to kindly listen to the question and allow the

answer to be given.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador West is a highly industrialized area that needs immediate access to

air ambulance. Mr. Speaker, just over a month ago a worker in Lab West died

waiting for an air ambulance. We will never know if there could have been a

better outcome for the Perry family in Labrador West.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he going to do to address the

serious need for a permanent air ambulance in Labrador West to ensure injured

workers have necessary access to emergency medical services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the reasons that we hired a consultant to look at the issue of the

placement of the air ambulance was because of the competing dictates that were

being put forward. We had the Town of St. Anthony saying leave it where it is.

We had the town councils of Lab West saying we need it over our way and we had

Happy Valley-Goose Bay saying we want it in our town.

So, what happened, Mr. Speaker, we looked at the consultants report and a

determination was made that by moving it to Happy Valley-Goose Bay it would be a

more central location. On the night, Mr. Speaker, that I attended the public

forum, one of the local doctors indicated that he needed access to Quebecair to

charter a plane to deal with obstetrical emergencies. I said: do it. I

instructed, Mr. Speaker, the next day when I spoke to the local doctors, I

indicated anything I could do to help improve air ambulance services to Lab West

I would do. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I met with the provincial director of air

ambulance and the chief paramedic and asked them to talk to the doctors in

question in Lab West and to come up with a plan that would allow for the solving

of the problems in terms of the quicker dispatch to the Lab West area. We are

working on that, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously a very difficult situation and we

are trying to please a lot of people here.

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 will be looking forward to hearing a report from the minister on the

discussions that are going on.

Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention yesterday afternoon that the

executive of the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar called an emergency

meeting to talk about new contracts with employees who have been affected by the

mistakes made in their salaries. They were told that these new contracts would

be offered to them starting today. Mr. Speaker, at this meeting staff asked if

the overpayment errors had been addressed. The college executive said yes but

would not disclose the details.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education: If he can tell the House

why the information is being hidden from the staff, and indeed from all of us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very interesting question coming from the individual yesterday who

said that I should back away and leave the issue to the college. Now she wants

me to provide the information on the dealings with the college.

I will endeavour to remind the member opposite, as I did yesterday, that it

is this government who has taken quick and swift action on the error of the

college and what has been identified. We put a process in place, that we will

review what has gotten us to this point in time. We have also met this morning

myself and my Deputy Minister met with the executive team of the College of the

North Atlantic for Newfoundland and Labrador and I want to certainly reassure

the people of this Province that the college system is in good hands. We will go

through a seamless process of transition as we move to bigger and brighter

things and to continue to grow the college and work with the college.

We will also move very quickly, as the member has alluded to, Mr. Speaker, to

deal with employees of the Qatar campus. As I mentioned in my press release, we

have contracts that are up for renewal, Mr. Speaker, and we will follow the due

process that we have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Time allotted for Questions and Answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of

Catalina, Dunfield, Trinity, Cannings Cove, Aspen Cove, New Bonaventure, Port

Rexton, Bonavista, Elliston, Musgravetown, Clarenville, Princeton, Sunnyside,

and Shoal Harbour. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, I know we have to

read it into the records each and every day:

WHEREAS we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have always built cabins

or tilts away from our homes for hunting, fishing, berry picking or just

spending time up in the country, or places around our shores, sometimes just to

get away from the stress of everyday living, a place to relax and enjoy the

great outdoors; and

WHEREAS your government has come down hard on the thousands of cabin and

trailer owners who are out on our land with eviction notices, and forcing them

to move without providing them with an alternative; and

WHEREAS Kruger Inc. has timber rights to approximately one-third of all

forested land on this Island, and is refusing the vast majority of applications

for cabin development;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to

urge government to have compassion on the citizens of this fair Province, and

allow them the right enjoy what is rightfully ours. We were born on this land

and we should have the right to enjoy it.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, since I presented the last couple of petitions, I have had

several phone calls from residents in some of those areas. I will not mention

any names or any communities, but some of the stories are very touching. There

is one individual who has been a trapper for the last fifty-five or sixty years,

who had a little, small place up in the country. It was used solely if he ever

went up hunting and the weather came on and he could not get back out of the

country, it was a place for him to go, rather than probably be caught out in the

wilderness and, God knows, lose his life.

Well, last year, do you know what? Environmental officials went in there and

they burned that little place; burned his traps, burned his snowshoes and the

whole bit. There is no such thing as consulting with those people and saying

this is not right or you should not do this. I am sure he would have been

satisfied to sit down and do what was right. I have also been advised that this

little place that he had there was not in a watershed area; it was something

that was there for forty-five or fifty years, and it was used solely for that

purpose, Mr. Speaker.

I have had calls from people who use what they call the Ming's Pit. I have

had calls from people who were in the Whiskey Pit. Those people will tell you,

yes, there were issues there, that they did not like what was going on there,

but the majority of them, Mr. Speaker, thought that they should have been

consulted before someone went in there and just told them to get out or else.

That is not fair, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: My hon. colleague, the Minister of Environment and

Conservation, is asking me, how many did we burn? I do not care who burned them.

I do not care who burned them, if it was the former Administration or whoever,

it is not right. Those individuals should have been consulted. It does not

matter to me who is in power. I am not doing this because you are in power now.

That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. Those people are just asking to be treated

fairly. Whether it was done by our Administration or the present Administration,

it is definitely not right.

All they are asking is for government to consult with them, to see if we can

come to some conclusion. Then, people are saying: Why are there places still on

this Island where it did not happen, what happened at the Whiskey Pit? People

are saying: Is it because there is a new development going up to The Wilds golf

course. People are asking: Is that why they did not want it there?

I know the minister is dealing with those people, and trying to come to a

successful conclusion to it - they are looking at a couple of pieces of land -

and hopefully that will be done. Mr. Speaker, that is all those people are

asking for. They are asking that their Members in the House of Assembly would

get the petitions from them, as well, and present them. That is all they want,

Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the time again, and each and every day I will present

petitions on behalf of those residents.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, the House will hear the

private member's resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for the

District of The Straits & White Bay North.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the private member's motion for this

afternoon being put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North in

fact, he left to go to a meeting in his district last evening. He is on the

flight, and the flight was supposed to be here at 2:15 today. I understand it

has been delayed.

Normally, the person who led the motion would speak first on the motion, so

we seek leave here in this case to reverse the order and the Leader of the

Opposition, who seconded the motion, would proceed first and hopefully the

member can be here by that time, if that is okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with leave to do that, but I

just want to clarify. The person who speaks first, is that the person who will

conclude the debate?

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, there is a meeting scheduled

between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Fisheries in regard to

an issue that was raised in the House yesterday. If possible, the person who

spoke first would have spoken last; but, again, I do not know. I am aware of the

meeting taking place, but I am not exactly sure if she is going to be available

to clue up. That is the predicament we have. Normally, the opener would open and

close.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess I was just trying to clarify that, as we

do the debate, the debate goes from one side of the House to the other. I would

not want to get into a situation where one person speaks and then immediately

gets an opportunity to speak again to close debate. So, as long as we can avoid

that situation from happening we have no problem with giving leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the private

member's resolution.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy today to rise and speak to a motion that is being put forward by

my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to read the copy of the motion into the record for Hansard.

