April

8, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 7

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon the House of Assembly welcomes sixteen students from the

Bay. These students come from the districts of Bellevue, Trinity-Bay de Verde,

Harbour Main, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Port de Grave and Placentia & St.

Mary's. They are accompanied by their instructors Ms Paula King and Ms

Margaret Taylor.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The members' statements today will be from the hon. the

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

of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the hon. the Member for the District of

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

Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two volunteer

firefighters with the Spaniard's Bay fire department, Mr. Weldon Seymour and

Mr. David Healy, who received their firefighting long service bar and

certificates of recognition on February 1, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Weldon Seymour on twenty-five years

of dedicated service and to David Healy for twenty years of dedicated service.

Both gentlemen are to be commended for their loyalty and commitment to the

residents of Spaniard's Bay and surrounding area who depend on the fire

department in times of emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending

congratulations to Weldon Seymour and David Healy on a job well done.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate A.J. Whiffen of Grand

Falls-Windsor, who has been making a name for himself in the Saskatchewan Junior

Hockey League, as a valued member of the Weyburn Red Wings team.

Mr. Speaker, A.J. Whiffen was recruited to the team last year, and is the

only rookie to ever be recognized as the club's starting goaltender. He was

recently honoured with the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League rookie of the year

award, after achieving a league best save percentage. As his team face the

playoffs, his coach has been quoted as saying that "Whiffen's play and

upbeat attitude are going to be key factors in the team's playoff hopes".

It is commendable that this young man only graduated from high school this

past December, and has already captured the interest of nine teams from high end

schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating A.J.

Whiffen for his outstanding achievements thus far, and in wishing him the best

of luck in his future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Cynthia Colosimo Robbins - Cindy Robbins - of

Forteau, Labrador, in my district, who provided illustration for a book

published by author Paul O'Neill of St. John's and printed by Flanker Press.

Mr. Speaker, the book was titled How Dog Became a Friend and was not

an easy story to illustrate since its setting is about 3,000 years ago in

Labrador and involved the Maritime Archaic people. The book is about how a dog

became friends with mankind, going from a wild creature to a civilized one. It

is a very old Arctic tale and a true one and intended for children between the

ages of four and nine. Ms Colosimo Robbins work was described by Mr. O'Neill

as absolutely marvellous and that it caught not only the spirit of the story but

the feeling of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Ms Colosimo Robbins on her incredible display

of artistic ability and Mr. O'Neill for capturing a perfect literary tale of

Labrador history in print for children forever, and I ask members in this House

to extend our congratulations to both of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to offer congratulations to the seventeen young ladies who

participated in the recent Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant. These

young ladies represented their respective communities very well indeed.

I am happy to report that for my district LeDon Byrne was the third runner up

in the pageant, while Laura Woodworth, also of Grand Falls-Windsor, took top

honours and is now the new Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ms Woodworth is an excellent choice and will prove to be a worthy ambassador

for all young people in this Province. She is an extraordinary young lady. Laura

is involved in her community in many volunteer organizations, is a high achiever

in school - in fact, she is enrolled in several university courses while still

completing high school, and as well, is a talented musician. Apart from being

named Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, Laura was also the winner of the Miss

Academic Award, displaying her competence in disciplines such as current

affairs, governance, and the entertainment industry.

To both LeDon Byrne and the new Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, Laura

Woodworth, I offer my sincere congratulations and best wishes of all

constituents of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, and I am sure of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Master Warrant Officer Stephen

Jeans on becoming the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, Military

Division, from Governor General Michaelle Jean.

The award recognizes individuals for bringing honour to the Canadian Forces

and to Canada.

Master Warrant Officer Jeans was the company sergeant major, Indian Company,

2 nd Battalion in Afghanistan from January to August of 2007. He is

being recognized for his leadership, exemplary performance and extreme loyalty

to his soldiers and the mission during diverse and complex operations while

under intense enemy fire.

Mr. Jeans and the 143 men who worked for him were seeking out and fighting

the Taliban in the Kandahar district. They saw action sixteen times out of

twenty-four planned operations, in addition to four other unplanned engagements.

