April 14,

2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVI No. 16

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome long time, former Mayor of Port Union

and the present Town Manager of Trinity Bay North, Mr. Darryl Johnson.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following private members' statements are welcomed: the

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

for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay

of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today during

Volunteer Week and recognize the Virginia Park Community Centre Volunteer of the

Year, Mr. Jim Caul.

On Monday evening, Mr. Speaker, I had the enjoyment of attending the annual

Virginia Park Community Centre volunteer celebrations and the volunteer of the

year award. Mr. Jim Caul is an individual who has dedicated his time

specifically to one of the Virginia Park Community Centre programs, youth

softball.

In 2010, the community centre had the biggest turnout in its history of keen

young girls to try out for the softball team. For the first time, the Virginia

Park Community Centre had to have two girls' softball teams. Over the years, Jim

Caul has taught many children to play and enjoy softball and has also helped to

lead their teams to victory.

In 2010, Jim coached the Virginia Park 2 girls' team through three

tournaments and in each tournament they placed first. The second team, Virginia

Park 1, placed second in the same three tournaments. This is such a huge

commitment for the coaches and all players.

Mr. Caul inspires everyone in the community with his dedication and drive,

and the Virginia Park Community Centre wanted to say thank you to him for all

his hard work and time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Jim Caul on

his volunteer of the year award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Captain Mark

Sheppard with the Canadian Forces, who was raised in Cormack.

Mr. Speaker, following graduation from Elwood High School, he completed his

Bachelor of Science Degree at St. Francis Xavier University. He joined the

Canadian Forces in 2003 and in 2005, he became a member of the Royal Canadian

Regiment. While a Platoon Commander, Captain Sheppard completed an operational

tour of duty in Afghanistan. During his tour, he was cited for gallant and

distinguished service receiving a Mentioned In Dispatches from the Governor

General for his leadership in close combat with the enemy. Upon his return,

Captain Sheppard was awarded The Mons Box as the Top Platoon Commander in his

Battalion.

Mr. Speaker, in July 2008, Captain Sheppard was posted to Trenton, Ontario as

Officer in Charge of Military Parachuting, Helicopter Insertion and Mountain

Operations training. He is now employed as the Officer Commanding the Canadian

Forces Parachute Demonstration Team, The SkyHawks, who are celebrating their

fortieth anniversary season. This year he will travel across Canada and the

United States leading the SkyHawks, who are world renowned for their thrilling

parachute formations.

Mr. Speaker, he will perform with his team at over forty major events and air

shows for about 2 million spectators acting as an ambassador for Canada, the

Canadian Forces, and his home Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. His

hometown of Cormack will be announced at each show.

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

congratulating Captain Mark Sheppard on these outstanding achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

gentlemen, Pastor David Crane of Cox's Cove and Mr. Randy Janes of Gillams.

Mr. Speaker, up until May 14, 2008 these gentlemen never met each other, but

after the occurrences on this day, Pastor Crane regards Mr. Janes as a friend

for life. On this notable day, Pastor Crane was on his motorcycle making a

left-hand turn when he lost control of his bike after which he recalls very

little.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, Randy Janes caught a glimpse of the motorcycle

going off the road. He jumped on his quad and rushed to the scene. He found the

operator face down in the stream with his arms to his side, not moving and the

bike on top of him. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Janes got the good pastor's head above the

water and shortly after, Randy's buddy, Leroy George, assisted and removed the

bike off the driver. After hospitalization for a period of time, we are happy to

report Pastor Crane recovered fully from his injuries.

Mr. Speaker, recently Randy Janes was recognized by the Governor General of

Canada which read: Commendation is awarded to Randy Janes for

an act of great

merit and providing assistance to others in a selfless manner in Newfoundland

and Labrador on May 14, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize all people involved in

the rescue, and in particular to Randy Janes, as Pastor Crane states: Without

Randy's assistance life would have been completed and the work as pastoral

ministry would surely have ceased.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the North Atlantic Refining

Company in Come By Chance and their employees for working another 1 million

person hours with zero days lost to injury.

Mr. Speaker, North Atlantic Refining employees continue to demonstrate their

unwavering focus on the workplace safety. North Atlantic Refining management

contributes workplace safety to their employee's full responsibility for their

own safety and that of their co-workers, also to the Province being committed to

workplace safety.

North Atlantic employees have surpassed the million person hour mark three

times since 2004. In 2008, they had 1.8 million person hours worked with zero

days lost to injury, a remarkable accomplishment for the company and its

employees. Mr. Speaker, safety requires the full support of management and their

employees as well as the allocation of appropriate processes and resources to

safety programs and practices.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in saying congratulations to

everyone at North Atlantic Refining for their efforts in building a safe and

healthy work environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to deliver some

good news on the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. This is a

program that was created as part of our Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy, and

implemented in 2007 with an investment of $6.6 million in fishing industry

research and development. Including leveraged funds, the program has resulted in

$25 million invested in fishing-industry led R&D, and a total of 128 projects

have been funded since its creation.

In 2010, my department hired external consultants to conduct an evaluation of

the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to report that through client surveys, it was determined that there is a

very high level of approval for this program within the fishing industry.

Ninety-five per cent of those surveyed described it as being useful in

addressing important industry needs.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 85 per cent of the people surveyed stated that

they would not have proceeded with their projects without this program. Our

government believes this makes it a huge success. As well, my department

provided more than funding. My officials also provided expert advice on project

ideas, the preparation of proposals, and the development of new projects.

This program has been instrumental in fostering fishing industry research and

development in some key areas. These include: fishing industry safety, energy

efficiency, and seafood marketing and development. Projects such as these are

critical to ensuring that our fishing industry continues to be competitive in

the global marketplace. This research provides for effective and efficient fish

harvesting and processing, and the development of new products in ever-changing

global seafood markets.

The success of the program would not have been possible without the strong

partnerships that have been built with industry participants in the harvesting

and processing sectors, as well as academic organizations and research groups,

such as the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University, and the

Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. We look forward to working with them

again in the future.

Our government believes the program has been a huge success. My department

continues to work with the fishing industry to build a bright future for young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who wish to have a future in fisheries

research, seafood marketing and development, and the marine sciences.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, first of all, thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

Certainly, it is good to see money being invested in R&D. We realize it is

important to industry and understanding what the issues are. The opportunity

certainly is important.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there is no member in this House who is more

concerned about the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador than what I would be.

That is not to underestimate how concerned other members would be, but the

impact that it has in my district is tremendous.

We live in a day of uncertainty in this industry. I long for the day when I

can come into this House and see the Minister of Fisheries, whoever it might be

at the time, stand and really give a plan from this government. It has been

eight long years now that we have been waiting to see the direction that this

government is going to take the industry. We are still waiting.

There has been report after report. We have had the MOU, we have eighty

meetings that have been mentioned I believe is the number that went through in

that twenty-month period.

The industry has many problems: there are the shrimp cuts, there are cuts in

the crab quotas, there is processing, there are plant workers, there is aging in

the work force, all of these issues, and so on. Industry today, Mr. Speaker, is

looking for strong leadership. I have to say quite honestly and frankly they are

not getting it today. As important as research and development is, Mr. Speaker,

that is what we are for.

I would challenge this government and the Minister of Fisheries today to

really engage. The very foundation of our industry in terms of fishing is

undermined by the lack of direction. Mr. Speaker, that is fundamental today if

we are going to have a good industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

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

It is good to know that the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities

program has been successful and it has obviously has been. I note that, of

course, 85 per cent of people surveyed said they would not have proceeded with

their projects because researchers really do need money. It is really good that

this program is in place because without the money they cannot do the research.

Some of the projects I am impressed by. I am really glad to see projects on

safety and energy efficiency. I think both of these are areas which we really

need to look at in the fishery.

I note the research on seafood marketing. With regard to the marketing, what

we really need is what has been recommended by the MOU and the minister's own

consultants are saying: We have to have a seafood marketing board. I really hope

that the research that was done is going to lead to the minister realizing we

need that board and we are going to see in the near future information on a

board being put in place.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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, the Premier claims the cost of electricity in this Province is

going to increase by 4 per cent to 6 per cent annually because of the price of

crude. That would imply that electricity rates are going to rise twice or three

times as fast as they have in the last five years. However, Mr. Speaker, we know

that that was not the case when we saw oil prices in the Province go from $30 to

$150 a barrel and electricity rates in the Province, Mr. Speaker, went up on an

average of 2 per cent a year.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that your numbers just do not add up on this

deal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not have to rely on me or on

the Minister of Natural Resources or even on Nalcor in terms of prediction of

oil prices or predictions around the generation of electricity and how much that

is going to cost into the future, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years and this is easily verifiable by her, by

her colleagues, by anyone who is listening to us here today electricity costs

have risen by 38 per cent in the last ten years, Mr. Speaker. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, they are predicted to rise by 36 per cent over the next five to ten

years. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth, that is verifiable not only from us,

from Nalcor but from forecasting agencies here and around the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would prefer to trust the experts at the Bank of Canada and in one of the

bank's latest reports it says that both inflation and the consumer price index

will rise at a rate of 2 per cent a year for the foreseeable future. That is a

far cry from the 4 per cent to 6 per cent that you are projecting for energy

prices year over year for the next ten years.