WHEREAS air ambulance service is critical to the health and lives of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS government commissioned a consultant to complete a review of air

ambulance services in northern Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS this report did not include all regions of the Province or all

aspects of the air ambulance service; and

WHEREAS the consultant and government did not consult with local stakeholders

including air ambulance staff and Labrador-Grenfell health board members during

the process and before the decision to move the air ambulance was made; and

WHEREAS air ambulance staff have identified a number of problems with the

consultant's report; and

WHEREAS the report only looked at a few aspects of air ambulance service and

missed key variables such as geography, weather, services available and staffing

levels; and

WHEREAS there is a CF(L)Co plane in Churchill Falls owned by the people of

the Province that could serve as an air ambulance, but was not considered in

this review; and

WHEREAS a more comprehensive review of the entire air ambulance program would

ensure a more effective service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the provincial

government to place on hold the current decision to move the air ambulance out

of St. Anthony until a complete and comprehensive review takes place that

includes all regions and aspects of the air ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is simply asking for government to be somewhat

more thorough in its review of air ambulance services before making any rash

decisions. I know that they had the Drodge report which they tabled and

released; but, Mr. Speaker, it was a report that was very short on information.

It failed to look at the entire air ambulance system as a whole within our

Province.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if one wanted to, you could look at that report and you

would think that their only mandate was to provide an argument to the minister

to remove the services out of St. Anthony in the first place. It is almost like

if you were to write the terms of reference for this consultant you would be

saying to him: You go find a way that I can move this air ambulance out of St.

Anthony and I have something to stand on to defend myself.

That is almost the way that this was done, Mr. Speaker. To me, that shows

several things: one, failure on behalf of the minister and the government to

provide for the services for life-safety issues for people in this Province, and

to study that and to do it thoroughly and make decisions based on information

that is all-encompassing. We did not see that in this report. We did not see

that at all.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw were pages of statistics, which I have no problem

with - those are important; numbers are important - however, numbers do not

always reflect the real situation that you are dealing with. We have all used

numbers, Mr. Speaker, to provide for and substantiate arguments in one way or

another all of our lives. Does it mean that numbers alone should determine how a

service should operate in the best interest of the people of the Province? Does

it determine that population alone should determine how services are delivered

to people in the Province and what would be essential? If that was the case, Mr.

Speaker, what would ever happen in rural communities around this Province where

you have small populations? These people would end up with nothing if government

used that philosophy and that mindset and that way of thinking in every decision

that they made. You would have nothing left in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.

Everything would be gone.

We do not buy into those arguments, but we see why the minister buys into

those arguments. Because it is the only defence he has in reaping the service

and taking it out of St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to doing what really

should be done, and that is enhancing our services, expanding our services to

ensure that all people in the Province have a better air ambulance system than

we did yesterday, than we did six months from now, and than we did a year from

now.

Mr. Speaker, the reason the member brings forward this motion is not only to

do with the fact that the terms of reference were skewed, they did not look at

things like the entire region of the Province, they did not look at response

times to air medevacs. They did not even investigate the three particular cases,

Mr. Speaker, that were brought forward from Labrador to see what were the real

factors, why there was a delay in responding to those services. Those particular

findings were not even included or asked to be included in the scope of the

project, or the scope of the study.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there was no consultation. The very

minister who, when he stepped into the shoes in the Department of Health, went

right into that district on the Northern Peninsula, stood before people when he

was looking for their votes and wanted them to kiss the feet of his government,

Mr. Speaker, stood up and apologized to them for not doing more consultation as

a government, apologized to them for making decisions without having the correct

information. It is the very same minister.

Now, the difference a day makes, Mr. Speaker. The difference a day makes,

because when he is the minister then, in those shoes, he cannot blame the

predecessor who just exited the room and took his leave from politics because he

bungled the issue so bad on behalf of the direction from the Premier and the

Cabinet. He is the one who became the scapegoat. When the new minister walked

into the job, Mr. Speaker, he is now responsible, and what did he do? When he

commissioned the study on air ambulance he did not consult with people. The real

people who should have been consulted here, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost,

were the people who were working on the frontlines, the people who were

delivering air medevac services every single day to sick children, to sick women

and men in this Province. They should have been asked: Where do you think there

are gaps? How can we improve the service? No one asked them, Mr. Speaker. No one

talked to them. So what did they do? After the fact, they went out and they did

their own study. Because they have a right to be heard, I say to the minister.

They have a right to be heard. They are saving lives in this Province every

single day. Some of them have been doing it for years. Yet, they were never

asked their opinion. They were never asked how to improve the service. They were

never asked where the gaps were.

Mr. Speaker, they went out and they did their own report. In this report -

the minister knows, he has a copy on his desk. They went through it with him,

Mr. Speaker, every single point in this report. He knows that he did not do due

diligence, or his officials in his department, the official who travelled with

the consultant which, by the way, I thought was an independent process. Yet,

Mr. Speaker, we have a senior official in the department who accompanied the

consultant to two, I believe, consultations that he did hold - that we are aware

of that he held. He may have held another one but we are aware of two, maybe it

was three. I think it might have been three - but, Mr. Speaker, the consultation

was limited to a few people in St. Anthony. I think it was the town council and

only the Town of St. Anthony. They were called the night before. They were asked

to come to a consultation the next day.

I know in my own district, where over that period of time, there were 236

medevacs out of the Labrador Straits alone, Mr. Speaker, but no one there was

consulted and asked their opinion. I know that for a fact. I know that no one in

the rest of The Straits area was consulted. I know that no one on the West Coast

of Newfoundland was consulted. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the services affect all of

these people.

The other questions that come out here is with regard to the flight medical

team. The same flight medical team, Mr. Speaker, which was identified to the

minister's office for nearly two years as being one of the most critical

components of that air medevac service in St. Anthony, because when they bought

the new airplane and they put it in St. Anthony, and the member at the time and

the minister and everybody was up there. Mr. Speaker, do you know what they

said? A direct quote of what they said: This is the central location for air

ambulance services in the Province. This is the best location for the operations

of these services. That is what your government said, Mr. Speaker, when they put

the new air ambulance in St. Anthony. It was identified then, the need for a

flight services team.

St. Anthony had its own flight medical team up until about three years ago.

About three years ago, under your Administration, that system changed. It was

under your Administration that you decided that that air ambulance would use the

air medevac team out of St. John's. As a result it did pose delays in responding

to services, and the minister knows that. Those issues were not looked at. Those

things were not even considered. Mr. Speaker, what is the ugliest thing about

all of this, the ugliest hateful thing about this decision that government has

made is they fail to consider the lives of people who would be impacted by

leaving a gap in the system. That is what the sad, hateful thing is about all of

this.

