March

23, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVI No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Speaker would like to welcome the Community Partners of

Multiculturalism, and newcomers to our Province.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member

for the District of Humber West, the hon. the Member for the District of

Ferryland, and the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to honour the founding father of Charlottetown,

Labrador, Mr. Benjamin W. Powell, on his ninetieth birthday.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Powell, or Uncle Ben as he is affectionately known

throughout coastal Labrador was born in Carbonear in 1921 to a mother from

Labrador and a father from the Island. At the age of fifteen, he began his love

affair with Labrador when he took a ship to Square Islands to take up fishing

with his brother. He then stayed on for the winter and began trapping, which

became his passion. He soon married the love of his life, Effie Campbell and

together they raised nine children.

Mr. Speaker, it was because of his desire for his children to have a school

and to receive an education that he decided to start a permanent settlement to

bring people from all of the outlying coastal areas together during the winter.

He settled in a place called Old Broad Cove in 1950 with his family and

eventually the expansion continued to what we know today as the Town of

Charlottetown.

Mr. Speaker, Uncle Ben was a quiet, ambitious man who always wanted to help

people and make things better for those around him. He wanted to preserve the

history of Charlottetown and write about his life and wrote his first book in

the late 1970s. He then went on to publish a total of nineteen books related to

his life in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, his contributions to the community of Charlottetown and to

Labrador have also been recognized nationally and in 1996 he was presented with

the Order of Canada.

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

paying tribute to a truly marvellous man on his ninetieth birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House to congratulate Theatre Newfoundland and

Labrador, more commonly known as TNL, as they embark on an exciting adventure to

Tasmania showcasing the works of famed Newfoundlander Al Pittman. "With Cruel

Times In Between," consists of selections from Al Pittman's poems, prose, songs

and plays that are true examples of our culture and island life which is as true

to our spirit as the salt in our breeze.

TNL enjoys an ever-widening reputation as a leader in the theatrical

education and post-secondary preparation of our youth. This theatre program is

producing skilled and professional-minded young actors. Theatre Newfoundland and

Labrador has joined with Second Storey Youth Theatre in Tasmania, Australia in a

very unique exchange program.

Students from both theatre companies have researched and developed an

original piece which reflects the culture and heritage of their island homes.

Though opposite in some ways such as weather and time, Tasmania and Newfoundland

share some surprising similarities, including an island land mass and population

and their relationships with their mother countries.

Today, and as I speak, Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador is travelling to

Tasmania to participate in the prestigious Ten Days On The Island Festival.

In August 2011, Second Storey Theatre students from Tasmania will arrive in

Newfoundland and Labrador and will unite with Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador

in a province-wide tour.

I congratulate the young theatre students and their leaders from the Corner

Brook area on this worthwhile project, and ask all members of this House to join

me in wishing them success in Tasmania, and great success in their upcoming

provincial tour this coming August.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the

Bay Bulls to Bauline Regional Games Committee in hosting the 4th Annual Regional

Games held on the weekend of September 10 to 12.

This event was completed, organized, and promoted this year by a youth

committee. This committee, in recognizing the importance of good healthy living

for young people, took on the challenge of putting this event together over a

very short period. This event highlighted that community and regional spirit is

alive and well, as all communities of the region came together to participate,

from Bauline to Bay Bulls.

In total we had approximately 225 young people, ages four to sixteen, from

Bauline to Bay Bulls attend this tremendous event over a three day period, which

gave our youth the chance to experience the benefits of participating in sport

for the love of participation and friendship. This event has built on and will

continue to build on the sporting tradition of the Southern Shore.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the

Regional Games Youth Committee, which included Chair, Aprille Whelan,

Vice-chair, Tyler Power, and members, Brandon St. Croix, Brady Turner, Hilary

Williams, Rebecca Tuff, Molly Houlihan, Jennifer Power, Tristan Grech, Jared

Ryan, and Stacey Maddox, for the outstanding contribution they have made to this

region in hosting the 4th Annual Regional Games.

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

special people, sister and brother, Gregory and Helen Crane of York Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, Gregory is twenty-one and his sister Helen is nineteen years of

age. Both are Level III students attending St. James All Grade School in Lark

Harbour. Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2010 I had the honour to witness Gregory

and Helen receive the Bronze Duke of Edinburgh award presented by our Premier in

St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all teachers and assistants at St. James

All Grade School for their volunteer time, and a special thanks to their adopted

mom, Heather Travers, for making this day possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to acknowledge the success of these

two special people as they prepare themselves for graduation in this school

year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, last week the Department of Education hosted the

second Skills Task Force forum, an opportunity to provide an update on

implementation of the 2007 Task Force report, All the Skills to Succeed, and to

gain further input from our industry partners and stakeholders.

I am pleased to report that, from all accounts, the forum was a tremendous

success. About 160 individuals attended, with representation from industry,

business, post-secondary institutions, as well as pre-apprentices, apprentices

and those seeking employment in the skilled trades.

Direct and candid discussions allowed for an exchange of ideas and

experiences. This will help us all as we move forward with initiatives to

support apprenticeship training and build the skilled labour force that we need

to ensure our Province's continued prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, all involved in the implementation of the Skills Task Force

report recognize that the best way to meet current and anticipated skilled

labour shortages is to work together.

Government is doing its part. For example, about $5.5 million has been

allocated for the Apprenticeship Hiring Program, which supports provincial

government departments and agencies in their efforts to hire apprentices. To

date, we have helped over 100 individuals advance in their training. In

addition, apprentices can now get credit for on-the-job training in Alberta upon

returning home to complete in-school training.

Changes have also been made to the journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio to allow

for greater training opportunities for apprentices. For example, there can now

be two apprentices assigned to one journey person - as opposed to just one

with one of those being a senior level apprentice in their last year of

training.

We are clearly making progress, Mr. Speaker. The number of registered

apprentices has increased by over 140 per cent, while the number of Red Seal

certificates issued has increased by more than 70 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we will use what we heard at last week's forum to help address

Skills Task Force action items, and to identify new areas of action.

Participants welcomed the opportunity to have further discussions in the future,

and I am confident that with continued open dialogue, we will build on our

successes to date and see further growth in our apprenticeship training and

skilled trades sectors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. The apprenticeship program and training in the building of the

skilled labour force in our Province is something that is of a concern and

important to all of us. Often we see the apprentice is the one who really

struggles to find credible employment and to be able to secure their future in

the Province. Often we see them leaving our Province and going to other places

to live, so anything that we can do, any initiatives that are taken certainly

are good.

Some of the concerns that we see and have seen over the years, in particular

for the apprentice, is the fact that there are many economic factors that lead

to the future of the apprentice, whether they are able to obtain full-time

employment. When the economy affects business in particular, often the first

ones to lose their positions are apprentices. Giving them more opportunity to

advance their skills in programs that allow them to remain in the workforce is

good.

While we note the $5.5 million as mentioned in this statement about the

Apprenticeship Hiring Program that supports provincial government departments

and agencies, I believe that we also need to do as much as we can to support

local business because it is there that many of the apprentices work and get

their training and go on to be journeymen in their careers. Again, it is an

important part of our workforce and it is encouraging to see people coming

together in this forum as was done in the last few days.

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 the advance copy of her statement.

I am glad to get news of the forum and the fact that it was so well-attended.

As the minister indicates in her statement, they learned a lot at the forum and

things that they have learned are certainly going to be put into place. We do

know, of course, that we still do have a problem here in the Province with

regard to skills gaps, because of the gap between the numbers of people we have

in skilled labour and the requirements for the existing and new projects that

are happening in this Province. It is great that we have the projects that we

have coming up and the ones that are already in place. Unfortunately, I think we

do know that we do not have enough skilled people in the Province to meet our

needs. Everything that can be done is obviously very important.

I do want to note, it was good that last year in the Budget the government

did allow for government hiring of apprentices. That is a very good program,

which I hope will not only continue but will also increase in terms of the

number of apprentices hired.

There are two issues to deal with, and I am sure the minister is aware of

these but I would like to put them forward. We do need to enhance access to

Adult Basic Education and literacy programs. A lot of people who are skilled

labourers very often did not have formal education and need to bring up their

literacy skills. The access to such programs really does need to be enhanced.

The second one is we need to strengthen the use of prior learning assessment

tools in the classroom and the workplace to help the numbers of skilled

labourers without formal training to be able to go on with their training.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform members of this House that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador has proclaimed March 20 to March 27 as

Multiculturalism Week.

Mr. Speaker, Multiculturalism Week is a time to celebrate how people of all

cultures are making tremendous contributions to our Province. Cultural diversity

leads to new ideas, strengthens our communities, and positions us to lead the

world in an increasingly global economy.

To support the growth of our Province, our government first launched an

immigration strategy, called Diversity ~ Opportunity and Growth, in March 2007.

I am pleased to report there have been significant increases in our immigration

numbers since our strategy was implemented. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in 2010,

preliminary numbers show 681 immigrants have taken up residence in Newfoundland

and Labrador, and we anticipate that will increase to just over 700 by June of

this year. Mr. Speaker, that represents a total increase of 64 per cent since

the launch of our strategy.

In addition, the provincial government launched a policy on multiculturalism

in June, 2008. As part of this policy, the Office of Immigration and

Multiculturalism partners with organizations and community groups to promote

cross-cultural understanding and harmonious relationships among all cultures.