I ask the Premier again to explain how energy prices are expected to increase

by 4 per cent to 6 per cent a year when they have not done so in the past, even

though we have seen tremendous volatility in oil prices.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have stated in this House before myself and the Premier

the percentages of increase that have occurred in the past. Mr. Speaker, I am

looking at some numbers, dollar figures, just to take it from percentages; $216,

if that was your bill in 2001, you are up to $279 today. That is 30 per cent

plus, Mr. Speaker. This is just an average that we are doing. I have requested

my own bill. I am going to look at my own bill and see what my own bill has

been. We know that the price of electricity has been increasing in the 35 per

cent, 36 per cent range over the last number of years. We also forecast that it

is going to continue to increase as we move towards 2017. Mr. Speaker, Muskrat

Falls is going to temper that increase, instead of 4 per cent to 6 per cent per

year, it will be less than 1 per cent. That is why we want to do Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might want to remind the minister that the $279 light bill that he is

referring to that people might be paying today, under your project and your

energy rates, will be $558 starting as soon as Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing

with a government that wants to develop a hydro project in this Province that

will benefit a private company in Nova Scotia, that will give cheap energy

prices to Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces, but will double the price of

energy for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and they are not able to justify

it with real numbers. Mr. Speaker, last year only 11 per cent of our energy came

from Holyrood.

I ask the Premier today: How can you justify to people in this Province the

need to develop a $4.5 billion project (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is very

selective in the information that she puts forward. We talked about this

yesterday in Question Period. She refers to the 11 per cent of electricity

generated out of Holyrood last year. She does not speak about the other years,

Mr. Speaker, when we have been as high as 35 per cent, 36 percent generated out

of Holyrood. It depends on a variety of factors.

If she is suggesting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we do

nothing about forecasted energy needs in this Province and hope that it rains

hard every year, Mr. Speaker, so that only 11 per cent needs to be generated out

of Holyrood and keep our fingers crossed that we do not get in trouble if we

need more than that, that is one heck of a plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has not seen trouble yet; wait until she sees the cost overruns

that are going to come in on this project where she has not even built in to the

price of the project that consumers today do not even know what the real price

of electricity is going to be. We are being modest when we say the rates are

going to double up.

Mr. Speaker, we know, last year, 11 per cent of the energy that we used in

this Province came from Holyrood, 15 per cent the year before. The dependency on

Holyrood is going down.

I ask you, Premier: Why can't you develop lower cost energy for the people of

this Province than trying to sell them the bill of goods that you have on the

table today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to talk about cost overruns, I am happy enough to

do that, because their deal under Grimes would have been financed by Hydro

Quebec, all of the power would have been sold to Quebec. The arrangement that

they had in place in case of overruns

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: and remember now, that the Grimes Lower Churchill

Project would have been constructed while the bottom was falling out of the

economy worldwide, and overruns were automatic and tremendous, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: What would have happened in the way that those

overruns would have been financed, at the end of the day, would have seen Hydro

Quebec owning all of the Lower Churchill, all of it; a deal worse than the Upper

Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is the expert on every other deal, but knows nothing about the

deal she cut herself, I say to you, Premier, knows nothing about the deal you

cut yourself. Let me remind you of one thing: The deal that was done by the

previous government showed 100 per cent ownership to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and it showed keeping their light bills down in this Province, and

not doubling

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It did not include doubling up the cost of their electricity.

Maybe the Premier would like to stand and tell the people of the Province

today why she chose to do a deal on Muskrat Falls that sold out 29 per cent

ownership to a private company in Nova Scotia, and maybe she can tell the people

of the Province why she giving a private company in Nova Scotia 20 per cent of

the Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Their deal did not consider the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their

energy needs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need energy in Newfoundland and Labrador by

2017, because even using everything we have now, we will have an energy deficit

then. We have costed out bringing electricity in from Quebec. We have costed out

bringing electricity in from Nova Scotia. We have costed out building on our

isolated system. The cheapest cost which, in its financing, has contingency for

overruns. This is the best deal for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, their deal saw all of the electricity going to Quebec, all of

the profit going to Quebec and they wanted Hydro to build it, Mr. Speaker, the

company they say now (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe at some point, if we ask enough questions in the House, we

might be able to get the government to tell us about their deal. You never know,

Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: Explain to the people of this Province why Muskrat

Falls is a good deal for them when they know they are going to pay twice as much

for electricity within the next twelve to twenty-four months under your deal.

Also, Mr. Speaker, explain to the people of the Province why Nova Scotians can

get their power a lot cheaper than anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will

receive a kilowatt of that power for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental problems in trying to explain the project

to the Leader of the Opposition is she appears to know nothing about how

electricity is generated in this Province and how it is paid for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, she just stood in her place and said

that power rates in Newfoundland and Labrador were going to double in the next

eighteen to twenty-four months because of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, she ought to know, and an informed Leader of the Opposition

would know given you are entering into this important debate, that not one cent

of money associated with Muskrat Falls can be charged off to a ratepayer in this

Province until the project is in service in 2016, not in the next eighteen to

twenty-four months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for several years a group representing retired civil servants

have been seeking a meeting with the government to talk about pension concerns.

They have held meetings around the Province, they have made representations at

pre-Budget consultations and they have yet to get a one-on-one with the Premier

of the day.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you give this group, which has more than

10,000 registered members representing 22,000 public sector pensioners in this

Province, the courtesy of a face-to-face meeting to hear their concerns and

their ideas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the pensioners who work for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador and who have the benefit of a defined benefit pension plan are getting

the exact benefits that the pension plan promised to pay them. They are getting

the exact benefits that their contributions to the plan intended them to get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, given the high cost of food, given the high

cost of fuel, we have to help all retirees, not just those who happen to work

for the government. We have to be fair to everybody.

The majority of retirees out there have their Old Age Pension and they have

Canada Pension. They never had the benefit of working for an employer that had a

registered pension plan. We have to look after them as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we know the Premier does not touch fish questions in the House of

Assembly, so I guess she does not touch pensioners' issues either. Mr. Speaker,

this group has been looking for a meeting face to face with the current Premier.

They would like to discuss their issues and propose their ideas.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you not grant them that meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the issues that have been put forward by

pensioners in this Province. Every member of this caucus has listened intently

to what they had to say. We have done an analysis of the positions they put

forward. Mr. Speaker, the position as put forward by my Minister of Finance is

the position of this government, which includes me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the important thing for everyone to understand is benefits

that were negotiated are being received by pensioners in this Province. Every

piece that they negotiated, that they earned is being paid out, Mr. Speaker.

What we need to ensure and what this government has done, and that government

did not do, is ensure the integrity of our pension fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then the Premier would be aware of the fact these pensioners are arguing that

in the early 1990s when the Province was basically broke, Mr. Speaker, because

of the cod moratorium

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: because of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that offshore oil revenues

had not yet come on because the government of the day had no choice, only to

withhold contributions to the Public Service Pension Plan. Because of that, Mr.

Speaker, the pool is smaller than it could be for investment purposes and has

resulted in less money being available today for annual increases to indexing.

I ask the Premier: Now that our finances are in much better shape, thanks to

the deals that were done on oil by Liberal governments, I ask that you make good

on the contributions that could not be made at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, a former colleague here in the House of

Assembly used to refer to members opposite sometimes as having the face of a

robber's horse. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a great example of it today. The very

people who robbed

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - the pension fund are the people who are up now

chastising us and assigning, Mr. Speaker, impacts that in fact did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, the monies that were taken from the pension funds have all been

repaid to the pension funds. The most important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that

every benefit that was negotiated has been received, and there has not been a

piece of evidence brought forward to government that can show anything other

than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These pensioners certainly feel differently, I say to you Premier. They feel,

Mr. Speaker, that they are being owed something by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador and they certainly feel that you as a government have

not been listening to what they have to say.

Mr. Speaker, some of these pensioners who worked for the civil service over

the years may have comfortable pensions and may be fine financially. There are

many of them out there not unlike many of the seniors who live in Newfoundland

and Labrador who do not have an adequate amount of money to be able to live on.

They feel that they have not been justly treated by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask you Premier: What kind of remedy can you give them? What

hope can you give to these people who have given their life to the public

service but today are living way below what are acceptable standards of living?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the majority of retirees

out there never had the benefit of working for an employer who had a Defined

Benefit Pensions. They are living on Old Age Pension; they are living on Canada

Pension. So we have to look after all retirees, whether they worked for us or

they worked for someone else.

That is why we have reduced personal taxes and income taxes, the lowest rates

in Atlantic Canada. That is why we brought in the low-income tax reduction; that

is why we enhanced the Home Heating Rebate; that is why we enhanced the Low

Income Seniors' Benefit on three separate occasions. That is why we have the

highest age exemption of any province in the country; that is why we have

heating allowances for people in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation,

Provincial Home Repair Program, drug program. Mr. Speaker, stay tuned, there is

more yet to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period is for thirty minutes; I ask that

they not use up the time by using it for applause.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They may as well use up half of Question Period with applause because they do

not provide answers.

Mr. Speaker, the public servants in this Province, the retired pensioners in

this Province feel that they have been wrong done by. They feel that government

deserves to listen to what they have to say. They feel that their premiums are

being robbed today because adequate investments were not made. We are in a

financial position today, Mr. Speaker, to right what was wrong.

I ask the minister and the government today, if they will not commit to

ensure that those who live amongst us receiving the lowest incomes in our

society are not given what they deserve and what should be coming to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our government put

the $2 billion that Premier Williams received from Ottawa into the Teachers'

Pension Plan. I am pleased to say that this government borrowed another billion

dollars, $982 million, and put that into the Public Service Pension Plan and

another $100 million into the Uniformed Services Pension Plan.