Back last summer I raised three different cases with the government on air

medevac service. All of these cases were out of Goose Bay and Lab West. Mr.

Speaker, we asked that there be full investigations around the reasons for

delays in each of those particular air medevac cases because we knew there was a

huge gap in the system and in the service, and the people who were suffering the

most as a result of that gap were in Labrador West. That was where the bulk of

the problem was, Mr. Speaker. That was where the bulk of the problem was, and

that was the reason the lobby started. The real lobby for all of this started in

Labrador West, because there was an identified need in that part of our Province

to have a third air ambulance. Nobody in Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, did I ever

hear, through the process of the summer of 2009, until now, say that that air

medevac should be moved out of St. Anthony and put in Labrador West. It was

quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. They continued to say that we need to add a

third air ambulance to the system.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, everyone in Labrador supported that. I was at the

Combined Councils meeting. The Minister of Labrador Affairs was not there, the

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was not there, or the Minister of Health and

Community Services was not there, although they were all invited.

There was a discussion in Labrador City, in February, around this issue.

Every town that was at the table that day from Labrador was unanimous. In fact,

even the mayor of St. Anthony happened to be at that conference. It was said at

that meeting, Mr. Speaker, that they wanted a third air ambulance for Labrador.

It was decided there that it would need to go into Goose Bay or into Labrador

City and that it would be left open to review as to what the best location was.

No one at that time, not one of those mayors at one of those tables in

Labrador on that day, Mr. Speaker, spoke up and said that we should take the air

ambulance service out of St. Anthony. In fact, quite the opposite was said in

that room. In that room that day people actually said we do not want to move the

air medevac out of St. Anthony; we want a third system and we want it for

Labrador.

That is what people still want today, I say to you, Minister. It is only you

and your government that has been bitter enough and uncaring enough to take this

service out of one region of the Province, move it to a tarmac in another region

of the Province and expect that you are going to solve a problem. Well, you are

not going to solve a problem. There will continue to be gaps in the service

unless you address them appropriately. Now it is going to be on your

government's shoulders, Mr. Speaker, and on your shoulders as a minister when

something happens.

Why would you want to take that on, Minister, when you could have fixed the

problem appropriately? We are asking you today to do just that. After all, your

government has made lots of mistakes. We have heard about a lot of the mistakes

that you have made. If I only had more than a minute left, Mr. Speaker, I could

outline some of them.

I am asking you and I am pleading with you on behalf of the people of this

Province, the people in Labrador who need this air ambulance, the people on the

Northern Peninsula and Western Newfoundland who need an air ambulance, to do the

right thing, Minister do the right thing. Show compassion and care for the

people of this Province. Do not let another person die as a result of the

decision that you have just made. Improve the service, put a third air ambulance

in this Province, staff it appropriately and ensure that people's lives are

saved, not lost. We beg you to do that, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health

and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this decision was made with due consideration, it was made

having regard to the impact on people's lives, but what it was made was based on

the interests of the people of this Province not one particular area.

Mr. Speaker, why did we move the way we did with basically I will look at

the chronology of events. Before she gets ready to leave, I did not hear the

member opposite refer to her 3,000-name petition today, which started this whole

thing. She got what she wanted and now she is complaining. We put the air

ambulance in

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to give me leave, I would be

happy to talk about the 3,000-name petition that I presented in the House of

Assembly before I go to my next meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. minister.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will come to that in a second.

You cannot suck and blow at the same time, and that is what is going on here,

Mr. Speaker. That is what is going on. On the one hand, the Leader of the

Opposition is saying: Well, do not move it to Labrador. On the other hand she is

saying: Leave it in St. Anthony. Well, what is it?

The evidence that we have before us the evidence is quite obvious here. We

are basing it on the evidence. We are looking at the situation of the incidents

in Labrador. To put a human face on this, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the

way that this has played out.

Let's look at some of these incidents that took place in Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. Let's deal with the first one that takes place on July 15. We have a

twenty-six-year-old lady who was in premature labour, Mr. Speaker, and at 1:30

a.m. in Lab West there is a request for an air ambulance. She is in premature

labour. That air ambulance, Mr. Speaker, does not arrive the next day before the

baby dies. It is an eight hour delay, Mr. Speaker. I sat and I met with that

family. I met with them again last week. I met with them on November 27. I have

to tell you that that kind of situation is very emotional and has an effect on

the hardest of hearts.

Then, Mr. Speaker, on September 18 we have a situation where we have a

two-year-old who goes to the hospital on a Sunday morning. At approximately 7:30

a.m., the two-year-old goes to the emergency room, Mr. Speaker, and is taken to

see a nurse. At approximately 1:00 o'clock that day, the medevac is called. The

next day, at 1:00 o'clock, the young child leaves on the medevac. What we have,

Mr. Speaker, is a twenty-four hour delay. This young man, Mr. Speaker, from

Happy Valley-Goose Bay had a very serious condition which led to a perforated

bowel, and then there had to be a four inch

section of the bowel removed.

Mr. Speaker, this is September 18. So what we have are two situations prior

to November what we have is as situation where I become Minister of Health on

October 9, I think it is, by November 27 we are meeting with individuals in both

Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lab West, and I am talking to these parents. I am

talking to the lady whose son had been waiting for that medevac.

Mr. Speaker, again, the emotional impact and the personal impact of that is

significant. So, for the Leader of the Opposition to say that it is hateful that

we have impacted upon the lives of individuals by not considering the impact, I

think that is just totally atrocious, and really speaks volumes to the way that

they are trying to politicize this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We made a decision based on the best interests of the people

of this Province.

If you look - I come back then to November 27 - on December 14 I committed to

doing a review of the air ambulance situation. The petition then, presented on

December 15 to the House, specifically refers to the fact that there is a

medevac service required in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we take that petition, I

remember it clearly, asking the Leader of the Opposition: We have two planes, do

you want us to move one plane to Labrador? Is that what you are saying here? Mr.

Speaker, November 27, the communities in Labrador West wanted the air ambulance

service. The Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay argued for the air ambulance

service, and we had the air ambulance service situated in St. Anthony. What we

have, Mr. Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition got what she wanted at

the end of the day, that there is an air ambulance service in Labrador right

now.

Mr. Speaker, based on a 3,000-name petition asking to have this air ambulance

relocated to Labrador, we looked at that and a consultant was commissioned. The

consultant's report, Mr. Speaker, looked at numbers. For the Leader of the

Opposition to say that we are politicizing this, we have tried to remove the

politics out of it. We cannot make up the numbers, Mr. Speaker. The numbers are

what they are and the numbers indicated that there were twice as many people,

twice as many flights out of Labrador as there were out of St. Anthony.

We also looked at the situation, Mr. Speaker, that the population of Labrador

was twice that of the Northern Peninsula region - at least twice that. Mr.