Mr. Speaker, as part of this year's Multiculturalism Week, there are over

forty community activities organized with strong support from all regions of the

Province. These include a diversity symposium, a United Neighbours get-together,

and a visit from a world-renowned Indian dance troupe.

Multiculturalism Week proclamations, Mr. Speaker, are also taking place in

St. John's, Mount Pearl, Carbonear, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Deer Lake,

Corner Brook, Stephenville, St. Anthony, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Another way, Mr. Speaker, to celebrate our growing diversity is to display

multi-coloured lights and we have done so right here on Confederation Building.

Mr. Speaker, for members of the House here today, I am pleased to recognize

that several of our community partners are in the gallery with us observing the

delivery of this statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: These individuals and their organizations provide vital

grassroots support and help ensure that our policy on multiculturalism, in

support of our immigration strategy, results in many vibrant and relevant

projects with lasting impacts.

Mr. Speaker, I invite residents to celebrate Multiculturalism Week, to attend

an event, or display multi-coloured lights as an important reminder that there

is no better place in the world right now to live, work, and build a successful

future than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and to say

that we, in the Official Opposition, also want to congratulate all those

involved in Multiculturalism Week from the twentieth to the twenty-seventh.

As the minister stated, Mr. Speaker, we know what a tremendous contribution

they make, not only to our Province but to our country. When we go outside of

our Province to parliamentary conferences, we hear it at each convention that we

attend on the wonderful job that they are doing in each and every province.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that so many communities in our Province are

getting involved in this particular week.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, I think it was back in 1979-1980 when we took four

exchange students into our home, Canada World Youth project. That was my first,

I guess, envision into the exchange program, when we talk about

multiculturalism, when we had two students from Indonesia, one from the Queen

Charlotte Islands, and one from Quebec City. Mr. Speaker, then, as well as now,

I am sure that the great experience that we learned from those people, whether

it was their culture, their faith or their religion, their language, we can only

make sure that helps us to become a better society.

I know there are many events planned this week, Mr. Speaker, but I have to

say that if I can do it weather-wise and schedule-wise, I am going to attend the

Newfoundland food and craft show that they will be having at the Holiday Inn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

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

particularly want to applaud all the groups who worked to promote

multiculturalism, the appreciation of the strength of diversity and other

important human rights issues. Some of those groups are with us here today, I

once again welcome them.

I know something of the value of immigrants to the Newfoundland and Labrador

society, having grown up in an immigrant community myself. I was very pleased

last spring, as were many of us, when we participated in the unveiling of the

monument to the Chinese of our community who were forced to pay a $300 head tax

to live and work in the then Dominion of Newfoundland. Unfortunately, other

groups such as the Lebanese also had head taxes put on them, which is why we had

such a gap in time between early immigrants who came here from those two

communities and then later ones who came, because we had those years when

neither could come. It was a terrible period in our history but now it is long

behind us, thankfully.

Newfoundland and Labrador has always suffered from a low immigration rate,

and I am glad to see that that is changing radically, not just here in St.

John's but around the Province as well. We need more people to choose to live

and work here, to strengthen our communities and our economy. The speaker before

me, the hon. member did mention the Newfoundland and Labrador food and craft

show which will be taking place on Sunday; the Multicultural Women's

Organization is organizing it. I would like to once again say it is Sunday,

March 27, beginning at 11:30 a.m. I hope that many of us from the House and

people from the area will be able to turn out for that great food and craft

show.

Thank you, 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, yesterday the Premier stated that Nalcor will be a 67 per cent

owner of the Maritime Link. She repeated that statement, and I am sure it came

as a surprise to both Emera Energy, which signed the term sheet which I have

right here, Mr. Speaker, saying that they would own 100 per cent of that line

for thirty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today if she can show us exactly where it says

that Nalcor will own 67 per cent of the Maritime Link.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right, and we should acknowledge

that because it is about the only time she has been right on this subject since

we started. Emera does own 100 per cent of the Maritime Link, but effectively,

Nalcor Energy has complete and total control over 67 per cent of the capacity on

that link for thirty-five years. At the end of the thirty-five years, Mr.

Speaker, Nalcor will own 100 per cent of the Maritime Link.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Premier clarified that because 67 per cent of the capacity is

very different than 67 per cent of the ownership, I say to you Premier; but

yesterday you were telling us, and it is in Hansard, that you would own 67 per

cent, which is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, the term sheet which was signed on November 18, as we all know,

says that Emera Energy of Nova Scotia would be the 100 per cent owner of the

Maritime Link.

I ask the Premier again today: Why would you negotiate a deal that would

include the taxpayers of this Province being on the hook for half the cost of

the overruns on the $1.2 billion link?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Emera Energy will own 100 per cent of the Maritime Link for

thirty-five years. Nalcor Energy will have complete and total control and use of

67 per cent of the capacity. Mr. Speaker, if there are overruns on the Maritime

Link, Emera Energy will pay the first 5 per cent, Nalcor will pay the second 5

per cent, and all other costs will be split 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, these costs will then be presented to the regulator in Nova

Scotia and, once justified, will be rolled into the Nova Scotia rate base. Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will not be on the hook for cost

overruns associated with the Maritime Link.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the Premier why she would sign a deal that states

that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would cover any shortfalls in the

operating costs for Emera on this particular link.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the principles that guide the deal

between Nalcor and Emera are very straightforward. Newfoundland and Labrador,

through Nalcor, will own 80 per cent of the power; Emera will purchase 20 per

cent of the power. Mr. Speaker, the capital costs will be assigned 80-20. The

operational costs will be assigned 80-20. The maintenance costs will be assigned

80-20.

This is a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but it is

also a fair deal for Emera.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fail to see where it is a fair deal for ratepayers in Newfoundland and

Labrador if Emera, a private company in Nova Scotia, goes over their operating

costs that we have to step in and pay for it. I think it is unfair and

unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we established that Emera Energy has no

capacity to carry all the excess power from Muskrat Falls into the Maritimes.

The president there said so himself, and he also said it would be very expensive

to add new capacity.

So I ask the Premier today: How do you plan on paying for this service if you

have no customer and you have no access to transfer that power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's questions because she

is giving me an opportunity to correct the misinformation that she is putting

about.

Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the power generated from Muskrat Falls will come

to the Island. Mr. Speaker, 20 per cent of the power generated at Muskrat Falls

will go to Emera in Nova Scotia. The remaining 40 per cent of the power not 60

per cent 40 per cent of the power is available for industrial development in

Labrador for sale in Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, there will be an issue, we would

not be able to move 60 per cent of the power through New Brunswick, but we still

have opportunities to sell the power in Nova Scotia and in PEI. We have

opportunities to move over 40 per cent of the power through, Mr. Speaker.

Enormous opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit

from this project at home and abroad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows there is no contract with PEI; she knows that there are no

customers and there are no other contracts.

I say to you today, Premier, is it not true that it will be the ratepayers in

Newfoundland and Labrador who will have to pay for this entire project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Newfoundland and Labrador had to pay all of the costs for

Muskrat Falls, it is still the best option we have to meet our demand beyond

2016-2017 if we had to pay every cent of it, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is

the best option. Nalcor is required to put forward the best option to the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was quoting a twenty-five year old

report here yesterday, stretching to try to find some kind of a rationale to

discredit this deal.

Mr. Speaker, every option

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, every option beyond Muskrat Falls will

cost more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to refer the Premier to Nalcor's own documents that outline a

very different story. Mr. Speaker, as well, since this deal was announced the

Premier and Nalcor have insisted that we have to have this power because of the

demand that is going to go up on the island dramatically.

I ask the Premier, where is this new demand coming from, when two of the

biggest power users which were the pulp and paper mills in Stephenville and

Grand Falls, which you closed in this Province, under your watch, and we in fact

know that there is a surplus of power on the Island today so I ask, where the

increasing demand is going to come from that will pay for the $6.2 billion

investment you are proposing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, demand is growing in this Province

anywhere from 0.7 per cent a year to 1.7 per cent a year. That will continue,

and is not that a wonderful thing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Our population is growing again, Mr. Speaker, our

economy is booming, people have disposable income, they are buying things like

big screen TVs. We have Vale Inco something they are very proud of going to

require 85 megawatts of power. Mr. Speaker, we have industrial development

taking place in Labrador. There are wonderful things happening in this Province

and we will need power. The more we need the better off we will all be, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the Premier we are going to have to plug in a lot of TVs in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, we know there is a power demand in Labrador and we will get to

that as we go on. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about

bringing power to the Avalon Peninsula now. The Province's own statistic agency

forecasts a very modest growth, I say to you, Premier, in our population over

the next thirty-five years. Even in the best case scenario the population is

expected to top out in Newfoundland and Labrador at about 530,000 people. Other

projections show less growth. Yet, you insist there will be a huge new demand.

Why are you making up all of these airy-fairy numbers that you putting out there

in the public about energy growth when we know the difference?

If Muskrat can stand on its own without making up these numbers, why are we

even going ahead with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is a woman who will be Premier.

This is a woman who would lead us into the next decade somebody who has no

confidence in this Province, no confidence in the economy, no confidence in our

ability to grow. Mr. Speaker, it is not new. Every initiative that we have taken

over the last eight years has been criticized by members opposite. There is

good, solid information that is required by the PUB for us to be able to move

forward on projects such as Muskrat Falls. We believe in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We believe in a bright, industrious and a good economic future for our

children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the Premier, we have lots of vision and we envision a

Newfoundland and Labrador that is not up to its eyes in debt, that is not a

Newfoundland and Labrador where people cannot afford to pay their light bills

and pay for electricity anymore -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - because your government, and the PC Party wanted to have a

legacy project in this Province that no one could afford. That is what I say to

you, Premier.