We put the money back, Mr. Speaker, but if we had - every pensioner who

worked for this government is getting the exact pension that they were supposed

to get, and we are pleased with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has no exception, Mr. Speaker, to increasing electricity rates

in this Province to people who are on fixed incomes knowing they cannot afford

to pay double the electricity rates that are going to hit them in the next few

years.

Mr. Speaker, last year government documents showed that your government spent

$2.7 million on the Pensions Division. That is the arm of government that

manages public employee pensions. All costs are covered from the pension pool

contributions and not necessarily from the general taxpayers of the Province;

yet, Mr. Speaker, workers and pensioners have very little to say in how this

money is invested or managed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am just constantly being interrupted by members

on the other side. It is Question Period and we should

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, Question Period is to pose questions not to get into

debate. The hon. member has gone over forty-five seconds and I ask her now to

pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have some order in the House when I ask questions, so I ask

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to leave order in the House to the

Speaker, and I ask her to pose her question.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he give the pensioners a

say at the table for management of these funds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Pension Investment Committee is made up of I mean, I do

not decide what they invest in it is made up members from NAPE, from Nurses,

from CUPE, all the unions, all the employees, are the ones that sit on that

Pension Investment Committee and make the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the shrimp fishery is expected to get underway on May 1, but the

4R shrimp fleet on the Northern Peninsula has indicated they will remain tied on

in protest of the federal government's unfairness in slashing the inshore fleet

by 40 per cent. The minister congratulated himself in the House yesterday that

he has written the federal minister on this, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not

acceptable.

I ask the Premier today: Have you asked for a meeting with the federal

Minister of Fisheries to address this critical issue, and if not, why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the quota being announced.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the date in which the prices of shrimp have

been made has been traditionally in May.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have made our representation to the

federal government; I asked them to put forward his representation. I have not

seen that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel like the minister is offering me his job, I am

not really sure. Now, if the Premier wanted to put me in as the Minister of

Fisheries, we can talk about that, and I will see what I can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am talking about being a Liberal Minister of Fisheries, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, all people in the fishing industry are to be shown some respect

by this government, seriously. The Premier released a letter last week to the

newest buddy of her government, as he is known throughout the Province, Mr.

Harper, Stephen Harper, asking to define his approach on adjacency and

allocating the shrimp quotas in this Province.

I ask: If you are so concerned about the current quota cuts, why has this

government and you been silent? Why are you only asking the federal government

for a commitment on future approaches to adjacency?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I do not know if we

would take him if he wanted to come over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me say one thing that is very clear for me,

for the Premier, and for this entire government. There is no one who respects

fishermen, fisherwomen, and plant workers more in this Province than we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: As so many people have said, oil is a non-renewable

resource. The fishery is a renewable resource, Mr. Speaker. We are looking to

the industry to partner with us to ensure that the fishery is strong, vibrant,

and viable into the future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the suddenly announced decision by Kiewit to

drop its application for the Joint Support Ships thirty-year contract has

shocked everyone. Mr. Speaker, Kiewit's walking away because they say they lack

the ability

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: to put together a proposal is unacceptable.

The government has the obligation to remind large businesses in this Province

of their corporate responsibility. Kiewit should be asked to prove they do not

have the resources or capacity to do the Joint Support Ships application.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If Kiewit is really unable to do the proposal

themselves, will government offer assistance in preparing the application?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a sad announcement for the people of the

Burin Peninsula who were really hopeful that they might have a chance at landing

this contract. They had the full support of their government in working with

Kiewit in trying to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, Kiewit is a private company and we do not dictate to them what

they do or what they do not do. What we do, though, is try to develop a

relationship that is supportive and beneficial to them and to the people of the

Province. That is what we did with Kiewit, Mr. Speaker.

They never indicated to us there was a problem in terms of their own

capacity. They talked to us about a problem in infrastructure, and we were very

supportive in trying to find a solution to that, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue to try and drive good deals around oil and gas development

here in the Province, Mr. Speaker, as well as in the development of our other

commodities so that we can continue to provide work to workers here in the

Province from our own resources.

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, the Premier continues to insist that there is nothing the

government can do now about Kiewit because they are a private company. Mr.

Speaker, this government has found ways to help private companies in the past.

The good relationships lead to something happening.

In the past, for example, the Department of Business granted $500,000 to

Rolls Royce to establish its new marine service centre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't this government take a proactive

stance with Kiewit, go back and talk to them for the good of the workers and

families of the Burin Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Business has talked to Kiewit. Mr. Speaker, our

MHAs and ministers from the Burin Peninsula have talked to Kiewit. Mr. Speaker,

I have had any number of conversations with Kiewit in the last four years with

regard to this contract. Mr. Speaker, Kiewit is a private company. We are very

supportive in whatever legitimate and beneficial ways there are to do that for

both the people of the Province and for the company. Mr. Speaker, when we came

to government in 2003 there was $2.6 million being put into economic development

in this Province by members opposite who formed the Liberal government. Today,

Mr. Speaker, that is over $130 million. We support business in this Province

including Kiewit, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by not being stronger in calling Kiewit to its corporate

responsibility to continue with the bidding on the JSS contract, this government

is continuing the legacy of giveaways that have plagued the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If she is so satisfied to accept Kiewit's

decision, is it because government and Kiewit known something that we do not

know about Marystown's chances of getting the JSS contract?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if somebody can name a reason why this

government would not want Kiewit to be successful in this contract earning

thirty-five years of work for people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to know what it is.

Mr. Speaker, there was over $100 million ask before us from Kiewit for a

graving dock, infrastructure that was going to be required in order to get this

contract. Mr. Speaker, we were in very serious negotiations with them around

that issue. Mr. Speaker, that is what I call being supportive of business and a

region of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to

section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby

table the Report of the Public Tender Act Exceptions for November and December

2010 and January and February 2011 as presented by the Chief Operating Officer

of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce the bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the public sector pensioners

in the Province, a petition

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask members

to kindly respect the will of the member to deliver her petition and listen to

the petition as delivered.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You can hardly get a question in, in Question Period, and now you cannot get

a petition in. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf

of the public sector pensioners in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a group of people who feel that their issue has not been

adequately addressed by the current government and they feel that they should

have an opportunity to bring their issues to government directly and to work

co-operatively with them to have it addressed.

This particular petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 7,000 public sector

pensioners across Newfoundland and Labrador. I will read it into the record:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS provincial public sector pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador contributed to a pension fund during their employment years; and

WHEREAS the provincial government was and continues to be the trustee of the

pension fund; and

WHEREAS prior to 1989, government, from time to time, provided for increases

in pension payments to enable pensioners to keep up with the cost of living; and

WHEREAS workers who retired in the 1990s have reduced pensions due to

government's financial restraints at that time; and

WHEREAS current pensioners have not received a fair and equitable pension

increase for twenty-one years and are falling behind the cost of living;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to provide pension increases that will

allow former provincial government employees to live in dignity after their

years of contribution to the development of this Province.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by public sector pensioners who are

retired from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from almost

every single community that you can imagine throughout this Province. Many of

those individuals feel that because the proper contributions were not paid in at

the appropriate times, that today they are losing money as part of their public

sector pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, they also feel that they deserve to have a level of respect from

the employer whom they have served for so many years in this Province, served

for so many years at a time when there was no money out there, at a time when

they understood that the revenues were not available in Newfoundland and

Labrador; but, Mr. Speaker, because of good oil deals that were done by previous

governments, by other Liberal Premiers in this Province, because of that, today,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a whole, can enjoy seeing a tremendous

amount of wealth in our Province, can look forward to seeing more money to be

spent on different aspects of our society.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are petitioning the House of Assembly today, the

public sector pensioners - I said it was 5,000, it is actually 9,000 of them who

have signed this petition - are asking for the government to show them some

respect and to honour their issue and to do what is right by public sector

pensioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Burgeo & La

Poile and it concerns the provincial HST portion on home heating fuels. I will

read the petition itself for the record.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador pay the

government harmonized sales tax on home heating bills; and

WHEREAS this tax is causing hardship to low-income families throughout the

Province; and

WHEREAS the residents of this Province demand that our government remove the

provincial portion of the HST from home heating bills;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to remove the provincial tax from home

heating bills.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of discussions in this House daily concerning

families, people who are trying to get by in our Province. The government, for

example, touts itself on certain strategies and the Poverty Reduction Strategy,

for example, which they have. Mr. Speaker, the statistics and the facts just do

not match what they claim to be doing with their strategy.

Here is an example, again, where a lot of people living in this Province, we

just heard the petition from the pensioners who are finding it difficult.

Everybody in this Province, regardless if you are on a fixed income or you have

a generous income, everybody feels the burden of it. It is certainly felt very

much so by people who live on fixed incomes. Single parents, for example, as

well.

The government claims to be doing a lot of good things for a lot of people

and some of their initiatives, you have to give credit where credit is due, have

indeed been very good. For example, I refer to the dialysis piece. This is the

type of thing that hits everybody in the pocketbook, and that is the HST portion

on your oil bills, for example. Now, the government does not put a whole whack

of money into the rebate program. The oil tank program we also had as well. I

think it was $220,000 a year, maybe, was committed to that. This is something

that every citizen in this Province who uses home heating fuels would benefit

from.