Speaker, what we looked at, what was looked at, we have a more central location

and that is why Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP raised the issue today, and the

people in Lab West spoke loudly last week; they want air ambulance in their

town. So, as a government, we have to make difficult decisions, but for anyone

to allege that these decisions are made in a cavalier way or without concern for

the residents of our Province, I really think it is very unfair and it is

something that I find truly offensive.

What we looked at is how we can best serve the majority of the residents of

this Province, Mr. Speaker. The numbers are the numbers. Now, what happens then

is the central location. So we have the population. Mr. Drodge, the consultant,

looks a number of different recommendations; there were eight recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, from day one after the release of his report we had the members

of the Opposition criticizing his report and saying his report is substandard,

it does not address the issues; but, Mr. Speaker, the Lab-Grenfell employees

subsequently prepared a report and those Lab-Grenfell employees, in preparing

that report - go read it - they agree with Recommendations 2 to 7. What they

don't agree with is the placement of the plane.

So, in the Budget this year we announced significant enhancements to the air

ambulance service. We announced a new $8 million plane. We announced a second

medical flight services team. So the plane will now be located in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, where it will be centrally located.

Now, let's look at a couple of the other issues that arise in Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. We have the heavy industrialization of the Labrador region. We have the

Vale Inco mines. We have the mines in Western Labrador. We have the potential

development of the Lower Churchill and, very significantly, we have Aboriginal

communities that need to be served.

What will happen now is that there will be access for the residents of the

North Coast of Labrador to have the benefit of a medical flight services team to

travel on the Twin Otter with them. So, their service is enhanced, Mr. Speaker.

We are now much closer to the Lab West region and, as I indicated last week, I

had discussions with the doctors about how we can improve the Lab West delivery

of services.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Lab-Grenfell employees agreed with the recommendations.

They elaborated on some of them, but they agreed on the recommendations; but the

thing they could not change, Mr. Speaker, could not challenge, is the numbers.

So, when we commissioned this report it was based on: Where is the best place

for this plane in terms of: we need two air ambulances - what the experts tell

us - in combination with charters, a Twin Otter in Labrador and the use of

charter planes, that will suffice for this Province; we do not need a third air

ambulance.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi today asking for a

third air ambulance for Lab West. We have Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we have St.

Anthony. We have to make do with the limited resources we have. St. Anthony does

have - it has been raised by the Member for The Straits - they have a modern

hospital. It is not like they are left there without facilities. What we are

looking at is the plane being put in a situation where it serves the most

people.

Mr. Speaker, then we look at the issue of the service to the North Coast of

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals argue that what would happen is

that the rest of the Province, the service would be diminished. In a letter to

the Leader of the Opposition, and to the MHA, on April 20, I outlined the

fallacy behind that proposition.

We simply look - again, Mr. Speaker, statistics do not lie. The numbers are

the numbers. I outlined, as I have outlined in this hon. House, that in 2009

approximately 61 per cent of the total number of air ambulance pickups on the

Island portion of the Province outside of St. Anthony were done by the St.

John's plane and 13 per cent serviced by a charter aircraft. So, 74 per cent of

all flights, where the majority of the flights are originating on the Island

portion of the Province, are picked up by a St. John's aircraft or charter.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we broke it down further into Deer Lake, where it goes as

high as 78 per cent. In Stephenville, being picked up by St. John's or by the

charter - in Stephenville, again, it was up as high as 76 per cent, and in

Gander we are up to 83 per cent. This whole argument, this fearmongering that

the service to the rest of the Province will be diminished, is simply incorrect.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the significance of this decision on people's

lives.

Mr. Speaker, the process gets moved along further when, on March 18, we have

the incident in Lab West. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I met with that

family last week. As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi rightly points out,

there are a lot of what-ifs. Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the air ambulance

did not respond properly again. These are three incidents in Labrador. These are

not based on what might happen in the future, Mr. Speaker. This is a decision

based on incidents that have occurred.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we were here taking a year to conduct the review, they

would be saying to us: What is taking so long? Why don't you do it faster? Mr.

Speaker, the issue is not that complicated in terms of the central location of

the plane; that is Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, all areas of this

Province are now within sixty minutes of an air ambulance; something that did

not occur while the plane was stationed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because Lab

West is outside of that sixty-minute area.

So, here we are, a location where we are having incidents, and they are

outside of that sixty-minute location, Mr. Speaker. As a government, we have to

make tough decisions. It is easy to be in Opposition and to criticize. What we

are trying to do is to make decisions and to make the decisions as best we can.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look then further at the recommendations of Mr.

Drodge the Liberals were asking that there be a review. Well, the review, Mr.

Speaker the Leader of the Opposition said today, there is no problem with the

numbers; they are not questioning the numbers. Well, that being the case, we do

not need a review now to determine how the recommendations are going to be

implemented.

Two days ago, I met with Dr. Doug Baggs, who is the provincial director of

the air ambulance system, and Corey Banks, who is the paramedic in charge of the

air ambulance system. I have asked them, Mr. Speaker, to come back within

fourteen days with the recommendations as to the implementation of the

recommendations from numbers 2 to 7 of Mr. Drodge's report. They do not need to

be reviewed. It is: How do we implement them now? How do we improve dispatch?

How do we integrate the system? How can we assure that the people of Lab West -

as I indicated to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, if we have to use

Quebecair to charter in obstetrical emergencies, as asked by the doctors up

there, we will do that. So, how do we improve the system to provide the services

necessary? We only need two planes. That is what they tell me, Mr. Speaker. The

other thing that the Opposition fails to recognize is that if there was a third

plane, the recommendation of Mr. Drodge is that it be in Deer Lake.

So, how can we improve the system? Within fourteen days we will have certain

recommendations. As I indicated in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

director and the chief paramedic support the decision to move the airplane to

Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

How much consultation is needed, Mr. Speaker? That is the question. There

were meetings with the mayors. The issue arose in this House; I indicated there

was a review. The Lab-Grenfell employees were aware that the review was ongoing.

The MHA was aware the review was ongoing. So, there were discussions that took

place in all three areas, but what we heard, Mr. Speaker and this is a point

when you get to the practical effect of consultations what we heard is all

three communities saying: We should have the air ambulance.

So what we looked at, Mr. Speaker, is, how can we best protect the interests

of the people of this Province? What we are doing by the moving of this plane,

along with the significant enhancements we have made in the air ambulance

service, in conjunction with improvements and the following of the

recommendations of the Drodge report, will result in improved air ambulance

service. It does not mean that the people of St. Anthony are not going to have

access to air ambulance service. They certainly will, like all residents of the

Province, but the people of Deer Lake, the people of Gander, and the people of

Grand Falls have never had an air ambulance there.

What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is trying to address the situations that

have arisen. We tried to remove the politics by making a decision based on a

consultant's report where he looked at numbers and was asked to determine: where

is the proper location? He determined Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, and

we followed that recommendation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest you need to suck and blow to get through that one as well, as

the minister said to the Leader of the Opposition as she was leaving there a few

moments ago.