Let me tell you about your forecasted growth. The numbers speak differently.

The numbers that your government uses every day to make decisions in this

Province are showing statistical growth that is very different. How can you

justify the numbers that you have put out there? I ask you to table the

information that shows us where the demand and where the growth is in this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: In 2003, Mr. Speaker, we inherited

a practically bankrupt province; infrastructure in such disrepair, children in

leaky schools, leaky windows, breathing in mould. Mr. Speaker, since that time

you only have to ask any person who lives in this Province any person who

lives in this country and they will tell you what is going in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, they left us with $12 billion worth of

debt. We have reduced that by $4 billion and yet we have to sit here, Mr.

Speaker, and listen to the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - like of the rhetoric coming out of the members

opposite. Mr. Speaker, we have always made responsible decisions for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know people in this Province who could not fix leaky roofs in their house

before they won the lottery. That is what happened with your government. You

walked into power on the heels of good oil deals and mining deals done by the

Liberal governments in this Province. You inherited the money and now you have

mismanaged it. That is what I say to you, Premier you mismanaged it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You won the lottery and now you have outspent it to a point that even the

Auditor General in this Province says that your government spending is

unsustainable. I ask you again Premier; give us the information on Muskrat

Falls. Tell us where the demand is going to be in this Province, where it is

going to come from that it cannot be met by the excess power that we now have

left over from the pulp and paper mills that closed and from the other rivers

that have been identified to be developed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that information has been provided to the members of the

Opposition. Mr. Speaker, we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Well, Mr. Speaker, you were certainly told where to

find it.

The studies are available through the PUB. They are available on the website

of Nalcor. They are available on government's website, Mr. Speaker. All of this

information is available in the public domain, Mr. Speaker. I encourage, I

implore the members of the Opposition to do a little research when you come into

the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any of the information that the Premier says that was

provided to us because we were not provided with any information. I ask that if

there is some information she would like to give us, we would be happy to

receive it.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell her this, we know that there is already 1,100

megawatts of other hydro projects in this Province that can be developed; I

quoted 860 megawatts on small projects yesterday. There are 1,100 on other hydro

projects altogether combined in this Province that can be developed, can be done

at a cheaper cost than Muskrat Falls is.

Why are we going to put the people in this Province in debt? Why are we going

to have people all over Newfoundland pay a higher light bill so you can bring

power to the Avalon Peninsula, so that people can use for three or four months

out of the year, Premier?

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

referencing a report that was done and costed twenty-five years ago. Mr.

Speaker, she has not even read all of the report because in the report it says

that maybe 172 megawatts from those identified sites might be reasonably

accessible.

Mr. Speaker, there are no costs assigned to linking all of those sites

together. Mr. Speaker, we still cannot replace 490 megawatts of power from

Holyrood from 172 megawatts of power spread out all over Newfoundland and

Labrador. The most cost-effective reliable energy available to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, only because the Premier says so that it is the

cheapest power. There has been no information tabled in this Province that

justifies what she is saying. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the hydro

projects that we speak of, whether that assessment was done twenty-five years

ago or five days ago, the rivers are still there, Premier. The rivers in

Newfoundland and Labrador did not shift because you did a deal on Muskrat Falls,

I say to her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Will she provide to the House of

Assembly the information that justifies where the demand in power is going to be

in this Province and that justifies that Muskrat Falls is the cheapest power

supply? Because Nalcor's own documents tell us otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the Public Utilities

Board. That is where Nalcor, by law, by regulation, has to justify its plans for

generation. Mr. Speaker, they filed their generation studies last year with the

PUB. Mr. Speaker, they are required by law to provide the most cost-effective,

reliable energy source for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what

the law requires of Nalcor; that is what Nalcor is doing.

The next best project to deliver power in Newfoundland are Round Pond, Island

Pond, Portland Creek, some wind and more thermal generation, keeping us tied to

the price of oil with a price tag of over $3.3 billion.

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, my question is for the Premier. In July 2009, your government

launched what came to be known as the fisheries MOU process. For twenty months,

your government promised the fishermen and plant workers of this Province that

you would deliver a plan to rationalize and strengthen the fishing industry.

Your minister is on record time and time again as saying rationalization is

needed. After twenty months, the minister completely washed his hands of the

findings.

My question to the Premier today is this: Why have you not removed your

minister for failing to live up to the government's promise to fishermen and

plant workers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The day after the news release that came out from the Opposition, is there is

more guts in a capelin than was in that, and called for the messenger to be

fired.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member opposite if he is willing to turn

to the second page in this document that says that we will remove or attempt to

restructure the harvesting sector in his district up to 80 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, if he is willing to accept that, let him stand on his feet and say

that, or, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I say to hon. members, you cannot ask questions and then shout down the

person who is giving the answer. I ask the hon. members to uphold the rules of

the House and the Standing Orders of the House, and allow the hon. minister to

answer his question. I ask other members on my left to allow members to ask

questions and to be quiet at that time as well.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to complete his answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a process that will be engaged by three

parties. Mr. Speaker, if it was missed somewhere along the way that

restructuring was supposed to be a part of it - I will not read from the

documents but I have them here. If the hon. member wishes to come across and see

how many times restructuring was mentioned. The rationalization piece came

forward, Mr. Speaker, but quite evidently from the report, the restructuring was

not there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, if we are using props here this afternoon I will

use this one, which is his press release on February 25. It says, "Our

government will have to determine the merits of the proposals and develop an

appropriate provincial response." That afternoon he came out and he washed his

hands from the report.

My question again would be to the Premier, or actually probably to the

minister, this comment, that if the Premier is not willing to remove the hon.

member probably he should remove himself because this Province, this fishery is

in confusion and disillusion as to where it is going.

Mr. Speaker, after the last five or six months we have heard the Minister of

Fisheries explain over and over again that once he received the MOU report he

would take it to Cabinet for his colleagues to consider. On the day he released

the report he says, "I have read the report and a full review and analysis are

now taking place within government."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question and not go reading from what other

people have written or documents that he has in this notes. I ask the hon.

member to ask his question.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: My question again is for the Premier. Premier, at what point

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to apologize for her remarks and to

apologize now.

MS JONES: What did I say?

MR. SPEAKER: I call on the hon. Leader to apologize for shouting an

insult at the Speaker and to do it now.

MS JONES: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. Leader.

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Premier, at what point did you decide to disown the $800,000 report, and was

that decision made at the Cabinet table?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate, because yesterday the

hon. member and I debated back and forth in the House about this MOU. Mr.

Speaker, I thought the hon. member made some legitimate points, and was heading

in the right direction to the type of discussion that we need.

Mr. Speaker, this is showboating. That is quite simply what this is. Mr.

Speaker, we either, for once and for all in this Province, attempt to deal with

the problem - and government cannot do it on its own. I have written both

parties and outlined for them some of the things that I would like for them to

consider in restructuring. I wait for their reply because, clearly, government

should not have the whole thing put in their lap. The industry has to be an

integral part of finding a way forward in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, this is not about showboating, let me assure the

minister of that. It definitely is too important to be showboating across the

House about this important industry and issue.

The people of this Province were shocked, Mr. Speaker, last month to hear the

Minister of Fisheries and to learn that he was washing his hands of the MOU

report. All of the media reports, all of the people who spoke, they were totally

shocked by what the minister did. We learned yesterday again in the media that

the minister prefers attrition to a thought-out plan or strategy to rightsizing

the industry. Again, people were asking: Where are we going with the industry?

If that is the case, my question is again: Why do we take the fishing

industry of this Province through the hoops that we have taken them through for

the past twenty months, and why put people through all this time and effort at

taxpayers' expense if your plan is to just let industry take its course?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will just use one example from this report.

Mr. Speaker

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: Do you want me to answer the question, or do you want to

banter at me?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the members opposite to go to page 224 of the

report that says the incomes of plant workers are going to go from $6,700 a year

up to $9,500 a year. One of the goals was to attract and retain people. I ask

the hon. member: Is he saying to plant workers that your income is going to rise

from $6,700 a year to $9,500 a year and he wants me to accept that that is the

way forward in the processing industry in this Province? I would like for him to

answer that, 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.

Mr. Speaker, Monday's Speech from the Throne says that government supports

the twenty-nine recommendations made by Justice Wells in his report on the

Cougar helicopter crash, including the call for an independent safety authority.

The Throne Speech also says that government will bring forward amendments to the

Atlantic Accord Act to implement a new occupational health and safety regime.

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear from the Throne Speech what exactly is meant by

this last point. So, I ask the Premier: Could she please explain to us what both

of these things mean: supporting the authority and putting in place an

occupation health and safety regime? Are they one and the same thing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have reiterated in this House many times, this government

has always considered the safety of our offshore workers to be paramount, and I

want to make that point again today. As has been indicated, we have accepted all

twenty-nine recommendations from the Justice Wells report. We have indicated in

this House that we are moving forward on a number of other fronts to try to

improve the safety of the offshore. In relation to the offshore regulations that

she refers to, we are engaging with the federal government on that, and have

engaged with the federal government on that.