Again, I understand they have made approaches to the Minister of Finance, I

know they have been on Open Line shows; they have submitted letters to the

Minister of Finance and to their own MHAs. In fact, I understand that many of

the citizens throughout this Province asked to have this type of petition

brought to the House of Assembly by their MHAs, and their MHAs refused to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this House, regardless of who you might represent, whether

they be of any particular political stripe, if your constituents call upon you

to do something, even if you are a member of government, you ought to have the

respect for the constituent and bring their concerns to the floor of the House

of Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the first, I have received already hundreds and

hundreds of people who signed petitions who want this matter dealt with. I will

be more than pleased on their behalf to rise each and every day that the House

of Assembly is open, and to make this matter be heard by government.

The Minister of Finance always says: stay tuned. Well, Minister, people have

stayed tuned long enough, when it comes to this issue, and it is time for

government to deal with this issue. We are in a financial position, we claim to

be a have province, if we are such a have province, as this government claims,

let's see the government do something to respect the wishes of these people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Labrador, especially in the Lake Melville area,

the South Coast of Labrador, and the Labrador Straits region, and the Labrador

West area, are totally dependent upon a highway connection now in and out of

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, they rely upon this road network to get them to the

Island portion of the Province, to get their goods and services in, to get out

to hospitals, to get out for other reasons as well. Mr. Speaker, they expect

their government to maintain this highway to a standard that is acceptable for

people to travel over, to a standard that is only acceptable elsewhere in

Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in this country. They want to see their

highways paved, Mr. Speaker. They are tired of driving over gravel ridden roads

that are filled with potholes, filled with deep ridges.

Everyday in my office I get e-mails from people from all over Labrador who

have had to drive that road. Every single day the horror stories of how long it

took them to drive from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to the Cartwright Junction,

or how long it took them to drive from Cartwright into Mary's Harbour or Lodge

Bay, or down to get the ferry in the Labrador Straits because the road was so

bad.

Mr. Speaker, this time of the year, of course, on any gravel road you expect

to have extreme conditions. You are getting the snow melt, you are getting

runoff from that, you are getting a lot of the gravel washed out of the roads,

you are getting soft roads, and you are getting tractor-trailers and other big

heavy vehicles that are travelling over this road leaving ruts in the road. All

of these things are contributing to people being very, very frustrated, very

frustrated, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They expect the government to respond to what their need is.

They were very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, disappointed in the Minister of

Labrador, disappointed in the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is from

Labrador, disappointed in the Minister of Transportation and Works, simply

because they have indicated to the people, the Minister of Transportation in a

meeting in Goose Bay, that this is not on the radar of government. They are not

even going to look at this until 2014.

Well, do you know something? Today, there are hundreds of thousands of pounds

of freight coming in from the Island portion of the Province into Labrador that

years ago was coming out of Quebec. Today it is coming from wholesale companies

on the Island of Newfoundland. Do you think these tractor-trailers want to be

driving all of that freight over bad roads? Do you think people want to be

dragging goods and services into an area when every day they are doing damages

on their vehicles and their cost of maintenance is overriding what their cost of

profits are on some occasions? No, that is unacceptable.

Do we want people in Labrador to start turning again back to Quebec to import

all of our goods and services? Absolutely not! We want to be able to deal with

our brothers and sisters on the Island portion of the Province but we want to be

able to have a good transportation network to do it, and that means we need a

good ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle. It means we need to have good

roads across Labrador, so not only Labradorians but all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, can enjoy the privileges, the benefits and the

opportunities that comes with having good transportation networks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand again and present a petition

to the House of Assembly. I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we the students of French Shore Academy in Port Saunders from the

towns of River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, Port Saunders, Port aux Choix and Eddies

Cove West appreciate the facility we currently learn in; and

WHEREAS unfortunately the sense of fairness and equality existing at school

is absent on the outside due to essential services not equally available in all

our towns; and

WHEREAS the lack of high-speed Internet in River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay and

Eddies Cove West put some students or our school in an unacceptable disadvantage

at learning today in the twenty-first Century;

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

urge government to direct funding to ensure high-speed Internet services are

provided in these towns to allow equality and fairness for all members of our

student body.

And as in duty bound your petitioners ever humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for each member of the House of Assembly to imagine

for a moment two students arriving at Memorial University or CNA in September

for enrolment. They have just come from high school, one is from Corner Brook

and one is from Hawke's Bay, and there are many other communities on the

Northern Peninsula and I am sure in other areas of the Province as well where

that student could be from.

The student from Corner Brook is used to downloading assignments. They are

used to doing very heavy research on the Internet and so on in terms of looking

for information for assignments and school work. They are used to video

conferencing. They are used to accessing different types of literature and

downloading photographs and all the other things that you can do through a

high-speed Internet service.

Coming in to register on the same day is the person who has come out of the

school in Hawke's Bay - or in Port Saunders or in other areas throughout the

Northern Peninsula and other parts of the Province, as I said and that person

has never had high-speed Internet. It has always been dial-up. It has been a

very basic service and they never had the opportunity to video conference. They

never had the opportunity to interact with their school from their home and so

on.

Mr. Speaker, I think we would agree today, that puts this particular student

at a great disadvantage at the beginning of their post-secondary education. Mr.

Speaker, that is why the students have taken the initiative and time to prepare

this petition and to request that it be presented here in the House of Assembly.

They recognize and realize the disadvantage they have as students in not having

access to high-speed Internet in their community.

Mr. Speaker, despite being a significant part of the 2007 agreement between

EastLink and the government, the fibre optic cable that was supposed to be

available between Deer Lake and St. Anthony, which was meant to open up

high-speed Internet to people on the Northern Peninsula, has yet to materialize.

We need to ensure that our young people have access to the same educational

opportunities, information and communication technologies and so on, that are

available in other parts of the Province.

Again, I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to urge government to look seriously into

this disadvantage for our young people and for the residents of many parts of

the Province as presented here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people from the

Twillingate-New World Island area, from the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

Mr. Speaker, these people are petitioning the House of Assembly because of

the fact that government closed down five acute care beds in their health care

facility in the Twillingate area. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their MHA was a

part of ensuring these beds did not reopen, but in fact went out and announced

that they were going to put restorative care beds in the facility.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, which has thousands of signatures, has come to

the House of Assembly. Basically, their issue is that at Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital last summer there were five acute care beds that were closed down in

the hospital. That is not unusual. That happens at lots of health care

facilities around the Province in the summer, Mr. Speaker, but they usually

reopen in the fall.

What happened at Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital is that they did not reopen

the five acute care beds last fall. Therefore, people did not have the same

options, the same number of beds for acute care in that region as they had

previously. That was a huge for concern for them.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, they wanted to have restorative care beds in their

facility as well. So they were lobbying to get their acute care beds open and to

get restorative care beds added to their facility. Mr. Speaker, what government

did is they took the five acute care beds, they reallocated them to restorative

care, and they said to the people in the Twillingate-New World Island area: Here

are your five restorative care beds. In fact, they even went out there and made

a press conference, made a public announcement to the people in the area that

they were going to do this, instead of giving them the real facts, and that is

their beds would close.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed last summer and did not reopen in

the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of

Twillingate-New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in the people being

denied admittance to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate-New World Island do not want to see their

health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and ask the House of

Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the Notre

Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. That is why they are coming

to the House of Assembly, and it is unfortunate that this situation has existed

at all in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to present my eighth petition on behalf of the people of La

Poile, and Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, which is in my District of Burgeo & La

Poile.

It is actually embarrassing to have to bring this petition. I have done it

eight times because it definitely needs to be resolved, but every time I read

the prayer here, I get e-mails and calls from people saying, you cannot be

serious that this situation exists. Well, Mr. Speaker, I read it again for the

record.

The petition of the undersigned showeth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom/waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche

where users of the ferry service may use washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS the citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors, and

disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course

of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a

waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such

that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile

may be able to utilize such waiting area/washroom facilities and as in duty

bound your Petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is utterly embarrassing when in this day and age

the provincial government, this government, operates a ferry service for the

people of La Poile to access medical services, to access centres where they can

do their shopping and they do not have a washroom. In the dead of winter,

February, in the middle of summer if they get to the wharf and they are waiting

for the ferry they actually have to go up in the bushes or behind the rocks if

they need to relieve themselves. Now in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, that is

despicable and unacceptable.

I call upon the Minister of Transportation and Works: Please Sir, find the

money so that these people can be treated as decent human beings and at least

give them a washroom. I implore you Sir, do not do what you did to the citizens

of Ramea and Grey River two years ago when I stood up here on the same type of

issue and you took a porta-potty and stuck it out on the head of the wharf. That

is not acceptable.

A basic human need is to have a washroom if you are using public services.

This is not too much to ask and I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works,

please find the money so that these people can be treated as regular, decent

human beings that they are and not as second class, third world citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 22, Order

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that Bill 22,

An Act Respecting The

Practice Of Medicine In The Province was an adjourned debate.

Further debate on Bill 22.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Leader of the Official Opposition does intend to speak to this bill; she

had to go to the washroom for a second that is why she is not here right now.

Just so we do not close debate on the bill I would be more than happy to have

a few words on this most important piece of legislation.