This move of the air ambulance is just so disconcerting, as we have said in

reports and so on, and the evidence that is presented, or the reason that is

presented, the research that is presented is just missing to such a degree that

it becomes more difficult to even speak to it, Mr. Speaker, to be honest. The

fundamental question that is missing here is - we are talking about the lives of

people in Labrador and I am totally sympathetic towards what has happened. It is

very unfortunate, and I would suggest it is very unfortunate were it to happen

anywhere. Yet, it is almost as though we are willing to see what happens on the

Northern Peninsula, we are willing to see what happens in Southern Labrador so

that we can fix some of the gaps that have been obviously very much confirmed as

being there. That is very concerning for me today, that we are willing to place

a bet or put other people's lives at risk so that we can fix one problem.

Undoubtedly, the problem has to move. The problem has to move somewhere. If we

do not add more resources to the system, if we can anticipate the same number of

response calls next year as we did last year, then we can assume there are going

to be the same delays.

To suggest that the air ambulance is delayed for twenty hours responding to a

call, then that is a very unfortunate situation, but is that delay because it is

in St. Anthony? I would suggest no. That would make no sense at all, any more

than because it is in St. John's or it is in Deer Lake or it is up in Port Hope

Simpson for that matter. There are other issues at task here that would have

caused those delays. So by relocating the aircraft, certainly goodness we are

not going to suggest that we are going to correct the problem.

The minister talks about the petition that was presented in the House in

November or December. If you go back to the briefing notes that were available

to the department back in September, it recognizes some of the issues that were

there in the air ambulance service at that time. One of the things that it

recognized at that time is that there is a staffing challenge in Labrador that

contributes to the air ambulance problem. That is in their notes. So we are

assuming then that this staffing problem in Labrador, I suppose it will go away

once we move the air ambulance. Is that right? I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that

is the way it will be.

The notes say that the result of this staffing problem is that the planes fly

extra hours unnecessarily, simply because there are no staff available and they

have to be picked from other parts of the Province, I would suppose, and so on.

So, it is interesting to see that was out there six months ago, or seven months

or whatever the case might be, before the review was even concluded. Obviously,

it was ignored. There was a meeting that was supposed to have taken place a

couple of weeks after the notes were prepared and it was suggested in this

meeting that it would begin a review of the overall operation of the air

ambulance program. Then, when we look at the Drodge report that came out, we see

it is an actual review of the Northern part of the Province and of Labrador. So,

somewhere along the way the focus was changed from being an overall review to a

partial review and one that came down the way that it did come down.

One of the reasons for the necessity of the air ambulance in St. John's I

have heard, in debate in this House about whether or not that ambulance could

move out, obviously is the availability of services in our fair city and so on.

So, it is interesting when we consider that we are moving this air ambulance

service out of St. Anthony, from this great hospital that the minister just

mentioned that we have, and we are very proud of it and proud of our legacy. I

am not sure how much longer it will take for this government to strip it to

pieces but they are doing a fine job and they will continue to do it, I am sure.

We are going to take the air ambulance from that hospital and we are going to

locate it in Goose Bay.

Now, I do not have a conclusive list of the services that are available. I

can get it and I will bring it back probably, but I know that we have general

surgeons in St. Anthony, the most qualified or of the most qualified in this

country. They have been there for years and years. We have internal medicine, we

have gynecologists, we have orthopaedics, and we have a great ICU program. Yes,

it is a great hospital and we are quite proud of it. Then we have this new

building in Goose Bay, and I would suggest that 90 per cent of what I just

listed, including the ICU, is not available there.

Drodge concludes that one of the things that we should do is take this air

ambulance from this qualified centre in St. Anthony, move it into Goose Bay, and

from there we can better service the people of Labrador. I make note of some of

the comments that he made. In one of his notes he said something along the line

that if I can find it to just make sure that I am reading from the right paper

and so on, or referring to the right paper. He said, based on the analysis,

based on all of those numbers that we just heard again from the minister a

moment ago, 18 per cent of the patients who are transported to St. Anthony, they

live on the Southeast Coast of Labrador. The conclusion is that once the air

ambulance is in place in Goose Bay, where there is no ICU, where there is no

general surgery, where there are no so many other things that are not in that

hospital but are in St. Anthony, but once we have made this move, that 18 per

cent which goes to St. Anthony now and is able to avail of those services, guess

what we will do with them? We will put them in Goose Bay where there are no

services. Now that is a conclusion. That is one of the recommendations.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs, on a point of

order.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Member for The Straits & White

Bay making some absolutely - he has no idea what he is talking about. He has

absolutely no idea what he is talking about. The statements that member is

making in this House of Assembly today is outrageous. We have one of the best

hospitals, and it is a teaching hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I remind the

hon. member. We have an excellent ICU unit there, I say to the hon. member, and

I will not sit here and listen to you downgrade the men and the women, the

doctors and the nurses who work in that hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess at least we let him get it off his chest. Hopefully he feels a little

better about that, I suppose.

Again, the recommendation is that these people can be easily transported into

Goose Bay and receive the same service that they are receiving in St. Anthony.

That is the assumption. We can go away and we can conclude fairly easily, I

would suggest to the minister, the difference in services so that we do not have

to debate it back and forth across the House. Then we can know exactly what that

18 per cent of the people who were moved in the last four years will get going

to Goose Bay compared to what they received going to St. Anthony. That should be

a relatively easy thing to do.

Now, this great report that the minister has stood on throughout these past

three or four weeks of debate on this decision as well, it also takes us to

another piece of interesting change that we are going to experience in our air

ambulance service in Newfoundland. When the air ambulance is located in Goose

Bay, and St. Anthony is no more, then here is what the conclusion is. We have a

Twin Otter that runs the South Coast, and it would be able to transport a

patient to St. Anthony. Well, at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, in January, thirty

below, this Twin Otter leaves from some point on the Labrador Coast and heads to

St. Anthony. What we can also do, simultaneously, is we can have the King Air in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay dispatched to St. Anthony. When that gets to St. Anthony,

the Twin Otter, we will do the exchange from the Twin Otter to the King Air, and

we will take that patient on to St. John's. That is interesting; I do not know

how that is going to unfold. That should be a great experience for this patient

who needed the air medevac at 2:00 o'clock in the morning.

Assuming that we are not going to keep the hangar in St. Anthony and pay the

expense of having an empty building that is resourced and is heated and so on,

assuming that we are not going to keep that there as a part of the

Labrador-Grenfell assets if you will or the air ambulance program, my question

is: Where is this transfer going to take place? There is no other building; it

is the only building at the airport.

We are going to pull a Twin Otter in alongside of a King Air at 2:00 o'clock

in the morning in January with a great northeast wind blowing and it is thirty

below and we are going to make a transfer. Now come on, Mr. Speaker

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) go straight to St. John's.

MR. DEAN: That is not what this report says. We are not going to St.