We expect that once Commissioner Wells brings forward the second phase of his

report, we will be able to move forward and come forth with a process that will

outline for people what we believe, as a provincial government, will help with

the safety regulations in the offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I still do not know what is meant by what is in

the Throne Speech. I wonder could the minister try again to give us idea of what

are the types of amendments that are needed, and is the occupational health and

safety regime the same thing as saying the independent safety authority.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for clarity, the answer to that question is no, they are two

separate things. The regulations that she is referring to I am assuming you

mean the ones that have been worked on for the last ten years. If those are the

ones you are referring to, they will be coming forward in all of the respective

Houses, legislative assemblies, in the fall of this year for ratification by the

various jurisdictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume that the statement in the Throne Speech, the amendments to the act,

is the regulations that the minister is speaking about. I am taking it from the

Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, yesterday, in response to my question, said that

they were engaging with the federal government on the creation of a separate

safety agency and will do everything that they can to ensure that the workers

who are working offshore are as safe as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Could we have the details of the steps that

are being taken to open the discussion with the federal government on setting up

the new authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, upon receipt and review of the report of the Wells inquiry we

endorsed all recommendations and we endorsed the recommendation for a separate

regulator, which was a different position than we had maintained previously. Mr.

Speaker, we made such representation to Minister Paradis. I have followed up

with meetings with Minister Paradis and the Prime Minister in terms of our

support for the that recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not yet issued concurrence. I do not

know if they will. It is a joint decision that would take place between us and

the federal government. We continue to encourage at every opportunity the

federal government to make a decision, and we encourage them to concur with our

position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the

2011-2013 Activity Plan for the Public Accountants Licensing Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 26.(5)(

a) of the Financial

Administration Act, I am tabling three Orders-in-Council relating to funding

pre-commitments for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Thursday, March 24, 2011.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

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

for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: I am pleased today to rise in the House of Assembly to debate

this particular motion, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read the motion into

Hansard.

Before I do that, I would like to ask the Pages if they could distribute a

copy of some information that I prepared in promoting breast screening for women

under the age of 50 in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is some information here

that I just want to share with my colleagues in the House of Assembly. Whenever

they are ready, you can take it and have it distributed.

WHEREAS breast cancer is the most common cancer among Newfoundland and

Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370 women

to be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer and

breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast

screening program is age 50; and

WHEREAS women aged 40 to 49 are not eligible to participate in Newfoundland

and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged 40-49 are

eligible in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince

Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and Yukon; and

WHEREAS the earlier breast cancer is diagnosed, the better the outcome in

terms of health and the therapeutic regimen women will be subject to; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that routine mammography screening of women in

their 40s can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at least 24 per cent, but

Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age group to self

refer into their breast screening program; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the capacity to accommodate the

additional women between the ages of 40 and 49 into organized breast screening

programs;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls upon government to examine the reduction

of the eligible breast screening age in Newfoundland and Labrador and to

establish a new benchmark at the age of 40.

Mr. Speaker, I am not unlike most people in this House of Assembly or

anywhere in the world; oftentimes, there are personal experiences that trigger

you to look at things much more closely. My own experience, what I have gone

through, certainly caused me to sit back and look at what is happening with

breast screening, not only in my own Province, but right across the country. I

have participated in a number of discussions with others throughout the country

in terms of what we should be doing in Canada to allow for a different benchmark

for breast screening.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of my

chapter with breast cancer, I have had the

opportunity to meet a lot of women in our own Province, a lot of them who are

being diagnosed at a much younger age. I have had an opportunity to listen to

their stories about how they were able to access the services in Newfoundland

and Labrador and realized, Mr. Speaker, very early on that I was not alone in

trying to get into the system for breast screening. I had made several attempts

in asking for breast screening to be done before I was even eligible for a

referral. The reason I was not given a referral is because I had no

predisposition of breast cancer in my family. There was not any genetic reason

for me to be referred, I did not find anything on my own; therefore, I was on no

one's priority list and I was not a candidate in Newfoundland and Labrador to be

screened.

Mr. Speaker, it was really my own will that kept me going back and asking for

a referral, and finally I got a referral. Six months later I was able to get

into the system to start doing the rounds of testing and biopsies that were

required to make a firm diagnosis of whether I had cancer or whether I did not.

I learned, Mr. Speaker, from many other young women out there who were in the

age category that I was in, that they were unable to access the system as well.

In some cases it was very easy for women between the ages of 40 and 49,

depending on where they lived in the Province. In some cases there were doctors

who were very understanding of the need and had no problems with the referral.

Some of them were fortunate, that when they went to their family doctor they

would automatically get a referral and just be put on the waitlist to get the

diagnostic testing done. There were other cases, and in fact, Mr. Speaker, in

one region in particular, in Labrador West, I received a number of calls from

women who were in this age category who could not get referrals, because they

could not get referrals in that particular community. It seemed it depended on

where you lived in the Province; it depended upon who your family doctor was in

terms of whether a woman in that age group, who had concerns, would be referred

or not be referred to have the testing done.

Mr. Speaker, upon doing more research into screening of women in this

category, I learned that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at an

earlier age have a higher risk of mortality, they often have breast cancers that

are more aggressive; therefore, it is very important that it be identified

earlier on. I also know that in Newfoundland and Labrador each year there is a

total of 370 women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 110 women will die

from it. Nineteen percent of breast cancer cases today occur in patients who are

under the age of 50 and that breast cancer diagnosed in women in their 40s

accounted for about an estimated 16.5 per cent, or one in six of all breast

cancer deaths. Decreasing the breast cancer screening age from 50 to 40 will

mean an extra 41,471 women in our Province will be eligible for breast screening

this year. This is about a 40 per cent increase in capacity which is required to

accommodate these women.

Mr. Speaker, I believe other provinces are far more advanced than what we

are, simply by the fact that they have already taken it upon themselves to

establish a benchmark at the age of 40. In Canada today there is a national

benchmark for breast screening of women, which is set at the age of 50. As I

said earlier, provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince

Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and Yukon have already realized through

the research that has been done both nationally and in Canada, and

internationally in the United States, that there is a rapid number of documents

and research being done these days that are recommending that all breast

screening should now be done for women at the age of 40 and onward. Those

provinces have already recognized that and they have already taken it upon

themselves to establish clearly new benchmarks for breast screening in their

particular provinces.

In Ontario right now, there has been a private member's bill debated in the

Legislature. I have met with both the Opposition parties and the government

parties in Ontario and it is obvious they are moving in that direction right

now. They will establish a benchmark which will allow breast screening in their

province to be reduced from the age of 50 to the age of 40. In Canada, that

would leave our own Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Quebec and New Brunswick and, of course, Nunavut does not have any breast

screening programs at any age to date.

Mr. Speaker, basically, breast screening would include, as we have normally

known, self-examination or examination by a doctor. It is still one of the

preferred methods because it has no side effects and it is still a method I

would recommend that all women use. Every year when women go to have their

regular well-woman checkups they usually undertake or have a self-examination

done by their physicians. There are still a lot of women who are diagnosed

through that procedure and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but what

science is telling us today - and there are a number of documents out there in

Canada and the United States to support this - is that by using digital

mammography we are able to identify any signs of breast cancer in a lot earlier

stages which is helping to reduce the mortality rate in women all across the

country who have the opportunity to be checked.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have a good system of digital

mammography. One of the things I have to say is that by far we are one of the

provinces with some of the best digital mammography equipment that exists in

Canada today. We have sixteen units in this Province that can accommodate the

capacity which is required to do the number of women that we are asking. Mr.

Speaker, we feel we are one of the best provinces in Canada to deal with this

increase on our units, simply because we have a capacity that currently exists.

We do not have 100 per cent take up on our digital mammography equipment across

the Province, but we have some of the best equipment that is available.

Today, we have three breast screening centres one in Corner Brook, one in

Grand Falls, and one in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, I have heard only good things

about these breast screening clinics and centres that are there. I did not use

that particular centre; because of my age I was not allowed to use that centre

and I was referred to another hospital where there was a unit. So, because of my

age, I was not entitled to use the centre that we have in St. John's for breast

screening. Everything I have heard about this centre has been good, as well as

the ones in Corner Brook and in Grand Falls.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am told, unfortunately, only 64 per cent of the women

in this Province over the age of 50 or between the ages of 50 and 69

actually take up the opportunity to use breast screening. I think we need to do

more to encourage that, because the older you get, as well, the higher the risk

becomes of developing breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, research has shown that one in five, or 20 per cent of breast

cancer deaths were in women between the ages of 35 and 49. Because of the

relative youth, the years lost to breast cancer are greater in this age group,

accounting for a third of all life-years lost to breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of statistics, and I am talking a lot about

women, but I think it is important to realize that men can get breast cancer as

well; there have been many cases where men have been diagnosed. I keep referring

to women, and I guess it is because women are one hundred times more likely to

get breast cancer than men, but breast cancer is diagnosed in men on many

occasions as well. The prevalence of breast cancer, as I said, increases with

age, which makes advancing age the most common risk factor that you can find in

breast cancer today.

Mr. Speaker, I talked a little bit about where the recommendations are coming

from to reduce the age from 50 to 40 in Canada and in North America in general.

Today, the sources of information are coming from a document that the Canadian

Breast Cancer Foundation did just this fall. In that, a lot of the research was

done by a Dr. Yaffe, who is based out of Ontario. He is renowned for his

research in breast cancer and the scientific evidence that he has been able to

provide. What Dr. Yaffe's recommendation is, Mr. Speaker, is that breast

screening should be done today in Canada for women in the age group between 40

and 49.