I listened intently last week when the Minister of Health and Community

Services spoke on this bill, at length, and I must say I appreciated actually

the lengthy period of time that he took in order to deal with the issue. The

practice of medicine in our Province, of course, we talk about a health care

system but if we do not have a properly regulated, administered medicine and

practice of medicine in this Province, the difficulty is, of course, the rest of

it can fall asunder. The basic underpinning and foundation of our health care

system is that the medical profession be properly regulated.

We, of course, have a multitude of issues in the Province when it comes to

the medical profession. We went through an unfortunate episode this past fall

when the doctors were threatening to go on strike in this Province. It came to a

bitter loggerhead. This Province would have been placed in serious, serious

jeopardy if it had not been ultimately, before the final shot was fired that

the government came to its senses and made a deal with the doctors of this

Province. That is only the financial part.

We have all heard, of course, of issues besides the recompense that doctors

get, and physicians get in our Province which has been an issue for a number of

years; there are regulatory issues besides that. What ought a doctor to be

allowed to do, what not to do? For example, if you do something improperly what

should be the proper resolution of that matter, or remedy to that matter when it

comes to filing a complaint? Who should hear the complaint? Who is qualified to

hear the complaint? How does the public access the medical profession when it

comes to having their issues dealt with?

Mr. Speaker, we will get an opportunity to deal with this, of course, in

Committee stage as well. The Leader of the Official Opposition is indeed the

Critic Responsible for Health and Community Services, so she would like to have

a few words after the Member for Port de Grave has a few comments here as well.

I will certainly be prepared when it gets to the Committee stage to have some

further comments on the detailed sections of this act because the minister was

quite elaborate when he went through some very good pieces in that legislation.

I think it is very worthy of comment and the more discussion and debate that

there is on that particular legislation to let the public know it is a very

good piece of legislation exactly what is involved here.

Mr. Speaker, I will be certainly speaking to this in Committee stage. At this

point, I will turn it over to the other members so that they can have their

words and I will deal with it more detailed in Committee.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and speak to Bill 22. Mr. Speaker, this bill, An

Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, I guess, needed to be

revised. Although it is a new act, it is a more recent act that was only

introduced in 2005, but because of circumstances in our Province that have

arisen, especially in the field of health care, especially in terms of what is

the vetting process for some of these incidents, it was absolutely necessary for

government to look very seriously at the practice of medicine in this Province

and to look at the act and to make some particular amendments.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the act itself is divided up into a number of

sections and that includes the Medical Association, the college, and that is the

College of Physicians, which is a new term, a new entity that has been created

in the Province over the last few years. I guess in the last ten years we have

started seeing college representatives for different professional groups in the

Province evolving through legislation in the House of Assembly. One of them, of

course, was physicians. It also, Mr. Speaker, speaks to licensing and

regulations. It speaks to the professional medical corporations, to discipline,

to peer assessment, to quality assurance, and to transition, repeal and

commencement of certain issues, along with a whole host of other particular

incidents as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into explaining all of these in detail,

clause by clause in the act, because when the minister did introduce the bill he

did take the time to lay out all of the different clauses of the bill, where the

actual changes were coming from. I would like to make some comments, Mr.

Speaker, because the bill now does several things that I think needs to be

pointed out.

One is that it incorporates quality assurance measures into it by authorizing

the appointment of a quality assurance committee to perform quality assurance

reviews and by requiring compliance with those reviews. These are things that we

seen coming out of the Cameron inquiry. If you remember the Cameron inquiry, was

established and Justice Cameron was appointed to do that particular review

simply because there was a number of cases in the Province of faulty hormone

receptor testing. Because of the faulty hormone receptor testing and the numbers

of people who found out that they had been given wrong diagnosis, that they had

been given wrong treatments, there was a full inquiry, as there should be, into

this particular issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing that inquiry, the

government went out and appointed Justice Cameron. It was her job then, Mr.

Speaker, to hold hearings, to dive into the professional practices of

physicians, doctors, lab technicians, all other people in our health care

system, along with how government themselves handled such issues in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Out of that particular inquiry the Cameron inquiry as we now refer to it in

the House of Assembly, in the broader public, and in the medical community

came a whole host of recommendations, something like sixty recommendations. I am

just drawing from memory here, so the numbers may be off, but I think it was

something like sixty.

One of those recommendations spoke specifically to quality assurance and the

need to have a quality assurance committee in place to perform these particular

reviews within our health care system and to ensure that there is compliance

with the reviews. It is no good, Mr. Speaker, to lay out policy in the House of

Assembly, to make laws, to enact legislation and pass it if it is not going to

be followed through on.

It is like incidents that we have seen within the Department of Child, Youth

and Family Services, for example, where we saw a process put in place for the

filing of reports, for doing assessments, and all of those particular pieces,

yet they were not followed, as was pointed out by the Auditor General. These

practices were not followed within the department.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point I am trying to make: We have no purpose in

this House if the laws we pass and if the policies we put in place are not going

to be adhered to and not going to be followed. One of the key components deals

with quality assurance, a very strong recommendation that came from the Cameron

inquiry itself, which said not only do we need to have a quality assurance

committee, Mr. Speaker, to perform these particular quality assurances, but we

also need to ensure that there is full compliance with the reviews themselves.

The other thing that Bill 22 will do, as part of this amendment, is that it

will incorporate mandatory continuing medical education and continuing

competency measures. I will get into that very shortly. It also speaks to

revising and updating disciplinary processes. It also speaks to revising and

updating requirements for licensures and would include a provision which would

authorize a limitation on the scope of practice under a licence. So, these are

basically the four main things that Bill 22 would actually do.

Mr. Speaker, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as I spoke about

earlier, one of the newer entities that have been established, a newer system

that has been established in Newfoundland and Labrador, has been in practice in

various regions of the country for quite some time. In the last decade in

Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, we have moved to establish colleges for

almost all of our professional associations including everything from physicians

to the legal community, to the accountants in the Province, to all professional

groups, that has been the practice.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is

now their job to regulate the practice of medicine in the public interest. We

establish the laws, we establish the bill, and they ensure that the practices

are followed and that they are done so in the best interests of the public in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are approximately 1,098, not quite 1,100 physicians in Newfoundland and

Labrador; 1,098, so we almost have 1,100 physicians in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Five hundred and fifty-five of those are specialists who practise, as

you know, in very special areas of medicine. We have all been referred to

specialists at different times in our lives for different ailments that we may

have, Mr. Speaker, or different health issues that we might be experiencing at

that particular time. In Newfoundland and Labrador, of the nearly 1,100

physicians that we have, 555 of them are practising in very specialized areas.

Mr. Speaker, there are 543 who are family physicians. We know that there is a

shortage of family physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the last

count that I looked at which was actually some time ago well, not a long time

ago, within the last month or month-and-a-half I think it was something like

100 vacancies in family practice in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, there is still a requirement for about 100 family physicians out there in

communities, in districts and regions all across our Province. That is the

reason why we continue to hear from people that they still do not have a family

doctor, or that they are on a wait-list, or that they are one of I think at

one point in Gander a few years ago, you were one of like 3,000 people on a

wait-list for a family doctor in that particular region.

At times, the numbers have been staggering. I am not insisting that is the

case today, but we do know of periods in the last few years where that has been

case. We do know, Mr. Speaker, there are many regions of the Province where

people are on a wait-list for a family physician and are unable to get one. That

is simply because we have a shortage of family physicians in Newfoundland and

Labrador to the tune of something like 100 vacancies today.

The college itself, Mr. Speaker, which is made up of these 1,100 physicians

that I just talked about, has a mission, and its mission is to be able to set

the qualifications for registration and licensing in the Province. Part of their

responsibility is to ensure that physicians who come to work in Newfoundland and

Labrador have the appropriate licences to practice in this Province, that they

meet the requirements for licensure and that they are registered to practice in

that field in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the main focuses that

this college has.

They also conducted a rigorous licensing process. That is to ensure, Mr.

Speaker, that the public themselves, that we as patients are getting the best

possible care. While the licensing process may be rigorous it is necessary,

because these individuals are the people that we are entrusting our lives with,

we are entrusting our health care needs to. We take their advice, and we take it

very seriously. So it is important that they go through this very rigorous

process in determining how they are licensed and who gets licensed.

The college also investigates complaints, Mr. Speaker, they conduct

disciplinary hearings. They set standards for ethical and professional

behaviour, they set standards for medical practice through bylaws, policies,

guidelines and advisories, and they promote continued competency through

revalidation and peer review. I will get into that as well because peer review

has been one of the areas that have been probably one of the most controversial

areas of medicine that has been publicly debated and discussed in the Province

in the most recent years. I will talk about some of those cases that have been

very prominent.

Mr. Speaker, it also talks about registering professional medical

corporations and maintaining registers. The Council of Colleges of Physicians

consists of seven medical practitioners who are elected members. So, it is not

just all people who are appointed by government. There are people on the College

of Physicians who are elected. They put themselves out there, they make

themselves available, and they get elected amongst their peers, Mr. Speaker.

There are some people who are appointed. There are, in fact, four people who

are appointed by the minister. Three of those are not medical practitioners, two

are but three are not. That is the reason that we bring a rather public

perspective to the College of Physicians as well. It is not just made up of

physicians themselves, but it is made up of people in the public who deal with

the service, who are the users of the service and may have a different

perspective to bring to certain situations.