The mission in Afghanistan was Mr. Jeans' fifth time overseas since joining

the Canadian Forces in 1982.

Mr. Jeans and his wife currently reside in New Brunswick with their two

children. He is a former resident of Cape Ray, in the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile in Newfoundland and Labrador, and his mother Margaret Jeans still

resides there.

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

congratulations to Master Warrant Officer Stephen Jeans on receiving this

distinguished award. All the best to Master Warrant Officer Jeans and his

family, and we thank you for your contributions to our great Country.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Special Olympics team of

Newfoundland and Labrador on its recent participation in the Winter Games in

Quebec City.

Being active and participating in sports is important in everyone's life.

The Special Olympics offers something extra. Its mission is "To provide

year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of sports for

children and adults with an intellectual disability in Newfoundland and

Labrador, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness,

demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in the sharing of skills and

friendship with their communities and other Special Olympics athletes and their

families."

I would like to give special recognition to Team NL's floor hockey team who

won the gold medal in Division C of the 2008 National Winter Games. What a great

victory! I would also like to recognize all of the participants who collectively

brought home thirteen medals. This was truly wonderful representation from

Newfoundland and Labrador. We should all be very proud of every athlete who

participated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Special Olympics play a vital role in supporting

youth and adults with intellectual disabilities. They deserve the highest

recognition for increasing the quality of life for many people in our

communities.

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

Olympics team of Newfoundland and Labrador on their participation in the 2008

Winter Games.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to inform my colleagues and the

people of this Province of an initiative that has changed the lives of over 135

children in our Province for the better.

In Budget 2007, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that we

would cover the cost of insulin pumps and supplies for children with Type 1

diabetes up to eighteen years of age. This strategic investment of $1.4 million

resulted in significant and positive improvements in the lives and health of

these children.

Mr. Speaker, Type 1 diabetes, which used to be known as Juvenile Diabetes,

means that the body does not produce enough insulin to turn food into energy.

Some of the serious complications of this type of diabetes include heart

disease, blindness, nerve damage, and kidney damage.

Recent studies have found insulin pumps to significantly reduce the risk of

complications for children with Type 1 diabetes. The insulin pump also allows

children the freedom to be children - to play, to attend school and play sports

without regularly having to stop for insulin injections.

Mr. Speaker, since we made this announcement, I have heard many accounts of

the incredible positive impact these pumps have had on these children and their

families. Parents no longer have to wonder how they will afford to pay for the

pump, and they no longer have to administer multiple injections to their

children on a daily basis.

I would like to quote a letter I received from one such parent living on the

West Coast. Mr. Speaker, the writer said, "The announcement of the Insulin

Pump program for children last spring was a welcome relief and an answer to our

prayers."

This letter was incredibly meaningful for me, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of

Health and Community Services, just as it is for all members of this House and

all members of government, knowing that we are truly making a difference in the

lives of children in this Province.

This is a real good announcement that we made last year and we are starting

to see, over the course of the last twelve months, testimony like this coming

in, a true testimony of the effect this has had on children and families in our

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance

copy of his statement.

This is certainly an important issue, and one that was lobbied aggressively

by the Diabetic Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact I remember,

along with other colleagues in the House of Assembly, attending an information

session, a dinner, that they held at the Holiday Inn a year ago where they made

a very strong pitch to the minister and to government officials at that time to

bring this about; and we, as an Opposition, certainly supported it and pushed

for it in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are 135 children out there today who are

receiving these insulin pumps. What I do not know is if that is meeting the

entire need and the demand that was there, and if there are children still out

there who may not be receiving them. That would be important as well, to be able

to accommodate all of those who are in need.

Mr. Speaker, there are 31,000 people in our Province today who suffer from

diabetes, and a number of these people are struggling when it comes to being

able to provide for the income support you need to manage this disease.