John's according to the recommendations. We are going to St. Anthony. We are

going to transfer out there that percentage of the population. I want to suggest

to you that I do not want my family member and I do not want myself to be

involved in that transfer, because I can only imagine how smoothly and how great

that would be. It would be just such a terrible thing.

We talk about sixty minutes. I know there is a program called 60 Minutes, but

also we have a sixty-minute response time that is going to be all throughout the

Province. Our aircraft is in Goose Bay again, centrally located, serving the

Province well and we have a request for a neonatal air emergency. Now there is

one team and it is in St. John's - isn't it, Minister? The aircraft leaves Goose

Bay, flies to St. John's to pick up the neonatal team and back to Goose Bay or

wherever the case is to do that transfer. Now that is not a sixty-minute

response time, I want to assure you.

Again, improving, improving and improving our air ambulance program in the

Province. Was it considered? No, it was not. Why wasn't it considered? It was

not known, I would suggest. It was not known to be a factor by this Mr. Drodge

who did this ultimate consultation. Yet, we are willing to say that by moving

this aircraft from this location in St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay is

going to be a better service. Mr. Speaker, in this case it cannot be a better

service. In this case it is an additional two hours flying time to get that

neonatal team from St. John's to accompany to that particular incident. There is

so much of that in this report. There is so much lacking in this report that it

is just amazing.

The minister referenced again the report that came in from the

Labrador-Grenfell air operations team, and yes, they did agree with many of the

recommendations of the report because, quite frankly, I agree most of the

recommendations are fine. It is the ones that really interfere with the

presentation and the offering of an air ambulance program in the Province is

what we all have concerns about. When we look at taking this service and

disenfranchising a great part of the Province and so on, then I would suggest

that is the wrong thing to do.

We have an aircraft - probably I should stand and offer a solution; he

probably will not listen to it anyway, but I will offer it. We have a third

aircraft - we have a fourth aircraft, obviously, including the one in Churchill

Falls, but we already have a third aircraft. We are replacing the one in St.

John's that is getting older. We all know that it is down more than it is up, so

to speak, in terms of being available. Why can we not take that aircraft that we

will just, I would assume, get rid of, sell or whatever the case would be, take

out of service - why is it not possible that we can take that aircraft that is

still in reasonable condition, place it in Goose Bay and have it as a backup to

the two air ambulance planes that are on the Island and also, obviously, able to

service the people of Labrador as they deserve to be serviced? Have we looked at

that? No. Are we willing to look at that? No, because the decision is made. Even

though the report is flawed, even though it is short on information, it is like

let's just get on with this thing and get it over with is the attitude. I think

that is very unfortunate.

I would suggest - and I do not want to play with traumatic events. I have

been down those roads, as all of us have unfortunately, we are all touched by

those things as we get older. When this move is made, I would hope that we

cannot look back down the road and find examples of where things have happened

on the Northern Peninsula simply because there was not an air ambulance service

available. I want to suggest to you, we will. We have offered evidence of cases

where if the air ambulance service was not located in St. Anthony that lives

would have been lost. We have talked about the climatic conditions of the

Northern Peninsula that are very unique. The offerings of the airport itself

that is different from the rest of the Province. All of these things seem to

bear no weight. I am not sure if they touch the conscience of any government

member. I am sure they do, but unfortunately, they do not seem to touch the

conscience of those who make decisions.

Again today, we have presented this private member's motion as a means of

being able to debate this, of being able to talk about it again and to hopefully

- again, I believe in everyone, I believe there is good in all people and if we

make a wrong decision, at some point, we can recognize we have done it and we

can correct it in the best interest of all of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the

Minister of Health and Community Services, the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a pleasure to stand today in the House and to speak to this private

member's motion related to air ambulance, and certainly, on a bigger note, in

terms of the investment, in terms of what has been done, in terms of the

Province, in terms of air ambulance services, and certainly in health care in

general just across the Province in terms of the investment made by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, this issue of the air ambulance, certainly from our government's

perspective, is a critical component of the overall health care system. Medevec

services for patients, whether that is due to lack of road ambulance, whether it

is due to a reason for a commercial flight that is unsuitable at some point in

time, due to a particular condition of a patient or a loved one, for the

demographics or transportation or geographic location, a whole number of

reasons, Mr. Speaker, in terms of services that are needed, certainly on the

Island and in Labrador for such a service.

We all know, we are all touched, as the hon. member just mentioned earlier in

terms of specific issues, in terms of our lives, in terms of health care and

loved ones, and accessing health care and making sure we can access it to the

best of our ability.

As the government, obviously, in this vast Province, the Island and in

Labrador, we do what we can in terms of meeting those needs. There are a lot of

needs. There are fiscal requirements in terms of how we meet those needs and we

do the best we can. We certainly analyze, review and modify what we have done,

often change and update to make sure that we are making the best utilization of

services that we have so we can meet those needs and make sure we can do what we

need to do. That is so important, Mr. Speaker.

We know through this process - I know the minister, over the last number of

months, had many consultations. There were issues over the last number of months

in Labrador, in July, in terms of incidents that happened, very personal

incidents to people. That certainly made government stop and take a look and see

what do we need to do here. Can we do things better? How are we doing it? Do we

review our policies and procedures in this regard? Certainly, that was done and

moved forward.

It is also important, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention, in terms of this Budget

2010, in terms of an investment made in terms of the air ambulance overall, in

terms of meeting our needs, an investment of $8.7 million in this Budget to look

at the change and enhance what we are doing, and certainly in terms of air

ambulance, things like replacing the existing aircraft here in St. John's, which

I know from speaking to people who are involved with that, it was much needed,

so stepping up and doing that. Certainly, adding a second medical flight team to

the other ambulance in the Province is much needed as well. So that expertise

and those professionals who are on that flight can provide that service, which

is so important that when people need the medevac plane and so forth, that those

services are available and we can give them the best possible service we can.

As we know from what has happened, we have a comprehensive study that has

taken place. An outside consultant was hired, as the minister mentioned, to take

a non-biased, objective look at all of this in terms of: What was the best

direction to be taken to deal with the issues that arose and how do we ensure

with the services that we are providing? In addition to the $8.7 million

investment we are making this year in the Budget, how do we ensure that we are

using that as best we can to make sure we are covering all of the Island and

Labrador in terms of medevac services? That was the road we took, Mr. Speaker,

in terms of getting there and doing that. That is what needed to be done.

In that report there was a list of recommendations, and there was a

recommendation of resources related to ambulance services. The recommendation

was that the aircraft be moved from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This

was based on statistical data in terms of patterns of flights, what the pattern

has been in the past number of years in terms of flight coming, where they were

in need of the service and where would it best service the overall population.

Those recommendations were made in this report. As I said, the recommendation

was that it would be moved. As well, through that move it was recommended that

it be centrally located and it serve the populations of Lab City, Wabush, Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Churchill Falls, the South Coast of Labrador, the North Coast

of Labrador, and the St. Anthony-Port au Choix region, Mr. Speaker, to make sure

that and it was not done ad hoc. It was done through a process where an

assessment was done. It was done unbiased, in terms of looking objectively at

what was being done.