Mr. Speaker, the idea here is to ensure that the council not only represents

the interests of physicians, but represents all of our interests. I think that

is an important point to make. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the role of the

college is to protect the public interest. It is not just about protecting the

interests of doctors but it is there to protect the interests of the public, to

promote very high standards of practice for medicine in this Province, and that

is their job.

In protecting the public interest, not only do they promote high standards of

practice in medicine, but they also ensure that there are quality improvements,

that there is continued competency used in our system, and they also have to

ensure that there are quality assurance programs, like I talked about earlier,

and that there are proper standards of conduct. All of these key points are

essential. They are essential to protecting the interests of the public, the

people who have to go into our hospitals, into our health care facilities;

people in this Province who have illnesses and health issues and have a total

dependency upon the people who are on those front lines, have a total dependency

upon what doctors are going to say to them, or specialists are going to say.

Mr. Speaker, their interests do need to be protected because it is their

lives they are putting at risk. It is their lives they are entrusting to people

in the medical community in our Province. It is important to ensure that there

is a body that oversees this, to ensure that there is compliance, that there is

quality assurance, that there is proper licensing, that there is transparency,

that there is accountability. All of these things are very important.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, this process requires the co-operation of government

as well. It requires the co-operation of government. That is a very key point,

because in order for the College of Physicians to ensure that the greater public

interest is protected, that there is proper quality assurance programs in place,

that there is proper accountability in place to ensure that the practices of

licensing people in this Province is done efficiently and to ensure people have

the proper standards that they should be entitled to, in order for all of those

things to happen, there has to be the co-operation of government. This is where

I draw some concern.

We all saw what happened, a very short time ago, between the doctors in this

Province and the current government. We saw a situation where it was almost

volatile inside and outside of the House of Assembly in terms of the remarks and

the comments and the attitude and the tone that was being used by the government

opposite towards physicians in this Province. Physicians, Mr. Speaker, who I

might add in some cases, maybe not all, but in some - or I should say in many

cases, were out there basically putting forward a position to protect the

interests of the people of the Province. They were saying we need more

resources. We need more resources in these specialized areas.

We saw it with pathologists in the Province. We seen the government opposite

come head to head with pathologists in this Province, had to knock them down,

drag them out, bitter match, Mr. Speaker, back and forth. Back and forth in the

media, not at a negotiating table, not in a board room trying to act calmly and

collectively in negotiating a good deal for the people of the Province. No, Mr.

Speaker, it was a shouting match. It was who could undermine who the most on any

given day.

The government took that attitude with pathologists in this Province until,

Mr. Speaker, we came to a point where finally they knew they would not win the

public support and they had to concede to do a deal with pathologists and

oncologists which seen improvements in our laboratories in the Province; which

seen better quality assurance of programs; which seen the responsibility of

people who are placed in those positions being shared by many as opposed to few.

That was the real benefit of what came out of that negotiation at the end of the

day after much confrontation with the government.

It is very similar to what happened with doctors in the Province. You must

remember, there was day after day after day the Minister of Health and Community

Services and the former Premier were out in the media trying to take a piece out

of the Executive Director of the Medical Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Why? Because the medical director was the spokesperson, was the voice,

was the messenger for doctors in this Province. The messenger for patients in

this Province who needed to see some improvements in their system, and because

he was bringing that message, he was bad.

Something like the Opposition is looked upon by the government, Mr. Speaker,

when we come in and ask questions and bring important issues to the floor of the

House of Assembly. We are being told we do not understand things. It is just as

well to say you are stunned or you are stupid as they get up every day and say

you do not understand, I will tell you again. That is the kind of derogatory

talking down to that you get from the government, Mr. Speaker, when you ask a

question.

The fact that Mr. Ritter was out there as the Executive Director of the

Medical Association asking questions of the government and representing the

issues of doctors in this Province, he, too, was being talked down to, just like

we are as an Opposition when we ask questions of the government. We are not

supposed to be as bright because we ask a question; that is the insinuation of

the government, Mr. Speaker. Because you do not do as I say and you do not take

the same line and tow it the way that I am going to tow it, well then you are

inferior in some way. You are inferior in some way; you are not up to the same

standards, the same class, and the same level of thinking, understanding, and

intellectuality that we are, Mr. Speaker. I have news for the government

opposite: The only people who think like that are they themselves.

Mr. Speaker, they have had to eat their words on the doctors in this

Province. They had to take their tone that they showed with Mr. Ritter and with

the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and they had

to haul it back. They had to haul it back, Mr. Speaker, because they knew the

public was not on their side in this one. They knew the public was not on their

side.

Even when doctors out there were so frustrated they tabled their

resignations, doctors from the Janeway hospital, Mr. Speaker. We had parents

calling our office, e-mailing us because they were afraid, they were in fear

that their children would actually lose the service of this specialist who they

were used to dealing with at the Janeway or this doctor who they were used to

dealing with throughout their child's medical care. That is the kind of fear

that was instilled in people in this Province. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the

government wanted to pump its chest up and say: I am in control here and I am

going to call the shots.

The government had to haul back, didn't they? They had to haul back and at

the end of the day the doctors got every single thing they wanted, Mr. Speaker.

Every single thing they wanted, they got, because the government were afraid.

They were scrambling, Mr. Speaker. They were scrambling out there to try to find

cover. They needed to settle this because they did not want it hanging over

their head.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? They strung the people in this Province along

for months for months when the only response you got from them was ridicule,

was talking down the doctors, was telling off the CEO of the Medical Association

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members when speaking to bills that we should keep our comments

relevant to the subject of the bill.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am speaking to Bill 22, which is the Medical Act that regulates doctors in

this Province, the College of Physicians, which is made up of the 1,100

physicians in this Province; the same 1,100 physicians who came to the

government looking for a settlement and were talked down to. That is what this

bill is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about doctors in this Province. It is about

providing what is fair and right for doctors, but looking after the best

interest of the public as well.

Mr. Speaker, the government knew they could not win with the doctors, and

that was the reason they conceded. They knew that the public was not on their

side. It does not change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that for many months out there

in this Province, there were parents, families, patients, and sick people who

were in agony over wondering what their health care system was going to look

like at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, this particular document itself, although it only came in 2005

and we are making some very important amendments to it today, is a living

document. As incidents unfold in our health care system in this Province, we are

always going to see continuous changes being made to the Medical Act. I say that

because there have been several changes, several incidents, in this Province in

the last number of years that have really instigated the amendments that we are

seeing to this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, this document itself speaks to a couple of the really landmark

issues that caused the need to change the Medical Act. One of them I talked

about earlier is the breast cancer issues and the faulty hormone testing in the

Province. I talked about the fact that Justice Cameron had made sixty

recommendations to government that she considered to be necessary and advisable

in terms of protecting the public in this Province. Mr. Speaker, she made those

recommendations because she wanted to see the improvements in our health care

system. She recognized them through the inquiry and she wanted to see the

changes made. Mr. Speaker, that was the whole issue behind the debate between

pathologists and oncologists in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, there were fourteen recommendations in the Cameron inquiry alone

that dealt with quality assurance and accountability. It was because of the

Cameron inquiry that the government then moved forward to set up the task force

on adverse events. This was a one-man task force that was chaired by Mr. Robert

Thompson, a very well-known and respected public servant in the Province. It was

born out of the whole breast cancer inquiry itself and the recommendations

around disclosure relating to adverse events in the health system.

I will give you an example. Out of the Cameron inquiry, the most obvious

example came when there were incidents regarding the faulty testing of

individual patients that were not necessarily reported. That patient, Mr.

Speaker, was adversely affected. They may have went on a year, two years or

three years, or in some cases up to five years, without getting the proper

treatments that they should have gotten. That was an adverse effect on their

life, Mr. Speaker. The care they received had an adverse effect on their lives,

but where did they have to go with that? There were no means to deal with issues

like that in the Province. They ended up going to the courts. They went to the

courts and they took a legal route. Even in a case, Mr. Speaker, when there is a

task force on adverse events or a mechanism by which adverse events can be dealt

with, it still does not exclude the court system, and that is not what I am

implying. What I am saying is, in the absence of it, what are the other options

or alternatives?

I will give you another example of an adverse event. You may remember the

case of a patient at a hospital in Clarenville. This patient, Mr. Speaker, went

to take a drug treatment for a form of psoriasis that she was going through. You

might remember, I think she was a clergy member who lived in the Trinity area.

Mr. Speaker, she went to the Clarenville hospital to get what was supposed to be

a treatment of Remicade and instead she was given a treatment of chemotherapy.

It was a really big mistake to make, a huge mistake to make, but it happens, and

this is a perfect example of where it happened. This was an adverse effect on

this particular woman's life. Where was she supposed to take her complaint and

what had happened to her? Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why these amendments

are being made in this particular bill. It is to ensure that people have a

process of complaint. It is to ensure that they have somewhere to take issues

like that, like the case of this woman in the Clarenville area who went to her

hospital to get a treatment of Remicade for her psoriasis and actually ended up

getting treated with chemotherapy.

Mr. Speaker, there are other cases and I remember a case from my own

district, a very sad and unfortunate case, Mr. Speaker, of a young boy. A young

boy who had just passed his graduating year in high school and this young boy

had been going in and out of the medical system, in and out of hospitals in

Newfoundland and Labrador trying to find out what the problem was, what his

health issue was. There was a wrongful diagnosis being made in the case of this

particular child. This particular child, by the time they made a right

diagnosis, on what this child had, the disease that he had it was too late for

him. It was too late for him. How do you think his parents are supposed to deal

with that issue? How is his family supposed to deal with that issue, knowing

that they had been bringing their child to doctors and specialists and in and

out of hospitals in this Province for two and three years and he was not

diagnosed with the proper disease until it was too late to do something about

it, at eighteen years old. That is a huge adverse event that has affected

patient lives in this Province.