I get calls in my office on a regular basis from people who are low-income

earners, and people who are on income support, or, when they are being assessed

for drug cards and drug coverage, that all of the expenses they require as

diabetics are not being taken into consideration; and that includes things like

the supplies that they have to buy to be able to look after their disease and

manage it, whether that be needles or syringes or whatever the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I think that government needs to focus on that particular

problem and look at: Is there a way that you can be more accommodating to the

people

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

- more accommodating to those who find themselves unable to pay for the

expenses that come with suffering from this disease, and see if there is another

way that those legitimate expenses can be calculated as part of their drug

coverage.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, applaud this. I was very pleased when I saw that the Budget was going

to cover the insulin pumps and supplies. I was delighted for the people with

diabetes who had lobbied for this, and I was delighted to see that government

did respond.

I now encourage the minister, and the Minister of Finance as well, to think

about other groups in our society who are in special need when it comes to

medications that they need for healthy living. I think particularly about our

senior citizens.

We have so many senior citizens who cannot access drug cards, and I continue

to get phone calls and letters from these senior citizens. I believe that we

have to, once again, look at a universal drug plan, but our first step could be

to make sure that every single senior citizen has access to a drug plan instead

of having to prove that they need it. People who are just outside of the income

range are suffering, and I really encourage the two ministers to think about

that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce that Ms

Allison Kelly of Howley is the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities

Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge Contest. That was a mouthful.

Allison is a seventeen-year-old high school student who will be attending St.

Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia in the fall to study nursing.

Allison was one of 17,000 young people from across Canada who entered the

contest during February to prove their financial fitness knowledge through a

series of on-line questions. This was an 81 per cent increase over last year's

participation in the contest, showing that our young people are indeed taking an

interest in their financial affairs.

The challenge was open to Canadians age fifteen to twenty-one years old.

Participants were asked questions and provided information on budgeting, saving

and investing, and they were encouraged to learn more about smart financial

practices through other Web sites. Winners from each province and territory will

receive a $750 scholarship.

Mr. Speaker, contests such as the Financial Fitness Challenge are designed to

raise awareness about positive and healthy financial practices. By targeting

young people we are ensuring that, as adults, they will use and follow the

responsible financial behaviour they learn now.

Even though the contest is over, the Web site

www.financialfitnesschallenge.ca is active year-round so that young people can

still use the interactive features that share important tips and knowledge of

financial awareness.

The Canadian Securities Administrators will offer this contest again next

year, and I am looking forward to seeing even more interest by our young people.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Allison for her success and I am sure that all

hon. members will agree with me that she has a bright future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

congratulate Allison Kelly of Howley on winning the Canadian Securities

Administrators' Financial Fitness Challenge.

I guess it just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, how talented many of our young

people are, to compete against 17,000 people from across this country and come

out the winner. I am sure the knowledge that she has obtained from this

challenge will help her, not only while she is going through post-secondary but

for the rest of her life, and we want to commend the Canadian Securities

Administrators on saying that they are going to continue with this very

important program.

If I could have a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to say -

I know she excelled in financial administration - we want to commend her going

into the nursing field, and hopefully when she graduates she will come back to

the wonderful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and help us with the nursing

shortage we have right here at home.

We want to congratulate her, Mr. Speaker, and wish her all the best in her

future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I am

very pleased to join in congratulating Ms Allison Kelly of Howley as the

provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Financial Fitness

Challenge Contest.

It is wonderful, and I am sure that the money she has won is also going to

help her as she goes to university in Nova Scotia to study nursing. I hope that

both her income and the income of other students will be large enough, as years

go on for them, that they will need to be able to do financial planning.