It is so important that you look at the statistical information, too, Mr.

Speaker. As I said, in terms of looking at usage and how it can be best used in

the future as we move forward. I said we looked at statistical flights. I

understand the consultant did, from 2006 to 2009. That indicated there were

twice as many patient pickups from Labrador as compared to St. Anthony. Looking

at that that was factored into the whole decision, Mr. Speaker.

It is all about, too, Mr. Speaker, in terms of this service, an air ambulance

program, that it be centralized; that it access as many regions and groups as it

possibly can in a timely and efficient manner. The response times are very

important, related to Labrador and Northern Newfoundland, and certainly all over

the Island, in how air ambulance transfers are required, and they can be done

with what we have available to us. So it is important that all residents of the

Province get a timely response to air ambulance. That is what this review and

where we are today is all about, Mr. Speaker.

As was mentioned earlier too in the debate by the Minister of Health and

Community Services, when he talked about communities in the Province are now

within a sixty-minute flight time of an air ambulance, which was not the case

prior, Mr. Speaker, in terms of being based in St. Anthony. Certainly, Labrador

West was outside of the sixty-minute response time prior to that. So that is

important as well. We are looking at that response time and looking at ensuring

that we can provide the best delivery of this service that we possibly can.

I just wanted to touch on, too, Mr. Speaker - I spoke earlier when I talked

about investments in this particular service, Mr. Speaker, in terms of flights.

In prior years as well, this government has invested in this medevac, seen it as

important for the Island in what we are investing. I just wanted to mention, if

we go back and look at 2006, we announced the implementation of the medical

flight specialist program, which allows us to have dedicated, highly-trained

personnel to staff the air ambulance service in St. John's. Important again,

that we are looking at enhancing, modifying, building the service that is so

important. A significant investment again, in 2008, with the purchase of a new

King Air 350, which was put into service in December, 2008; once again,

enhancing the service on a province-wide basis.

Again, I mentioned in this Budget 2010, we are looking at an $8 million

investment to replace the second aircraft in our air ambulance program, and that

is stationed in St. John's, Mr. Speaker. Also in Budget 2010, to implement a

second flight specialist team is approximately $700,000. It, again, demonstrates

the commitment to the program in making sure we are looking at it objectively,

to making sure we are enhancing the program and doing what we need to do for the

residents of the Province.

As I mentioned before, the minister reacted and responded to a number of

incidents that happened over the year in terms of looking at this and reviewing

it and seeing where we need to go and what enhancements we need to do. That

resulted in a consultant's report being done, recommendations and conclusions

being drawn, and the minister and government acting on those to make sure - and

complementing what we are doing and the investments we are making in the Budget

this year, 2010-2011, Mr. Speaker.

Out of that consultant's report there were recommendations, and it is said

they were objective in what was needed to improve ambulance service in Northern

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. There was some statistical information

used, and I think that is important to highlight here. We went back and looked

at statistical data in terms of the number of flights, where were the transfers

coming from? In terms of looking at: With two aircraft, how can we best service

the whole Island and Labrador, and where do we place those aircrafts? Response

time is very important. As I say, it was not done matter-of-factly it was done

through a consultant's report. They identified the data. They identified where

best it was that these would be, and based on that it was acted. Government

stepped up and is continuing to invest in the air ambulance service. As I said,

with the update of the second plane, a new crew - and as well, we look forward

in the years to come, who knows, but we are continuing to do what we need to do

within our means.

Mr. Speaker, all of us is touched by different medical, whatever it is, in

terms of families and friends. We all represent districts, obviously, of people,

and we can highlight various issues in our districts. Health care; the Province

has invested tremendously in health. There are always issues that come up and we

advocate for in terms of improvements. Those are things that we move forward on,

but we have to operate in a context of what we have and how we can best deliver

that service. That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and as government is

moving forward. As I said, it was about making sure we have wait times that are

limited in terms of access to the medevac flights right across the Island and in

Labrador. It is so important that we can offer that to the residents of the

Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in terms of health care, in terms of all of us

understanding and knowing that it is a priority for this government and what we

are doing in the Province. This is just one component of it. Others have a right

to advocate and express their opinions and thoughts; that is where we get sound

public policy. That is part of this whole process and part of debate we had

prior to this, and debate we are having today in terms of the private member's

motion, in terms of what people people from the area, people from St. Anthony,

people from Labrador, people from the West Coast, people from all over the

Island, in terms of their needs and their expectations and what they believe the

service could be, and rightfully so. They certainly have the right to express

their opinions and their ideas in terms of what needs to be done. That is part

of it, Mr. Speaker, no doubt. Then at the end, as a government, you have to

render decisions, you have to look at the data, look at the reviews that are

done and how best can we meet the needs and services that are out there in

Labrador, on the Island, to the best of our ability, and that is what this is

about, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that will conclude, really, my remarks on this. I certainly

thank the member for putting forward the private member's motion; it is

certainly an issue worth debating. Anything with health care, whatever it is, is

certainly worth discussions and provokes good public policy. That is what it is

all about and that is why the hon. members are here in the House.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Speaker recognizes the next speaker, I would like

to welcome to the House of Assembly a group from St. Bonaventure's.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I am very pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to the private member's

motion that is on the floor of the House today. I would like to read what the

resolution is that I am speaking to: BE IT REOLVED that this House of Assembly

calls on the provincial government to place on hold the current decision to move

the air ambulance out of St. Anthony until a complete and comprehensive review

takes place that includes all regions and aspects of the air ambulance service.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in the context of what we are experiencing in the

Province right now with regard to the air ambulance service and the way in which

it is coming about that this resolution is definitely called for, and I am

really happy to support this resolution.

I have to say that I am very concerned about the way in which the government

made its decision to move the air ambulance from St. Anthony to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. At the time that the government decided to put a study in

place, a study that was done by WJD Consulting, they did it as an immediate

reaction to a third very serious fatality in Labrador West. A third fatality, a

third death caused by the air ambulance not arriving in time. We will never know

if any of those deaths, if either of them could have been averted if the air

ambulance had arrived in time, but the reality for the families is that they

will never know because the air ambulances did not arrive in time and people

died. The final one, of course, that caused the government to finally realize it

had to do something was the death related to the industrial accident of the

worker of IOC in Labrador West, Mr. Perry.

What disturbs me is that the government, in doing the knee-jerk decision

making, did not take a long term approach to looking at the review that needed

to be done. When we read the terms of reference of the study that was put in

place, it is a narrow Term of Reference and says, very specifically, that the

report that comes out from the study would review the current statistics

relative to the air ambulance patients' transports with a focus on the

Labrador-Grenfell area, consider the appropriateness of the location of the

current fixed-wing King Air aircraft in St. Anthony versus the alternate

locations of Labrador City or Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The terms of reference

very specifically told the consultant who was doing the study that what you are

to look at is not how many ambulances we need in the Province, but whether or

not the one in St. Anthony should be moved to Labrador City or Happy

Valley-Goose Bay.