There is also scientific evidence, Mr. Speaker, available a whole host of

it that has been done by the Society of Breast Imaging, the American Cancer

Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the U.S.

Preventative Services Task Force, and the American College of Radiology. Mr.

Speaker, just last month there was a report done by the American journal of

radiology another task force that was looking at guidelines for doctors,

insurance companies and policy makers which made the recommendation as well

that screening for women should be done at age 40 now, not at age 50.

I think it is important to recognize that countries like Australia, Austria,

Greece, and Japan all right now have breast screening reduced to the age of 40.

It is nothing new; there is tons of research out there on this. Obviously, there

are some arguments against it; I am sure I would have the opportunity to talk a

little bit about that in my closing remarks. Mr. Speaker, when you look at some

of the arguments that are against testing, again, I think that they are

overrated compared to what the benefits are. That is what we really need to look

at. The real thing here is to give women the option, to educate them and let

them make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I bring this motion forward today so that we can progressively

move forward in Newfoundland and Labrador with new benchmarks for breast

screening, for women in our Province to fall in-line with what is happening with

other provinces in Canada, in other regions of North America and other countries

around the world. I ask my colleagues today to give favourable support to this

for the 47,000 women out there in this Province who will require and should have

the option to have that screening done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for her comments. I would like to commend her for

bringing forward this motion and also for the courage she has shown in her

personal fight.

Mr. Speaker, cancer is something that affects all of us, everyone in this

Chamber and everyone in our society. We have recently watched one of our

colleagues die from cancer, and she courageously fought it for a long period of

time, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of breast cancer, I myself have six sisters, most of them who are in

their 40s now, or getting to their 40s. I have a wife and a daughter, so it is

obviously something that personally concerns me, as it does everyone in this

House.

I just want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, on what we are debating here today. The

member opposite has asked for a resolution that the House calls upon government

to establish a new benchmark by reducing to 40 years of age the eligibility for

self-referral to the provincial breast cancer screening program. Mr. Speaker,

the hon. member opposite is correct; there is plenty of scientific literature

out there in terms of the benefits, the pros and cons, of reducing the age to

40, but I would suggest that it is not as clear-cut as put forward by the hon.

member.

Mr. Speaker, our government has invested significantly in cancer care over

the last seven years, to the tune of $125 million. We also invested $18 million

in Budget 2010 for cancer treatment and prevention. Mr. Speaker, we are all

aware of the devastating effects of breast cancer and cancer, especially on the

women who testified and who were part of the Cameron inquiry. As a government we

have sought to implement the Cameron recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I think it is

thirty-nine recommendations that are either completed or substantially completed

as of my update last year. I will be updating this hon. House or the public in

the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Speaker, in November 2010 we brought in the provincial cancer control

strategy. The goal of that strategy is to reduce the incidence and impact of

cancer and to improve the quality of life of those living with cancer in

Newfoundland and Labrador. With that, Mr. Speaker, we invested approximately

$1.3 million in various initiatives, in everything from $70,000 for Young Adult

Cancer Canada to support its organization, to the alliance of tobacco, to

$400,000 especially to examine ways of improving existing screening programs.

One of those will be breast screening, Mr. Speaker.

Also, in the cancer control strategy, the framework states on page 21: "A

Provincial Cancer Control Advisory Committee will be established to advise the

Minister of Health and Community Services on:

i) priorities for action; ii)

monitoring progress; and iii) the development and implementation of an

evaluation plan for the framework.

"In addition, the Advisory Committee may be asked to liaise with the cancer

control community, nationally and provincially including patients, survivors,

advocates and community organizations, and identify for the Minister's

consideration, additional evidence-based objectives or priority directions that

have the potential to improve the control of cancer in Newfoundland and

Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, Dr. P. K. Ganguly, a well-known oncologist, a leading oncologist

in the Province, was appointed as Chair of that Committee at the time the

announcement was made. Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of finalizing the

Cancer Control Advisory Committee. That Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be made up

of Dr. Ganguly as Chair; the deputy minister or his representative in the

Department of Health and Community Services; I think the Dean of the Medial

School; the Vice-President of Cancer Care at Eastern Health; other

representatives of regional health authorities; cancer survivors, including at

least one breast cancer survivor; and they will be asked to advise the minister.

Their appointments will be completed in the next month. Mr. Speaker, this

Committee will be put in place to advise the minister on issues such as the

expansion of the breast cancer screening policy.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is correct in terms of what she is outlining

in terms of the guidelines. The current guidelines we have in this Province are

based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care 2001, which does

provide mammograms and breast education to women between the ages of 50 and 59.

This range was selected, Mr. Speaker, because of the evidence and research of

the previous thirty years. Now, if that has changed, Mr. Speaker, we will change

with it. Then, there was competing evidence on the issue of the ages, the effect

on women of ages 40 to 49.

Mr. Speaker, there are groups who are advocating for universal screening at

age 40, as outlined by the member opposite. Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, we

have invested $400,000 into the provincial cancer policy framework for reviewing

existing screening programs including the breast screening program.

Mr. Speaker, the statistics in this Province indicate that there excuse me,

before I get to that, the member opposite, again, is quite correct. If a woman

under the age of 50 feels the need to have a mammogram, she will discuss this

request with her family physician, who will access her health status and the

potential risk factors. Then, if a referral is made, the woman will have a

mammogram at a hospital-based site. Annual rechecks may also be requested with a

doctor's referral.

Mr. Speaker, there are six other provinces who have screening similar to

Newfoundland and Labrador's. These provinces are: New Brunswick, Quebec,

Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador. As the

Leader of the Opposition has indicated, Mr. Speaker, she has had discussions

with one of the other provinces and they are considering changing their

screening policy. In BC, Nova Scotia, PEI, and the Territories, women ages 40 to

49, as outlined by the member opposite, self refer to the screening program and

are then recalled annually.

One of the interesting statistics, Mr. Speaker, we are showing in this

Province that 60 per cent of the women between the ages of 40 to 49 have had at

least one mammogram. In BC, Nova Scotia, and PEI, where women ages 40 to 49 self

refer to the screening program, the uptake is 33 per cent, 34 per cent, and 19

per cent respectively. Mr. Speaker, in Alberta they will accept women under the

age of 50 in their program with a physician's referral and will recall her

annually.

Mr. Speaker, our statistics show that almost 90 per cent of women in

Newfoundland and Labrador between the ages of 50 to 69 have had at least one

mammogram. That is why, again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for

raising this issue because it is so, so important that this kind of issue be

discussed in this hon. House. We look to solve issues, we look to improve

situations, and we are certainly open to all of that, Mr. Speaker.

In 2009-2010, the program screened a little over 20,000 women; 1,745 were

referred for further follow up and 78 of these women were diagnosed with cancer.

Mr. Speaker, our wait-lists vary throughout the Province in that a mammogram for

diagnostic purposes can occur the same day or within days and the times then

will vary throughout the regional health authorities.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the resolution put forward, I would suggest, though,

to the member opposite that it is not as clear-cut in terms of the scientific

literature. The Public Health Agency of Canada, Mr. Speaker, in its publication

Information on Mammography for Women Aged 40 and Older in 2009 advises

that, "the benefits of screening mammograms outweigh the harms for women aged

50 to 69. For younger and older women, the balance of benefits and harms is not

so clear."

The United States Preventative Services Task Force, which was referred to by

the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, modified their recommendations

recently for mammography screening, and this was in November, 2009, for specific

age groups. For women aged 50 to 74 years, Mr. Speaker, biennial screening

mammography was recommended. The previous recommendation was for women from age

40 to 69.

I think the member opposite referred to the American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists, the American College of Radiology and the American Academy of

Family Physicians. There have been two recent articles in The Globe and Mail

on the efficacy of breast screening programs in general, Mr. Speaker. We

know that the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care guidelines on

breast screening in Canada are currently being reviewed. I am informed, Mr.

Speaker, that the task force will be releasing their updated guidelines in late

April or early May.

Mr. Speaker, this is my proposal today. If you look at the resolution, and I

am going to go through it clause by clause, the first clause the first

WHEREAS

certainly is correct. The second

WHEREAS is again correct. The third

WHEREAS is

correct. The fourth

WHEREAS is correct. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated,

in clause 5 there is some debate in terms of the scientific community - this is

not me, Mr. Speaker, this is the scientific community - however, I will accept

that clause for the purposes of today's argument. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

clause 6, my officials have not been able to find the empirical evidence that

shows that mammography screening of women can reduce mortality from breast

cancer by at least 24 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, my recommendation today or what I am going to put forward is

that the sixth clause be amended by deleting the words "empirical evidence" and

substituting the words "conflicting evidence"; and also by deleting "by at least

24 per cent". The amendment suggested, Mr. Speaker, is:

WHEREAS there is

conflicting evidence that routine mammography screening of women in their 40s

can reduce mortality from breast cancer.

Clause 7 is correct, Mr. Speaker. When we get to clause 8:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has the existing capacity to accommodate women between

the ages of 40 and 49. There is no question, I am glad to hear the member

opposite talk about the breast screening program we have here, the digital

mammography machines. I am very glad to hear that they are working, that we have

invested significantly in this area; however, again, I am suggesting we amend

this clause. I am not suggesting that we strike it out. At this stage - and this

will fit in to what I am going to suggest that the resolution be here today. Mr.