You know, I think of many students who have heavy financial burdens as they

proceed with their post-secondary studies, for whom financial planning does not

have very much meaning because they are so heavily into paying debts, so I

encourage the government to keep that in mind and to once again consider a full

needs-based grants program and reduced interest on loans for our post-secondary

students.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize a

former Member of the House of Assembly, a long-time Cabinet minister here and a

Cabinet minister in the federal government, Mr. John Efford.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also take notice of a couple of other

gentlemen in the gallery today: the Mayor of Gander, Mr. Claude Elliott, and the

Mayor of Labrador City, Mr. Graham Letto.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are focused around the faulty ER-PR testing,

and the information that has been coming forward out of the public inquiry and

also from some of the responses that the Premier gave in the House of Assembly

yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier stated that his government would never

deliberately hide information affecting the health of the people of the

Province, specifically related to breast cancer. What the Premier fails to

realize is that this whole discussion is not about what the government did; it

is about what the government did not do. It is about the lack of action that was

taken by government in disclosing information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister, Minister Ottenheimer, claimed that their

government wanted the people to know. So I ask, Mr. Speaker: Why did government

fail to respond to any media interviews or reports on the issue, and deflect it

all to Eastern Health, prior to the spring of 2007?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the matter was being dealt with by Eastern

Health. The department had decided, in its own wisdom, that in fact Eastern

Health were on the front line on this. They were closest to it. It was a very

technical matter, and they were dealing with it.

Minister Ottenheimer has indicated in his testimony that in fact he wished to

go public with it, but on the basis of medical advice that he received, either

through his department or otherwise - I do not know exactly which medical advice

or what medical advice it was - had basically indicated that it was in the best

interest of the patients.

We cannot lose sight that this is about the patients and their care and their

treatment. The other thing we cannot lose sight of is, these problems arose, Mr.

Speaker, from 1997 until they were being dealt with in 2005. So the bulk of

these had already happened. Unfortunately, the cancer had occurred.

Unfortunately, the testing had occurred. Unfortunately, the mistesting had

occurred. So what Minister Ottenheimer was dealing with was to try and handle a

very delicate and a very difficult situation, and was dealing with medical

professionals and taking their advice in the best interests of the patients. So,

the first right is not the right of the public to know; the first right is the

right of the patient to know because it is about the patient. It is about

their care, it is about their health, their welfare, the stress and duress that

they are under.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I seek guidance from the House - and this

is the same line of questioning that was happening yesterday, a very sensitive

matter - are we going to make it time sensitive or allow members free to give

the answers that they want to provide? I seek guidance.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We suggest we revert to the old rules and have timelines, that the Leader of

the Opposition ask her questions and the Premier answer in the time allotted.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I will do under those circumstances, within the

timelines, if I cannot finish an answer to a question in the timeline, I will

continue that answer in response to the next question.

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

MR. PARSONS: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not the prerogative

of the Premier to decide. If he is asked a question, he is going to answer. The

people will judge whether he answered it or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question today is about when government knew

what they knew, and why they failed to act in disclosing the information to the

public.

I understand yesterday the Premier talked about the fear and anxiety that

this would cause in patients. I think we have seen the tremendous amount of fear

and anxiety over the course of this particular ordeal.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Premier of what his minister said on May 15 of

last year. The current Minister of Health stated in a media scrum outside of the

House: I understand and appreciate the dilemma that Eastern Health have found

themselves in trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed

a change in treatment and a responsibility to protecting the interest of the

organization in the event of litigation.

I ask the Premier: With everything that you stated in the House yesterday, do

you feel that your minister's comments were appropriate in this case?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the member opposite got the location right. Yesterday she cited as

my having said it in this House.

I will ask the member, if she is going to use a media clip, that she put it

in some context. I think my comment to the media last year - and there was some

comment before that and some comment that followed that quote, but - it was in

the context of information shared by Eastern Health in December 2006. I was

commenting on something that they had done, not commenting on government's

position, not commenting on my personal opinion about what should or should not

be done. My comment was around why they did what they did, and that was the

nature of the question that I was responding to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Premier and it was very

clear: Do you think the minister's comments were appropriate in light of this

situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the benefit - or detriment, for

that matter - of being trained as a lawyer, so the way I would look at things

and the way that people who are not lawyers look at things is completely

different. I have the benefit of that training, so I understand the legal

implications. I can certainly state categorically though that anybody, whether

it happened to be the hon. minister or it happened to be officials in

departments, are concerned about litigation. They are concerned because they do

not understand it. They do not understand the consequences.