We have, right off from the very top, a flawed report because the basis of

the report, the terms of reference of the report, are extremely narrow and do

not give the necessary breaths for the person to really explore what the

situation is.

The other thing is, this report was prepared over a very short period of time

and did not because of the fact that the terms of reference narrowed the study

down so much take into consideration all of the factors of what it means to

travel by air in Newfoundland and Labrador, and what that means for an air

ambulance. It does not matter whether you are travelling air ambulance,

travelling Dash 8 or what you are travelling; there are many, many factors that

affect us in travelling by air in Newfoundland and Labrador, naturally, the

weather being one of the major factors.

Right from the beginning, the whole process was flawed. I am disturbed by the

game playing that the government continues, and that the Minister of Health and

Community Services continues to use with regard to manipulating language and

continually to say, whether it is talking about something that I have said or

that the Official Opposition has said, implying that we got what we wanted, I

got what I wanted or the Leader of the Official Opposition got what she wanted.

My position has always been, and will continue to be, that I wanted to explore a

third air ambulance. What we need is what is being called for in this

resolution. We need a full study, a complete and comprehensive review that

includes all regions and aspects of the air ambulance service.

One thing, for example, just to look at the weather conditions on the

northern tip of the Northern Peninsula especially in winter, but not only in

winter, we know that there are some really bad weather conditions there. We also

know that with air travel, having something on the ground, having an aircraft on

the ground is much better in bad weather, is much better than having an aircraft

outside of a community. If there is bad weather in St. Anthony and somebody

needs to be airlifted from St. Anthony, I am willing to bet that there is a

better chance of them being airlifted if the aircraft is already in St. Anthony

if there is bad weather, than if the bad weather is happening and an aircraft

has to try to land in St. Anthony to get them.

What kinds of studies were done? Did the studies look at the difference

between the weather conditions in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for example, and St.

Anthony with regard to being able to get planes off the ground? There are so

many factors, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think could possibly have been looked

at by this report. As I read the report, I certainly saw that they were not

looked at because, one, of the timeframe; and two, because of the narrowness of

the terms of reference that were given to the consultant.

When one just even takes the document that was prepared by the staff of the

air ambulance department based in St. Anthony who operate the King Air 350

currently, and if we read their response to the WJD Consulting report, you

already see how much more needs to be explored, how much more needs to be looked

at than was looked at.

It is very disturbing for me, as a member of this House, to see how the

government is treating this issue. They keep talking money. Mr. Speaker, right

now we are going through the Estimates meetings. In those Estimates we are

meeting with all the departments of government, looking at their budgets and

looking at how they spent last year and what they want to spend this year. In

those Estimates, Mr. Speaker, anybody who looks at them will find millions and

millions and millions of dollars of unspent money in 2009-2010 either because a

project did not get off the ground, or something for some reason had to be put

on hold, or because an expense was not as much as they thought it was going to

be. When you put all of the departments together, there are millions of dollars

- much more than $8 million. Millions and millions of dollars of unspent money

and that happens every year and we know that. We know that it happens every

year. Sometimes money just gets carried along for three or four years. There was

an item this morning in the Estimates meeting I was at that we were the third

year into money being in the Budget and being unspent in that department.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the fiscal reality of the Province and when I

look at that fiscal reality, that so much money can be carried from year to year

in the Budget, being earmarked and yet not spent, I have to really ask why this

government thinks we can sit here and take seriously what they are saying with

regard to not being able to afford another $8 million for a third aircraft to

take care of medevac here in this Province, if it were determined that we should

have a third medevac, if a full comprehensive review determined that.

This is really something that boggles my mind, Mr. Speaker. When I look, not

just at the millions and millions and millions of unspent dollars every year in

the Budget, when I look at something like the fact that we now know that $15

million that was spent three Budgets ago in the fibre optic cable, we are now

told, is wasted money. It is wasted money because the plans for that fibre optic

cable are not going to come through. So we have $15 million that was wasted,

just like that, nothing to it.

We know that we have the government admitting - and I am glad they are

admitting it - an inadvertent mistake, an inadvertent expropriation with regard

to AbitibiBowater, and we do not know yet what the rest of the legal costs

around that are going to be. I am not talking about cleanup; I am talking about

legal costs. We have no idea what the rest of the legal costs around that might

be. That is a question I have asked and there is no answer to that at this

moment.

Yet when it comes to something, $8 million that could save the lives of

people in Labrador, when we come to looking at that reality, that we can save

the lives of people with a third aircraft, not trying to make it two aircrafts,

all of a sudden it is too much money and that really bothers me, Mr. Speaker. It

seems to me that when we look at the geography of the Province, the geography of

the Island itself, and the geography of Labrador itself, I really do have a

feeling that if a full comprehensive review were done, if every aspect of the

reality were really looked at seriously, not just how many people, not just how

many runs, but all of the other aspects of what it takes to run air ambulances

in this Province, and when we take into consideration that Labrador West is such

a highly industrialized area with such dangerous work being done there in the

mining industry, that if all of that gets factored in, I would be really

surprised, Mr. Speaker, if a consultant would not say that a third plane is

needed in Labrador, and two planes are needed on the Island. I would not be

surprised at all. This is what we are asking for, Mr. Speaker. It is why I am

supporting this private member's resolution brought forth by my colleague here.

MS SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): There is a point of order being raised by the

hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am just listening to the comments by the

Leader of the NDP over there, and I am wondering what she means when she is

suggesting that this government should not have expropriated and taken back our

resources, taken back the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

She indicated that there were legal costs involved with that. Of course there

were legal costs; we anticipated there would be legal costs. I want to know what

it is she is suggesting. Is she suggesting that the people of Grand Falls and

everybody else should have been thrown to the wolves, that nothing should have

been done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just so people on the other side of the House, since they do not hear

clearly, understand what I said a minute ago, I will say it. I am talking about

future legal bills that may have to be paid because of the mistake that was

made. I voted for the expropriation, and I would do it again. I am talking about

the mistake, and I am talking about future legal bills. Just to make it clear

for the record, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: So if I can continue, Mr. Speaker, because now I have less

than two minutes left. I have to say that, as I have already said, we do not

need any more tragic deaths, and we do not need those deaths either in Labrador

or on the Island itself. I have a real concern that the study that we have done

has not given us the correct picture, because it has not looked at the whole

picture. I really do ask this government, and ask the minister, if the minister

really means what he has said several times in the House today already, if he

really means that he really does want to make sure that the kind of fatalities

that happen in Labrador West do not happen again, then I really ask the minister

to realize that we need a broader study done with regard to air ambulance in

this Province.

I will repeat again, I do not think that money is the issue. So I really have

to ask him to come up with what really is the issue here, because it is not

money. We have the money to do it. The money can be found. We find the money

when w