Speaker, as opposed to reading, in the eight recital clause "has the existing

capacity", I would suggest that we substitute the words ", if required, will

ensure capacity".

Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that recital clause 8 will read:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador, if required, will ensure capacity to accommodate

women between the ages of 40 and 49 years in the provincial breast screening

programs. This government, Mr. Speaker, has indicated through our investments in

cancer care how seriously we take this. Again, if you look around this House or

anyone watching this today, we have all been affected by cancer, Mr. Speaker.

What I am suggesting in the resolution today, Mr. Speaker, is that we delete

the words "establish a new benchmark by reducing to 40years of age" Take out

that whole sentence, Mr. Speaker, and say: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this

House call upon government to refer this matter to the Cancer Control Advisory

Committee for recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I am suggesting I want to take this route. This is a

very serious issue and one that has been raised by the member opposite and,

again, I give her full credit for it; but, as the minister, I have to act on the

advice that is given to me by medical officials and by scientists. In this

particular case, Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, and within a month we will

have a Cancer Control Advisory Committee in place made up of various experts,

breast cancer survivors, and representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society,

Young Adult Cancer, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, also, we expect that within the month, in late April or early

May, the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care guidelines on breast

screening in Canada being reviewed. So, those are two; we have the Cancer

Control Advisory Committee, which will be in place within a month, and then we

have the recommendations that will come out of Canadian Task Force on

Preventative Health Care.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to reiterate here today is that we will take

whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the health of our residents, of our

citizens, is well looked after. I have to, as the Minister of Health, make such

decisions based on empirical evidence, on facts, on evidence-based literature.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good compromise here today; it

says to the member opposite, we take very seriously what you are suggesting

here, that we are listening to what you are saying. What we are saying here is

that I would like to refer this to the Cancer Control Advisory Committee who

will then come back with a recommendation, and I can assure you that will be

done as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I have the proposed amendment here. I will be moving it, and the

amendment will be seconded by the Member for Lewisporte.

Mr. MacKenzie? Or, is the House Leader supposed to do that? I am not sure.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time to address this

very serious issue.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a point of order based

on the amendment that was just put in regarding the debate this afternoon. I

just want to clarify that on the Order Paper it reads: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED

that this House calls upon Government to establish a new benchmark by reducing

to 40 years of age the eligibility for self-referral to the provincial breast

cancer screening program.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was submitted by the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace is in relation to the resolution as indicated on the

Order Paper. Just for clarity, I want to ensure that we are following the

appropriate motion, because when the Leader of the Opposition spoke, the

resolution said, "BE IT RESOLVED that this House call upon Government to examine

the reduction of the eligible breast screening age in Newfoundland and Labrador

and to establish a new benchmark at the age of 40."

I just want to clarify that the amendment is in relation to the motion that

is on the Order Paper, and not necessarily what was read into the record when

the Leader of the Opposition was speaking earlier in her comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In relation to the comments made by the Government House Leader, she is

correct. Our Standing Orders very clearly indicate, and Standing Order 55

indicates, that notice shall be given at a previous sitting for leave to present

a bill, resolution, or address.

Further, Standing Order 63.(3) "On the Monday before the Wednesday of the

week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debated, the Government House

Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the

House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that Wednesday."

So, the motion that is before the House, as stated on the Order Paper, shall

be the motion that is under debate today.

We have received an amendment from the Member for the District of

Carbonear-Harbour Grace and the Minister of Health and Community Services. I

have not yet had an opportunity to review that amendment, and I will ask the

House to recess for a few moments to allow me to review the amendment and make a

decision on the amendment.

The House shall recess for a few moments.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready to proceed?

The Chair, having reviewed the amendments as put forward by the Minister of

Health and Community Services, deems the amendments to be in order.

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

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

It is very interesting what has happened here right now with the amendment

because, in actual fact, the amendment I think is the way in which we should be

going. We are dealing with a very serious issue and a very serious question here

today when we are talking about breast screening for breast cancer. I think it

has been outlined very well by the Leader of the Official Opposition, whose

motion is on the floor, and as well by the Member for Carbonear in his response,

and in his response as Minister of Health and Community Services.

I am not going to go through all the statistics and put a lot more

statistical information out on the floor because quite a bit has been put out.

We do know that the debate is an important debate and it is going on and has

gone on in many places. The fact that we have provinces who have changed the

benchmark for breast screening from women over 50 to women over 40 this has

happened in a number of provinces and those provinces have been outlined here on

the floor a couple of times this afternoon.

I lived in Ontario, actually, in the 1990s when this was a major discussion

going on. Finally, in Ontario, I think, they are close to moving to passing

legislation that will change the benchmark. Yet, I agree with the Minister of

Health and Community Services that we cannot make a decision here on the floor

today with regard to benchmark. We do have to come to an agreement that we have

to do the required study on this issue in order to make that decision.

I would like to point out one thing to the Minister of Health and Community

Services. He did make reference to the sixth

WHEREAS in the original motion that

was put forward;

WHEREAS there is empirical evidence that routine mammography

screening of women in their 40s can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at

least 24 per cent. The minister indicated that they had not been able in his

department to come up with this empirical evidence. Obviously, time is needed to

look for that kind of information. That is the kind of work that the cancer

control committee would do.

I would like to point out that we did find empirical evidence to that effect.

As a matter of fact, both the European Journal of Cancer and the US Society of

Breast Imaging and the American College of Radiology have named studies of

nearly 500,000 women around the world which actually show a 26 per cent

reduction in mortality with earlier testing. Even more specifically, a large

national study by a Swedish university found that mammography on women aged 40

to 49 reduced breast cancer mortality by 29 per cent, and the BC cancer agency

found a 25 per cent reduction in breast cancer mortality rates as a result of

screening women between 40 and 49. There are a number of studies out there on an

international level which in actual fact do back up the

WHEREAS in the

resolution that has been put on the floor. I think there is quite a bit of work

that needs to be done to confirm the empirical evidence. But the reason I want

this to happen is because I do believe that there is a lot of empirical evidence

out there and more evidence is being gathered almost on an annual basis. Our

taking this issue seriously and wanting to put it forward to the Cancer Control

Committee, which would then give advice back to the House, is a very, very good

way to go. I think it is the wise way to go because the issue is very complex.

There is absolutely no doubt that breast cancer screening programs have

greater ability to reduce cancer mortality because of the higher levels of

population coverage and a centralized commitment to quality and monitoring. The

cancer does exist in people under 50; especially in women under 50 the breast

cancer does exist. The greater the population we can stop the cancer in or

catch it early the better for our society. When it comes to catching it

earlier, it also makes economic sense as well because the earlier we catch

cancer the better it is for the whole health care system and that is certainly

true of breast cancer as well.

I think there are all kinds of reasons for us to follow the lead of the many

provinces and countries that now routinely screen women at the age of 40 rather

than at the age of 50. Some of the countries that are doing it are Australia,

Austria, Greece, Japan, Slovakia, most of Sweden, and many U.S. states. We know,

of course, that we also have the provinces that have been named here on the

floor today. As well, you have some other countries where the benchmark is lower

than 50, but not as low as 40. So, for example, the Czech Republic, Hungary, New

Zealand, Portugal, and most of Spain start at the age of 45.

So, taking all this information, studying it, and taking the time to make a

wise a decision, I think, really is the way to go. We do know that breast cancer

is the most common cancer diagnosed, and the second leading cause of cancer

mortality in Canadian women. So, it just makes absolute sense that we would want

to reduce, as much as possible, the mortality of women in this country, because

of having breast cancer. In Canada, in 2009 alone, 22,700 new cases came up, and

5,400 deaths were expected down the road to result from those extra cases.

The mortality rate is what really disturbs. One in nine women will be

diagnosed with breast cancer, and one in twenty-seven will die from breast

cancer in their lifetime. We know things have really gotten a lot better, and

the mortality rate is improving, but the earlier we find the cancer, the better.

We do know, certainly, that for women in their 40s and in their 30s, catching

that breast cancer at the early stage is extremely important, because of the

aggressive nature of cancer in pre-menopausal women. That is really what it

comes down to.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to vote for the amended resolution that is

here on the floor, this afternoon. I think it is something that we owe to all

the women in the Province. We owe it to those especially who are in families

where breast cancer is prevalent. I should knock on wood when I say it, but I

luckily do not come from a family where that is the case when it comes to breast

cancer, but we know we have many families in the Province where

great-grandmothers and grandmothers and mothers and daughters have died and are

dying from breast cancer. The more we can do to cut down on the mortality rate

the better it is.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is sufficient to show that we

do need to vote on this resolution and vote on the amended resolution, and not

only take the minister at his word, but thank him for the commitment he has made

here in the discussion today that this will move forward and recommendations

from the cancer control committee will eventually end up on this floor again.

That is what I look forward to.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, like others before me, I want to emphasize the importance of this

debate and to extend to everybody out there who is watching this, anybody who

has ever suffered breast cancer, anybody who has had family who have suffered

breast cancer and been victims of breast cancer; I want to let them know that

this government is certainly very happy with the fact that we have opportunity

on the floor of this House today to debate this very, very important issue.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward this motion.

Certainly her battle and her courage has been a symbol to all out there who have

had to face this particular cancer in their lives. I certainly thank her for

sharing that with us and for bringing it forward so that we have opportunity to

talk about that here today.