I can tell you from this government's perspective, and I demonstrated very

clearly that the memo that was present when you were in Cabinet and when your

government was in office, which was a Dr. Ejeckam memo, back in 2003, I tabled

that before this House at the earliest available opportunity. As well, while

your government was in office that laboratory was closed down for five weeks,

but I will also state for the record, I do not blame you, or I do not blame the

Grimes government, or I do not blame the Cabinet for that. This is not about a

blame exercise. What we are trying to do with it, as a government, is deal with

a very, very complex problem and find solutions to make sure that this does not

happen again to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, again, is trying to deflect the issue and politicize it and that

is not going to stop us from asking the questions, Premier.

The first account of this issue known in the Department of Health was under

your government in July of 2005. That is the facts.

Let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier stated yesterday that he

could not recall whether senior staff in his office briefed him on the ER-PR

testing issue in July of 2005. So I ask the Premier: Have you since asked your

staff, did they brief you at that time or did they not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have had that conversation with my staff, and council

for the commission has also had that conversation with my staff when my staff

were interviewed by Mr. Coffey at the commission and we willing went down and

undertook those interviews. Quite frankly, my staff and myself do not remember a

conversation.

Now, I will repeat it again. That does not mean it did not happen. I have

thousands and thousands, as you do, conversations in the course of a year and

some of them cannot be remembered. I can tell you something, if there is

something of major importance that was put before my staff and presented as a

major issue and then was presented to me, I would certainly remember it, but I

certainly cannot remember it. I can tell you that the practice of my staff, who

are extremely professional, when critical matters come into that office to our

attention, then they come to my attention. This particular note that came in on

that day at 2:30 in the afternoon said that this matter required no action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that someone in the Premier's

office, if they had been told that the health of thousands of people in this

Province was impacted by something that was happening in our hospitals, that

someone at the senior level at least would remember if they had a conversation

with him or not.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier indicted that it was too early to assign

blame but I think the first blame has been inflicted in this issue by him and

his government, when you decided to fire the former CEO of Eastern Health, the

former Deputy Minister of Health, and both of these people were let go and

related to this issue.

I ask the Premier: Is that not considered accountable actions to these

individuals and assigning blame?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have had enough, Mr. Speaker. For this person

opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, to try and assign blame to this

government for what happened to cancer patients who were improperly tested by a

testing procedure, whether the procedure that was in practice before we came

into office was wrong, because in April of 2004 when we were in office a new

procedure was put in place which detected the problem. You are now trying to lay

the blame for those patients and their situation and the consequences of

mistesting on this government for something that happened between 1997 and 2004,

is nothing but political games and it is shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier may want to divert the issue. He is the one who said yesterday

about assigning blame. There are two top civil servants in this Province who

have been dismissed related to this issue. I am just asking the questions, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we asked yesterday about the conflict position that Robert

Thompson, the former Deputy Minister of Health, and the Clerk of the Executive

Council have been placed in by acting as the government liaison to the

Commission of Inquiry. We are not insinuating that Mr. Thompson is not qualified

for the job, however, he has been subpoenaed to appear at the Commission and has

been directly involved in the process, as has been shown in documentation tabled

with the Commission. Those are facts.

I ask the Premier: Will you remove Mr. Thompson from his position as the

government liaison to the Commission of Inquiry knowing that he has been

subpoenaed to testify?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So we will throw some dung at Mr. Ottenheimer and we

will throw some bung at the Premier and we will throw some dung at Mr. Abbott

and we will throw some dung at the rest of them, Mr. Tilley, and now we are

going to try and smear Robert Thompson. Well, shame on you! You worked with that

gentleman. I have to tell you, and I said it yesterday, he is singularly, in my

opinion, in our opinion as a government, the best person to have in that

position right now in the best interest of the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know, I gave the Leader of the Opposition credit

for more, taking the high road. You mentioned to me in the weeks before we

adjourned, there was an issue came up in the House about deaf children not

getting treatment within three years. I immediately, as soon as Question Period

was over, walked over and said if that is true, we are going to deal with that.