These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we need to have a complaint

commission. We need to have somewhere for those families to take their issues.

They may not be able to change the outcome for themselves but they can change

the outcome for others that are coming behind them.

The family of this young boy, they needed someone to listen to them and how

they had been treated in the health care system. They needed someone to listen

to the fact that their child was being wrongly diagnosed by different

specialists and different physicians and being treated for the wrong thing. They

wanted to someone to listen to what they had to say and they wanted, Mr.

Speaker, they wanted action taken. They wanted action taken for the tremendous

loss that they were enduring; a loss that could never be replaced never be

replaced.

The College of Physicians, Mr. Speaker, will allow for that complaint

process. They will allow for parents and families of loved ones to have

somewhere to go when there is something wrong that happens with someone who is

in their lives.

We always hear of cases, Mr. Speaker, where patients are being prescribed the

wrong medications. As a result of that they have side effects, they have further

illnesses, sometimes they have life altering conditions, Mr. Speaker, that they

are inflicted with. We hear that very commonly, so it is important for those

people out there in the Province today to know there is somewhere to take your

complaint and there is a body that is there to ensure and protect the interests

of the public.

I want to encourage people who find themselves in those situations like the

family of this young boy, like the lady in Clarenville who took the wrong

treatment, like many of those people out there who are being prescribed, Mr.

Speaker, for one reason or another, wrong medications. I want to ensure, Mr.

Speaker, that they know what options are open to them.

Mr. Speaker, there was a CBC program that aired back some time ago and it

raised questions about the way that the college dealt with a couple of

complaints that were before them. It was about two separate cases that had

occurred in 2002 at Eastern Health's emergency rooms. In both cases, Mr.

Speaker, the families encountered difficulty in trying to get to the bottom of

their losses. Both families claimed to have had difficulty in dealing with the

college and in dealing with the complaint process that was in place at the time.

There was one case where a sister died in the ER, but the family was not

notified until six years later that something had gone wrong. It took six years

for this family to have been told what went wrong in the ER on that day that

their sister had died. That should not happen.

Those particular incidents should not happen in our Province. There should be

better forms of accountability: accountability to the patient, and

accountability to their loved ones, to their families.

There was a second incident that occurred as well in our ER in Eastern Health

when a mother died after visiting the ER. She went in, Mr. Speaker, for a

procedure and I think the minister might have spoken to this at one point

she went in for a procedure, and Mr. Speaker, she passed away.

There needs to be a process whereby these families can get answers, they can

get the answers that they need, and not have to wait for six years for someone

to tell them what actually happened to their loved one on that day in an

emergency room when they were supposed to have gone in and come out, but when

they came out, Mr. Speaker, the results were devastating. Absolutely

devastating. So, they need to have somewhere to take those particular complaints

and to ensure that they are going to be dealt with appropriately.

One of the other incidents, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen in a very public

way in this Province, was a huge story, was the top of the news for a number of

days, that really had an impact on the changes that we are seeing in this bill

today. They were the incidents around Dr. Sean Buckingham. Dr. Buckingham was a

well known St. John's doctor, practised medicine for a number of years, right

here in the city, in the downtown; had a whole host of patients, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Buckingham was convicted of drug trafficking and sexual assault, and he was

found guilty of malpractice before the College of Physicians could take away his

licence.

That was unacceptable, and I totally agree that it was unacceptable. It was a

well known fact, Mr. Speaker, and it was out there in the public, what was

happening with Dr. Buckingham. There were many, many stories being told in the

public airwaves of sexual assault, of drug trafficking, of a combination of both

by people who had been patients of his. Yet, the College of Physicians could not

do anything in terms of restricting his particular licence, or in taking his

licence away until, Mr. Speaker, there was a guilty charge of malpractice that

was handed down by the courts in this Province. In other words, unless a

physician was found guilty under the Criminal Code, there was nothing that you

could do through the College of Physicians.

Mr. Speaker, now what this allows you to do is there is a

section that talks

about controlled drugs by the College of Physicians. By having the ability to

control drugs, they have the ability to act in cases, like Dr. Buckingham's,

without it having to be a criminal punishment under the Criminal Code. They have

more flexibility and they can intervene. They can do something very early on

when it becomes a known fact, when it becomes a testimony like we seen with Dr.

Buckingham, where every night on the news there were testimonials from patients

of his and testimonials to the incidents of sexual abuse, to the incidents of

drug trafficking that was going on. The College of Physicians at that time had

their hands tied, but with changes that are being made in the act today, the

College of Physicians would be able to act in the absent of any charges being

placed under the Criminal Code.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that instigated this particular change, or

changes in this particular bill, Bill 22, was the OxyContin Task Force. You have

to remember now the OxyContin Task Force came about as a result of the charges

and the incidents of trafficking by Dr. Sean Buckingham. Mr. Speaker, the

OxyContin Task Force made, again, a whole list of recommendations as a result of

those particular situations and those particular cases that Dr. Buckingham was

involved in.

Those are some of the current issues that have happened in the Province; many

that I have outlined, there are many more. Mr. Speaker, I could probably go on

for anther half an hour on all different cases but members understand, the

public understands now why we have to bring in amendments to this bill, because

of the adverse effects that it has had on people in our society; because of

incidents like we have seen into the inquiry into breast cancer; because of

actions that we have seen taken by physicians, like Dr. Buckingham in the

Province; because of other task forces like the one on adverse events and the

one on OxyContin. That is where all of these recommendations came from. It

stemmed out of those real incidents that happened in the Province. That is the

reason we are making these particular changes today.

Mr. Speaker, there are all different aspects of this particular bill that I

could speak to, but I am just going to speak to a couple of them because I think

it is important to note. One of them, Mr. Speaker, is that still today we know

we are short 100 family physicians in this Province. That has not changed

because we have just signed an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Medical Association.

One of the aspects of this particular legislation is requiring physicians to

do additional training and education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the physicians who I

have talked to, they have no problem with doing further education, they have no

problem with doing training programs, whatever it takes. The issue becomes, Mr.

Speaker, because of the shortage, many of them are very restrained.

If you have to take a doctor out of Twillingate, or out of Fogo, or out of

Forteau, or out of any of these smaller cottage hospitals around the Province,

where in most cases they are the only physicians who are there, take them out to

do training and education programs, we need to ensure that we can replace them.

We need to ensure that we are not going to leave a gap in service for people who

need it. That is one of the concerns I have. This is a concern that is being

raised by physicians as well. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have

any issue with doing the education and training components, which I would say,

Mr. Speaker, are necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is always necessary to ensure there is continuous education

in any profession that you may be involved in, and being a doctor in this

Province is no exception, but you do have to face the reality. The reality is

because we have a shortage of physicians right across Newfoundland and Labrador,

that once you start taking these people out of the system to do those programs,

you need to be able to still provide services for the members of the public and

be able to cover off patients.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good mandate. There is no problem with requiring it. I

just have to question the government in how they are going to balance it with

continuing services for patients in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker,

having a requirement to do the training is not the issue; it is about how they

are going to access that training. If all the doctors have to come to St. John's

to do that training, we are going to leave gaps out there across the Province. I

want you to be cognizant of that and to ensure that their services to patients

in those areas will not be compromised.

Maybe there are other options. Maybe we can do things through

teleconferencing or video conferencing, or Internet learning. Some of these

options are available as well, but still, Mr. Speaker, requires time away from

work, time away from patients. I just want to ensure that while this is good,

and I am glad government is mandating it, and I am happy to see it is going to

be a requirement and it is going to be regulated, I hope they have given some

thought to how they are going roll that out.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other pieces to this is the sponsorship of new

doctors, or foreign doctors coming into the Province. I think that is a very

important component as well. Just put yourself in the position of many foreign

physicians that we find in our own Province. If you were going over to India, or

South Africa, or somewhere in South America to work, or even anywhere in Europe,

if you were going over there now as a person - you are going into a foreign

country, you are going into a different culture of people, a different way of

thinking, a different way of running a health care system.

It is important, I think, to have sponsorship for foreign doctors who are

coming into Newfoundland and Labrador so that they are paired with another

physician who happens to be a resident or a longer-term resident practicing in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the other piece, too, Mr.

Speaker, is it gives assurances to the patient. It gives assurances to the

patient that these foreign doctors are being monitored. They are being monitored

by doctors who are currently in our system. They are new, they are coming in.

Their practices are being looked at. The kind of care they are giving their

patients is being reviewed. I think it works for both in this particular system.

We do not have a lot of details on this, so we are not sure as to how it would

be rolled out, what the responsibilities would be or what it is going to look

like at the end of the day, but it certainly is an additional amount of

security, I think, for all parties who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things that I do want to mention

before I close my comments today, and one of them is on peer assessments. This

was a really contentious issue, I guess, in the Cameron Inquiry. If you go back

to 2008, it was probably making the news maybe every day in February month of

that year. It was making the news, Mr. Speaker, because at the time during the

Cameron Inquiry, there was evidence that was prepared by physicians which Judge

Cameron felt should be entered into the inquiry for review, either for public

knowledge or for her own knowledge, or whatever the case may be. She felt it was

important enough to the case and the inquiry that she was responsible and

charged to do, that she felt this information should be entered into.