I also want to tell her how happy we all are that she is so courageously and

so successfully battling this cancer in her life, and wish her all the best from

this side of the House, as I am sure many people across the Province who are

watching this debate today would wish me to say on behalf of all women. We

certainly applaud her courage and her strength, and again thank her for this

opportunity here in the House today.

Good health for women in Newfoundland and Labrador I think is something that

we cannot emphasize enough, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women, I have many opportunities to network with women, to speak with

women, and one of the things I hear most often is that women in today's society

perhaps do not do as good a job as they should of looking after their own

health. I hear oftentimes of the difficulties of balancing work, of balancing a

family life, of balancing committees and other commitments within the volunteer

sector that many women and men, of course like to be involved with. I hear

this from conversations that I have with women as a result of this new portfolio

that I happily have embraced. I hear that quite often. What is ignored, what we

do not pay attention to would be issues around our own health care, around

taking the time for that preventative health care that we so often need to do.

The importance of good health for women in Newfoundland and Labrador, for

persons in Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly cannot be overstated no matter

what the age.

Women in Newfoundland not only suffer from breast cancer, Mr. Speaker, but

from cervical cancer, ovarian cancer and then there are other just as important

illnesses, ailments, diseases out there, and I speak, certainly, of diabetes,

heart and lung disease and so on. In fact, one of the leading causes of death

for women in this Province is cardiovascular disease.

Again, the opportunity just to take a moment to highlight, for all of us,

that health care is important and no matter what the issues that we are facing

in our daily lives, no matter how busy the work

schedule gets, no matter how

busy our commitments in other areas of our lives can become, we do need to pay

attention to our own health.

Breast screening is certainly one of those essential health care initiatives

that women must, I believe, seriously consider. There is no question that cancer

continues to touch the lives of everyone in our Province and our continued

investment in cancer treatment and prevention is something that we have to take

seriously and that we have to continue to expand.

All of us have stories to tell, Mr. Speaker, and that is an unfortunate

thing. In my own family, a very close relative just, in the last seven or eight

weeks, had her second mastectomy, Mr. Speaker. I certainly understand how breast

cancer touches the families and the lives of all of us. For myself, personally,

I have had a couple of incidents where interventions were required as well.

Again, breast cancer is not something that is about just the woman either. It

is about the whole of the family, the whole of the community that must respond,

and thankfully we all have supportive families around us that are there for us

in these times. They are difficult times, Mr. Speaker; the emotion that is

involved when one hears the word cancer when one understands that a medical

intervention is required because of a cancer. The emotion that is involved, just

in the hearing of that, is exceptionally difficult; not just for women I am

sure. It is something that we have to face; therefore, as a government we have

to be responsible about it.

One of the parts of, I think, our recent past that we will never want to

revisit, Mr. Speaker, and we should never have to revisit, have to do with the

laboratory and Health Sciences Centre's discovery of inconsistent results in

breast tumour samples. The tests that were done at the time examined two hormone

receptors in breast cancer samples which help physicians to decide on a course

of treatment for each patient. While I do not intend to go back through all of

what happened through the Cameron inquiry and all of what happened through that

period of time, suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, it is something that we should

never have to revisit in this Province again.

The Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing that was established in

July, 2007, resulted in some sixty recommendations being put forward to the

provincial government. I think we showed our commitment to cancer care in the

Province when we adopted those recommendations. I think that commitment

continues to show as we work through the implementation of the recommendations.

Since receiving the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing, the

provincial government has invested more than $26 million directly to respond to

those recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I find that to be a great reassurance to the

women, the men, the children of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that

we have heard those recommendations, that we take those recommendations

seriously and that we are prepared to act on them. I know personally as a result

of the cancers in my own family, I find that exceptionally reassuring.

This time last year, as well, the Minister of Health and Community Services

announced that we had completed or substantially completed thirty-nine of the

sixty recommendations. The remaining twenty-one were partially complete at that

time. Again, I think that is evidence of the commitment that as a Province we

need to know, as a Province we need to feel. I think it is important we

reiterate that again today, that as a Province, as a government, we truly are

concerned about ensuring that part of our history is never repeated and that we

never have to revisit it, that there never has to be another Cameron inquiry.

I understand in the coming days the Minister of Health and Community Services

will be providing an update on our current progress with regard to the other

recommendations that have come from the Cameron inquiry, and I look forward to

those. Certainly, we have made some progress, and by working together I believe

we will continue to make progress in this area because no matter what, patient

safety must be first and foremost on the minds of all of us as we go through the

daily business of living our lives. When we do encounter whatever it is that is

out there, that we all will meet some day, then we need to understand that

patient safety is there. This is the responsibility of our government, and I

would like to ensure that the people of the Province understand that we take

that responsibility very seriously.

Some of Justice Cameron's recommendations were fairly straightforward and we

were able to adopt them relatively quickly, such as the implementation of

apology legislation, which our government passed in 2009. Others of those

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, which we stated were very necessary and the

groundwork needed to be done, others of them, such as mandatory lab

accreditation, they will take a little bit more time to finalize. Again, the

assurance needs to be given that we are on the road to ensuring that that does

happen. Some other recommendations will be implemented but will be forever

ongoing, and that is certainly a good thing. Particularly, we reference the

continuing education for medical professionals; another very, very important

piece in the prevention of all cancer care, but in this case, particularly in

terms of the prevention of breast cancer.

We have made a significant number of investments in cancer care and

prevention and treatment since our time here in government, to the tune of about

$125 million, just in cancer prevention and treatment alone, Mr. Speaker. I do

not want to go through all of these and outline each of these initiatives that

we have invested in, but I think it is important for the people of the Province

to understand and to know that we accept our responsibility here to ensure that

as much as possible can be done, is being done here, and we will continue to see

the investments.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the provincial government, in

Budget 2009, did invest some $10.9 million to purchase twelve new digital

mammography units. I know the Leader of the Opposition has already made

reference to these, but having these units placed throughout the Province is

such an important piece of the puzzle in terms of the prevention piece of breast

cancer. I am really happy that we have been able to do that much. Again, I say

this because I think it is assuring for the people of the Province to know that

these new units provide the best imaging technology that is available for

diagnostic breast cancer testing here. The technology allows the mammogram to be

enlarged or magnified to provide the best quality picture and allows images to

be electronically filed and stored where they can be accessed in seconds. I

think for those of us who have had the experience, and have had reason to need a

mammography, it is important to know that when that happens, that the

mammography we are receiving is coming from a unit which is described as being

one of the best imaging technologies that is available. Again, the new units are

available in twelve centres across Newfoundland and Labrador. Just to highlight:

St. John's, Carbonear, Clarenville, Burin, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner

Brook, Stephenville, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador City.

The Cancer Control Strategy itself, which this government launched in

November, 2010, I think is another very good initiative that can offer some

reassurance to the people of the Province. The goal of the strategy is to reduce

the incidents and impact of cancer and to improve the quality of life of those

living with cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador. Several new initiatives will be

announced, or have been announced actually during the launch of the Cancer

Control Strategy, specifically those that address the policy direction of the

strategy, including identifying individuals at risk, which, as we all know, is

exceptionally important in the diagnosis of breast cancer; identifying

individuals at risk and other initiatives such as access and advocacy, education

and training in prevention through promoting a healthy population.

All of those initiatives that were announced at the launch of the Cancer

Control Strategy Committee I think are exceptionally important. The framework

itself, I believe, will help to strengthen the services that are being offered

for the prevention and treatment of cancer but particularly the prevention and

treatment of breast cancer to ensure the best possible health outcomes for the

people of the Province. I think the framework complements as well other

provincial strategies that are aimed at combating chronic conditions.

Just for the sake of clarity, I would like to say we are very supportive of

the motion that was brought forward. I understand we took a recess to take a

look at some of the differences here in terms of the amendments but we are not

offside here at all. I think it is safe to say that government and the Leader of

the Opposition, in bringing forth this motion, are very much onside.

The original clause of the motion read: that this House calls upon government

to establish a new benchmark by reducing to 40 years of age the eligibility for

self-referral to the provincial breast cancer screening program. The amendment

itself, I believe, is not offside at all when it says:

BE IT RESOLVED that this

House call upon Government to examine the reduction of the eligible breast

screening age in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once again, something that is

exceptionally important, something that we have to do in this Province, but we

have to do it based on science. We have to do it based on the best, professional

information we can get. That is not for people like you and me in this House to

do, Mr. Speaker. That is for the professionals to do. That is for the medical

experts to do. That is to be fed by all kinds of consultations, I would assume,

as well when the Committee starts to do its work in terms of looking at this.

So, I think we would leave it in very good hands when we ask that Cancer

Control Advisory Committee to take a look at the recommendation that we are

making here today, to take a look at the motion that we are looking at here

today, and then to come forward and make a recommendation.

Again, on behalf on all women in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am extremely

happy that this motion has been on the floor today and that we have had an

opportunity to discuss it and debate. I look forward to supporting very much the

amended motion that we have before us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great honour to stand today and to speak to this

motion. I do so with a little bit of fear and trepidation. I fear somewhat that

in talking about this subject it may raise some emotions within. I hope that

does not happen because I want to talk about it and I want to get through a

discussion that I think is a very valuable discussion here today.

First of all, let me start by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for

bringing this motion forward today. I saw in the media interview earlier - maybe

last fall that she had originally hoped to bring forward this motion in the

fall sitting of the House. I think her health challenges probably prevented

that, but I am glad she brought it forward today.