That is the way I operate. That is the way I was hoping she was going to

operate, but you are no different than the rest of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am going to say to the Premier, he can go on the offensive

all he likes. He can spend the whole afternoon. It is not going to deter me from

asking the questions. The fact of the matter is, is this has nothing to do with

the character of Robert Thompson. It has to do with the fact that the man is

acting in the interest of the government, providing information from government

departments to this commission and has been subpoenaed to testify as part of the

commission. Isn't he not in a conflict of interest? Even good people, Premier,

are in a conflict of interest on occasion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to get the best possible

result for patients in this Province. We called that inquiry to get to the

bottom of it. We wanted to find out what went wrong. Yes, hon. members opposite

asked for the inquiry but we did not have to call the inquiry. We called the

inquiry and it was to get the answers. Then what we do in order to try and get

to the bottom of it, we put the best possible people in place. We have a head of

the Commission of Inquiry down there, Madam Justice Cameron, who is an exemplary

individual. Now, if she went to a doctor, is she in conflict? Is that what you

are saying? If anybody has had any exposure with the medical system, are they in

conflict? Madam Justice Cameron worked for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador at one point in time, is she in conflict? How do we get anybody with

any expertise to act in a manner so that they can advise or make decisions on

the basis of their expertise to be involved in a process that ultimately will

lead to better patient care and diagnosis and save lives?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is a complete deflection from the issue. What

we are asking is if you want to be open with the people, give the inquiry the

right to use a process that is independent of government to search for the

information pertinent to the inquiry and not have government managing the

release of its own information. Will you agree to that Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is implying the

conspiracy theory, that there is some act of government here, some intention by

government here to hide: We are going to try and hide all this information, and

if we can get Robert Thompson or somebody else to pluck out something, then we

can hide it! We have nothing to worry about, we have nothing to hide. We have

acted throughout this in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador overall, and also the patients, more importantly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have done absolutely everything to the best of our

ability with good intention. We are not trying to hide any information. Why

would we try and get Robert Thompson, a very ethical individual, to put himself

in a position where he is in conflict of interest and he is going to do

something wrong? By saying that, you are implying he would do it and we would

ask him to do it. Nothing is further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Premier is getting so upset

over a few questions if he has nothing to hide. We are asking for an independent

process for the Inquiry to access information through government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who are the other members of the government

Cameron Inquiry liaison team besides Mr. Thompson?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I could be wrong in this. I can't tell you the

government liaison team. The only person who I would be involved with would be

Rolf Pritchard who is government counsel, and Mr. Thompson.

Now, as a result of the review committee that he has been set up to head, he

has his own staff there. The people who would be liaising with government, for

want of a better term, I would think would be Mr. Thompson and Rolf Pritchard. I

stand to be corrected on that, because that is not something I have even looked

at.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Premier, yesterday you stated in response to a question from the Leader of

the Opposition and it is on page 248 of Hansard, and I quote "I do

not think I have formally received a subpoena but I have certainly been asked to

testify and have actually, in fact, appeared before commission counsel three

months ago and gave them my full testimony at the time."

For the sake of clarity, have you or have you not received a subpoena to

appear before the Cameron Inquiry, and if not are you prepared to appear before

the Inquiry if requested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I said I hadn't received a subpoena, not knowing whether I had

or not - because as you know I would have to be served with a subpoena. I have

not been served with a subpoena. What I didn't know is whether the Department

of Justice had accepted a subpoena service on my behalf. My understanding is

they have not, I have not had any communication.