At the time, Mr. Speaker, government was not prepared to release that

information. I remember, and Hansard will show it, there was day after day when

I stood in the House and I asked the government to make that information

available, to give it to the Cameron Inquiry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it went

before the courts. It was the Newfoundland Supreme Court that finally made the

decision on who would see this information. It was Supreme Court Justice Wayne

Dymond at the time. What Mr. Dymond did is he rejected the arguments of Eastern

Health, saying that the two reviews of the pathology lab should not be publicly

disclosed when a pending judicial inquiry begins studying why so many tests at

the lab failed. He rejected that. Because, remember, Eastern Health and the

government was out there every day making a statement that these were peer

reviews. In fact, they were reviews of the pathology lab itself. Very different,

I say to hon. members, very different.

Mr. Speaker, at the time, Judge Dymond agreed that this was not a peer

review. He agreed that this was indeed what it was, a review of the laboratories

in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he agreed, through a ruling of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, that these particular reviews could be

entered in and looked at as part of the inquiry under the Cameron review, Mr.

Speaker.

So, where does this leave peer assessments? Peer assessments were never meant

to be punitive in nature. We do not ask doctors or physicians in this Province

to do peer assessments because we want to use it against them. We ask them to do

it because we want them to improve themselves. We want them to ensure that they

have the best performance. That is the reason we do it, Mr. Speaker. So, peer

assessments are really voluntary in nature, and they were never meant to be made

public. That is the difference between a peer review and what happened during

the inquiry into faulty hormone testing in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

They are two very different issues, but government at that time tried to hide

behind peer review as a reason to not allow the information to be looked at;

however, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador saw it for what it was,

saw it differently, and overruled the government and Eastern Health and allowed

the information.

Mr. Speaker, peer assessments are something of a different nature. Peer

assessments are meant to ensure that physicians' performances are top-notch, to

ensure that they improve themselves, that they continue to ensure that they

provide a better service to the people of the public, and that they are

accountable. Even if they are only accountable to each other under a peer

review, it makes them accountable to the broader public.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that peer assessments should not be used to penalize or

be punitive towards physicians in the Province, but we do feel that they are

necessary. We think they are necessary to ensure that physicians continue to

improve themselves and provide better care to the public. We know that they are

voluntary in nature. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, they should be kept private

and not necessarily disclosed to the public. That is our understanding. We do

not want peer review to be used as a crutch or a shelter for government and

Eastern Health to hide behind when there are critical incidents and critical

situations that are ongoing in our Province. That is the critical difference

here.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined a number of things that we see in this bill

that we are supportive of. I have outlined the reasons why these changes have

come about because of certain incidents that have happened in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I would say that, as an Opposition, we may have some more questions as

we get into the Committee stages of the bill, as my colleague from Burgeo & La

Poile indicated earlier. At the current time, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly

support Bill 22.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to get up, to make a few comments, and to speak to

Bill 22. Firstly, I want to commend the minister for introducing this bill in

the House of Assembly.

It has already been pointed out very clearly: The practice of medicine is

changing rapidly. It has changed rapidly and it will continue to change and

evolve over time. Unfortunately, the old piece of legislation we had in the

Province had some minor amendments made a few years back. Essentially, the

substantive parts of this particular piece of legislation we are repealing here

today is about thirty years old and reflects old thinking and old standards and

does not reflect the current day reality. So I really want to commend the

minister for the introduction of this particular piece of legislation.

One of the things that we would recognize, the critical function of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons is to protect the interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and speak to ensuring that they are providing

safe, quality patient care. The role of the college, Mr. Speaker, is patient

safety and public protection. Protection of the public is their primary

function. They need the legislative authority, they need to be rooted in

legislation and regulation that gives them the teeth, gives them the ammunition

to do what it is they do on a day-to-day basis in protecting the public. This

particular piece of legislation does that. It is a fairly exhaustive piece of

legislation; it has multiple sections in it. If I could, I want to zero in on

just one or two areas in particular that I think are really important. In my

short time that I have to speak today, I would like to focus some attention in

that area.

I just want to speak to something that the Leader of the Opposition just

said, and I am a little bit confused actually. Her comments are fairly confusing

because it sounds like she is sitting on the fence in that I appreciate her

acknowledgment and understanding of what peer review actually is, how peer

review needs to be protected, and how the process, if it is to be credible, the

physicians who participate need to ensure that their commentary and their

critique of their colleagues is done in the spirit of improving the system and

done in the spirit of making enhancements and protecting the patients who they

serve and that information should not be disclosed. At the same time saying if a

critical incident happens, then that same logic should not be used to protect

the information.

I guess I say, Mr. Speaker, the real challenge in trying to deal with the

peer review question is trying to ensure that physicians voluntarily participate

in the interest of improving the health system and improving the performance of

their colleagues. They, too, will benefit from that new insight, so it is

important that that process be shielded from any kind of public disclosure. At

the same time, you cannot say that will only happen, we will only shield it if

everything is going along fine, but if there is ever a critical incident, then

it must be disclosed, which is somewhat hypocritical on the part of the member

opposite and somewhat contradictory because you cannot have both.

It sounds like she is really straddling the fence on both sides of public

opinion and both sides of public commentary on this issue. Eventually, when this

issue is dealt with, the member opposite and members in this Legislature are

going to have to decide in a very definitive way what, in fact, will be

protected and what will be the pure definition of peer review.

I say, Mr. Speaker, there is one particular piece of this legislation that I

really want to focus on and I think inasmuch as it is a relatively short piece

of this particular legislation, look at the sections, this is probably one of

the shortest sections of the bill in question but it is

Part VII and it deals

with quality assurance. If you consider what the physicians in this Province are

trying to do, what the health system is trying to do, it is trying to ensure

that we provide quality patient care. The services that the health system

delivers need to ensure that the quality is second to none, making sure that

patients are safe and they are getting quality patient care.

One of the instruments or mechanisms that health systems have used for many,

many years is quality assurance programs. Quality assurance, quality

initiatives, and quality improvement projects are all part of the health system

and have been for many, many years. What this does here, embedding this quality

assurance

section into the particular bill today, into Bill 22, gives now the

strength, gives some powers to the college to establish a quality assurance

program. I just want to speak to some of the elements of this particular

initiative that I think are really important for the public to understand

because there is a process here for the public to have some representation and

to participate in the quality assurance program.

I will speak to a couple of sections in the bill in particular, Mr. Speaker,

and highlight some of the significance of them. For example,

section 69 of this

bill requires the college to establish a quality assurance committee. Now, as a

part of that process, Mr. Speaker, they will have people who will be a part of

that quality assurance committee other than physicians. There will be an

opportunity for the general public to be represented and participate in a

process to improve the quality of health services being provided to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a couple of very significant pieces, Mr.

Speaker, to this.

Some of the things that the committee is going to be doing in terms of its

powers; it will have an ability and there are a number of ways that this

committee gets triggered, Mr. Speaker, as well. The committee may decide that it

will undertake a particular review and make that decision on its own as a part

of an auditing process, Mr. Speaker. Or, it could be requested by the registrar

of the college to conduct a review as a result of a particular concern or a

particular desire to better understand the practices of either individual

physicians or groups of physicians either by their discipline or by their

physical location in the Province. Such a review might come about as a result of

a complaint that has been registered with the college with respect to the

practice of a particular physician and that might initiate a review.

Some of the powers that that committee has and these powers are important

to ensure that there is public confidence in the review process that is taking

place. This committee would have the power and authority to inspect patient

records with a view of understanding the nature of the treatment, the nature of

the care being provided and to examine the physician's practice. They have an

opportunity and have the authority to inspect patient records. Through that

process they are determining whether or not a physician, the nature of their

practice, the scope of their practice and whether or not the physician is fit to

actually practise in that fashion, and whether or not they are practising beyond

the scope of their training. They will be doing some random reviews of physician

records and performance.

The committee also, if they find something let us assume that they are

reviewing a particular group of physicians or a physician's practice and they

have a concern. They have a concern about the nature of the practice, some of

the things that the physician may be doing. This committee has the power to

provide direction to the physician, order the physician. These orders then

become a condition of the physician continuing to hold a licence to practice in

Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is significant. It is not just a matter of

saying I think you should improve your practice so therefore we would like for

you to do A, B, C, and D; it is much stronger than that. It is saying that we

have evaluated your practice, we have some concerns, and here are some things we

are directing you to do as a condition of continuing to hold a licence to

practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are significant powers to give to a

quality assurance committee. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is all with a view of

protecting the public and ensuring that there is safe patient care being

provided.

Some of the other things that they may be able to do, Mr. Speaker, for

example, they could direct a physician to start to do some additional training,

to take a particular course of study, to engage in some particular course work,

or to work under the supervision of another more experienced physician to

enhance their training, to engage in a mentorship process. They may also want

the person to restrict the nature of their practice, limit the types of

procedures that they may be engaged in that is more consistent with the training

until they have in fact improved their competence in a certain area. I say, Mr.

Speaker, these are some of the critical things that this quality assurance

committee will, in fact, be engaging in.

There have been a couple of suggestions made, and comments made, and

discussion around this particular bill about what generated this interest, what

generated the discussion. We have heard a reference to the Cameron Inquiry. We

made a reference to the OxyContin Task Force. These were initiatives that our