I also want to sincerely say to her that I am glad she is back in the House

of Assembly. While her personal battle with breast cancer is ongoing, I am glad

she has mustered the energy and the fortitude needed to be here and to debate

issues. I am glad she is here. I do not always agree with what she says, but I

am glad she is here.

Mr. Speaker, breast cancer, indeed many types of cancer, affect families and

individuals throughout our Province. The very word cancer is able to send chills

up your spine. It is an awful word, a word that people do not want to hear.

I want to share today in a few minutes a personal perspective regarding

breast cancer specifically. Two people in my family have been recently diagnosed

with breast cancer. I have a sister, Jean, who is currently undergoing an orally

administered chemotherapy drug for the treatment of Stage IV breast cancer. Jean

was diagnosed just last year at the age of 58. She is doing well. The chemo drug

that she is on is being administered orally. Her health is improving, she is

doing well, and her energy is up. She has a great family support, great friends,

and great faith. I am sure it is mainly through her faith that she attributes

her good progress today.

I want to share, in a little more depth, the experience of my wife, Maxine,

who just last year was diagnosed - actually, it was in June of 2009, at the age

of 49, Maxine felt a lump in her breast. If anybody who has ever gone through

that, you feel that and immediately there is a little shock, but then you kind

of dismiss it and you say: Well, it is probably nothing. Many women go through

that. They feel a lump and it is something. They go, they get checked out, and

it is nothing to worry about.

We thought: Well, that is going to be the case with us, even though we were

pretty anxious. Eventually Maxine went and had a mammogram. The mammogram showed

that further testing was required. She went and had some more testing; she had a

biopsy. We received the news sitting in the doctor's office, myself and her,

that indeed she did have breast cancer; she did have what is called inflammatory

breast cancer. The whole language surrounding breast cancer, the drugs, the

stages, and all of the wording became familiar to us in a short period of time.

We were told she had what was called Stage IIIB inflammatory breast cancer. For

us, I guess coming to grips with that, the first thing you do is have an

emotional breakdown, you wonder why and wonder how you are going to get through

it. Then, you get past that, you gather strength, you say we are going to face

it, we are going to fight it, and we are going to do whatever needs to be done

to make sure that we get through it.

In November of 2009, Maxine started chemotherapy, started in Grand Falls. I

remember we went into the cancer clinic the first day. We went there about 8:00

or 8:30 in the morning, and she was hooked up to an IV at about 9:00 or 9:30. We

were kind of the first ones there. At 5:00 o'clock in the day, after being on

this drip of three different chemotherapy drugs, we went home. She felt pretty

good, but then over the next day there was a nausea that came with the

after-effects of chemotherapy. I remember being up with her for most of one

night with the violent throwing up and everything that came with it. You go

through four or five days of that because usually chemotherapy is once every

three weeks, and then after about day six or seven she starts to feel a bit

better. Then, toward the end of the first session, you start to lose your hair

and there is the torment that goes with that.

I apologize to anybody who is listening to this today, if they find it hard,

especially to the Leader of the Opposition, but I just feel like it is important

that we fully paint the picture and people understand here because lots of

people in our Province go through treatment of cancer; and, folks, it is a very,

very hard battle.

Following chemotherapy, there was the surgery that came in February. The

news: No, there is not a lump that can be removed; we have to remove the full

breast. For a woman, there is the impact of that. It is not just the pain of

surgery. It is not just the torment of surgery. It is not just the recovery and

having a health nurse come to your home for a week. It is also the psychological

battle that comes with it.

Following surgery, there are weeks of radiation. The burning of radiation is,

well, it is something that Maxine describes as very intense, draining. Finally,

after that, after all that long battle, there comes a feeling of hope; there

comes a feeling of optimism. The intervention that takes place as people the

medical professionals in the field how they treat you with such dignity and

such respect and such care and such compassion, out of all of that comes a

feeling of optimism, a feeling of hope that we can beat this.

So, that is Maxine's story, Mr. Speaker, and cancer is something that many

people throughout our Province get affected by, and it is a hard, hard battle.

As we debate this motion today and I listen to the Minister of Health,

self-referral for screening, and it has been asked in this motion as it was

originally put forward that we lower the age from 50 down to 40, and I have no

issue supporting that. I have no problem with it.

As the Minister of Health has said, what we need to do is refer this to the

professionals in the field. We need the proper science behind it, because there

is conflicting evidence. I have researched it, and I am by no means a medical

professional; I have researched it and some reputable groups say that starting

self-referral breast cancer screening at age 40 is good. Also, some other

reputable groups say that if we start breast cancer self-referral screening at

age 40 that the negative outcomes outweigh the positive outcomes. So, there is

conflicting evidence, and I am very, very comfortable with supporting the

amendment that the Minister of Health has put forward today, which says we will

take a look at this after the professionals have looked at, after the Cancer

Control Advisory Committee has done their piece of work, and then we will move

from there.

Again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forth this motion

today. I thank her for what she represents to the people of the Province and I

wish her the very best in her battle. I wish the people of the Province who are

facing cancer, whether it is breast cancer or any other type of cancer, I want

to say to all of the people that are out there is to hang on to your family,

your friends, your faith. Follow the advice that your physician is giving you

and by all means we wish you the very best in your battle.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has had to step away for a few

moments and I will ask the discretion of the House to recess for a few moments

to allow the Leader to come back.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

Are we ready to proceed?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank all of those today who contributed to the debate. I just want

to make a few brief closing comments.

First of all, as I said, I introduced this motion today simply because of

awareness of the issue in the last year or so because of my own personal

circumstance. As a result of that, I have gotten to dialogue with many young

women, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but certainly across Canada in

recognizing the importance of breast screening for women under the age of 50 and

the need to have that policy changed in Legislatures right across the country.

As I have already outlined, Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments, there have

already been a number of provinces and territories that have already undertaken,

in Canada, to change the breast screening age for women from age 50 to age 40. I

want to applaud those provinces, Mr. Speaker, for having done that. I also want

to say today to the Minister of Health, I really appreciated his comments and

his sincerity on this particular issue, and I think he, too, realizes that it is

a serious policy issue that needs to be looked at in Newfoundland and Labrador.

While, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed that government did not come

today prepared to make a more firm decision around changing the benchmark in

Newfoundland and Labrador from age 50 to age 40, I am somewhat optimistic by the

fact that they have referred it out to a task force to have a look at.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, that I defer with the need that there should be more

medical expertise brought to bear on it I certainly do not take exception to

government wanting to move in that direction. I do think, Mr. Speaker, that it

is worthy of pointing out that there is a lot of medical expertise already out

there in the country today that will document and solidify the motion that I

have brought forward and the need for it to be done. I want to refer people to

one of the reports that was presented back last fall and that was a scientific

report that was done by a committee out of Ontario and it was chaired by a

Doctor Martin Yaffe. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Yaffe has a distinguished career at

Sunnybrook Research Institute and has focused on the physics of breast cancer

imaging. That has been one of his specialities.

In that report, Mr. Speaker, he recommends that breast screening in Canada

should be age 40 and not at age 50. It is his report that is being used in

Ontario today to make the decision to move forward with this particular

legislation. While I heard and listened very attentively to the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans and the fact that she felt there needs to be more medical

expertise or medical experts to look at this, I would say that there is already

a lot of evidence out there. Some of that evidence is conflicting; I would be

the first to admit that. Mr. Speaker, if you look very clearly at where the

evidence and recommendations for this is coming from, it is coming from leading

experts in the country and in the field of breast cancer research.

Mr. Speaker, I have been engaged as well in some work with the Canadian

Breast Cancer Foundation that have also taken it upon themselves to launch a

movement across Canada to have this new benchmark established as the new

national benchmark so that all provinces would hopefully comply over a period of

time in that particular fashion.

Mr. Speaker, there is, in my opinion, a tremendous amount of evidence already

there that is supporting this particular move. I would encourage my colleagues,

although it has been referred to a task force in Newfoundland and Labrador - and

I must say a task force being chaired by Dr. Ganguly, a radiologist in which I

have a tremendous amount of confidence, as I chose him as my own personal

radiologist. I do have confidence in his abilities and in his knowledge that he

will bring to bear on this particular issue; however, Mr. Speaker, I also

realize that when we refer out different things like this when we already have

evidence on which to draw upon, it is a lengthy process. I would imagine that we

will be sometime before we can achieve the goal that we are trying to achieve as

women under the age of 50, or between the ages of 40 and 50 in the Province to

have this done.

Mr. Speaker, I will draw my comments to a conclusion, other than to say to

members opposite that there has been a lot of support expressed to me by women

in the Province to have this done, especially between the ages of 40 and 49. I

would ask that you use some urgency in carrying out the work of the task force

and that you would come to a conclusion on it sooner rather than later. I think

that, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the evidence of moving this to age 40 will

save lives of women in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that would be the

objective and the goal of all of us who sit in this Legislature who certainly

have been affected in one way or another with cancer and are enforced with the

mandate of making policies that are there to enhance and help people in society.

I think that we would certainly see the favouritism in moving forward with this.

I ask that it be done in the quickest time as possible that government can

undertake to do this. I would ask that government would look at supporting this

and bringing forward some new benchmarks in the Province in the near future.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Health and

Community Services carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The amended resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, and it being 4:45 p.m. and

the business of the House being concluded, this House now stands adjourned until

1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.