Simple answer: No, I have not been served with a subpoena. The answer to the

second question, would I attend and provide testimony before the Cameron

Inquiry: Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You also indicated, in response to the Leader of the Opposition's question

yesterday, which I quoted from, that you appeared before the Commission counsel

three months ago and gave them your full testimony at that time. Can you tell us

when it was you appeared and who it was you spoke with at that incident, three

months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I cannot tell you what day it was, it was about three

months ago. I think it was early in January, if I remember correctly, I do not

have the date. I was asked to appear by Mr. Coffey and Ms Chaytor, who were

counsel for the Commission, and counsel was with me at that particular point in

time.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to my knowledge at least, it is the first time anyone in the Province

knew or was aware that the Premier had had any interaction with the Commission,

was based on his statement of yesterday. That is why I am asking these questions

for clarity.

I say to the members, we know quite well that this government only answers

questions that they are asked. We found that out from Mr. Ottenheimer last week.

Premier, to clarify this issue again, of this meeting that took place three

months ago. You used the word testimony. Did you actually give testimony under

oath at this meeting three months ago to Ms Chaytor and Mr. Coffey? Was it

recorded?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Testimony is a term that I used. No, it was not recorded, it was not under

oath.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

For the record again and clarity, regarding this meeting three months ago,

were you asked by counsel to appear, or did you volunteer to go meet with them?

How did the meeting come about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not know. I think the request came from counsel to

ask me to go down and discuss the issue with them, with a view to providing

testimony. I did not have a direct conversation, to my recollection, at all with

counsel, with regard to going down and appearing, and I think it probably came

through Rolf Pritchard at the Department of Justice, I would think so.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Premier, how many current or former members of your staff, to your knowledge,

have been issued subpoenas compelling their testimony at the inquiry, and would

you undertake, they being your staff members, to table copies of those subpoenas

in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have not discussed with all my staff as to whether

they have been subpoenaed or not, so we can certainly find out who has been

subpoenaed and who has not been subpoenaed (inaudible) and table it.

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

MR. PARSONS: I did not get the Premier's answer whether they would

table those subpoenas in the House.

Premier, how many and which current or former members of the civil service

have been issued subpoenas compelling their testimony at the inquiry? Will the

Premier undertake to have those subpoenas tabled here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we will now seriously

consider, as a government, whether we will continue to answer questions on that

inquiry. We are going to go to the inquiry now and we are going to seek

direction. I ask the Minister of Justice to go to the inquiry and seek direction

as to how far we can go in this House with regard to the details of the inquiry

and subpoenas and what is proper procedure and what is right and what is wrong

because, as I said yesterday, there is a process that is going on here. So I

qualify my answer to you on tabling subpoenas. We will take direction from the

inquiry on this.

This is about letting this inquiry go its full process. We cannot usurp the

authority of that commissioner down there and we cannot start to try and make

decisions here in this House of Assembly as a result of this kind of questioning

as to what people in the civil service have received subpoenas. I will get a

directory out tonight and I will phone everybody in the civil service and I will

ask them if they haven't, and if I am allowed to give you the information,

then I will.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to the Premier, I mean it is up to him what he will or

will not answer, I realize that, but we are certainly at liberty to ask the

questions. I would say that anything I have asked here, by the way, has nothing

to do with substantive testimony being given to an inquiry. I have simply asked

questions of the gentleman, the Premier of this Province, who stood up here

yesterday and talked about taking full responsibility, some pretty simple

questions. You are the head of this government. Who in your government,

ministers, or who you have control over as the government in a civil service,

have been subpoenaed? Now I am not asking you what they said. I am not

interfering with what they said to the inquiry. Can you, or don't you know, or

is this a case again that you do not know? What is the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is about the patients. This is about

finding solutions to problems that are life-threatening problems. The hon.

member opposite asked me if I know who in the civil service has been subpoenaed.

I do not know. There are 30,000 people in the civil service. I have not talked

to them all recently. I do not know. Why don't you get serious and zero in on

the issues that are important to the people of this Province, the victims out

there who are now being jockeyed around with political gains and political

football and I am being used to deflect questions. I am answering questions. You

put them and I will answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not have to lecture me about who is affected by this and the

impacts. I have friends and I have people who come to me as constituents who are

very much involved in this issue and they have a right to questions being asked

and answers being given.

I say to the Premier again, maybe I will ask you something - you do not know

about the 30,000 people who you are in control of and whether they have been

subpoenaed. That is a very simple thing to find out, I would think. Maybe this

one is a little closer to home.

Your Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, did they ever discuss this issue?

That is your Committee, of your Cabinet, did they ever discuss the ER-PR issue,

and when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Social Policy Committee. I

am not aware of a discussion.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question. I am looking for some clarification from the Premier with

regard to a response that he gave yesterday when he said that the Cabinet did

not discuss the faculty ER-PR testing until the spring of 2007, but yesterday,

after reading documents tabled by the Commission of Inquiry, they tabled them

yesterday, I noted a Cabinet directive November 4, 2005, Cabinet Secretariat

note November 2, 2005, and a confidential memorandum to the Executive Council

October 26, 2005. All of these were concerning the funding of new cancer drugs.

The memo had included with it a communications plan and analysis that

describes the fallout or bad press of the faulty hormone testing and all of

these documents are being tabled as being linked together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: A question coming up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, what I am asking is: Would not the content of all of those

documents have been shared with Cabinet and been part of their discussion as

they made a decision about spending $2 million on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I will do is I will take those dates and notes

under advisement and go back and check the record. It is my understanding you

are saying it is related to approval of drugs, cancer treatment drugs?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

PREMIER WILLAIMS: Okay, I will check that. I can provide the information,

or if you wish to ask the question again tomorrow, then I will respond.

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I will ask the question tomorrow and I imagine the

Premier will have an answer for me. Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

My next question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

One of the major concerns of the Commission of Inquiry is the maintenance of

quality control for hormone receptor testing. Last year we were told, and we

know, that there is quality control testing ongoing, and the control would be to

send a random cross-section of the test to Mount Sinai for sampling.

Could the minister now please give to this House an update on how those

quality control measures are proceeding to ensure the reliability of hormone

testing in the lab in this Province? It has been a while since there has been an

update publicly, I think.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, these quality control tests are still being carried out.

The results of those, I do not have that level of detail with me but I will

undertake to provide it to the member opposite.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a direct follow-up, I wonder if the minister, then, would include in the

report that he will bring to us the latest rate of concurrence of the Mount

Sinai reports with the testing that is ongoing here in our own lab?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What I can undertake, Mr. Speaker, is that any quality

control tests that are being carried out in the ER-PR lab at Eastern Health, and

the results of those quality controls, I will be able to table those when I get

them from Eastern Health.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health.

I have been informed that in the last two nights there have been fourteen

patients admitted to the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, who have had to

spend the night in the ER on stretchers; and, while some of them were found

rooms yesterday, other patients were admitted and again there were fourteen

patients on stretchers last night. I have been told that this is because of a

shortage of beds, and that there are beds at the Health Sciences Centre that are

not in use right now.

I ask the minister if that is the case, and if he is aware of the problem.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand, Mr. Speaker, that in recent days there has been some

pressure in the emergency department because of increased activity and there

have been some pressures on beds, acute care beds.

The other part of the question with respect to whether or not there are beds

within Eastern Health or within the Health Sciences Centre that are vacant, that

is a piece of information I do not have. I do have an understanding, as I said,

that they have been extremely busy in recent days and there have been some bed

pressures on the acute side, and it is because of some increased activity not

just in terms of the emergency department but increased activity with acutely

ill patients from the in-patient perspective as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, time for a quick

question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister if he could look into the fact that there

may be beds closed. I have been told there have been some units closed down,

that there are beds that are not in use, and it is due to a shortage of staff

being available to look after the patients being admitted into those beds. I ask

if he could check that out and report back to me, please.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: By all means, Mr. Speaker. Anything that I can find out for

the hon. member, I would be only too glad to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for question and answer period has expired.

Before the Chair moves on to the next item on the House proceedings, the

Chair would like to recognize the Mayor of Leading Tickles, Mr. Harry Hallett,

who is in the gallery today, and also the Mayor of St. Anthony, Mr. Boyd Noel.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

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

Pursuant to

section 25. (5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

today tabling five Orders-in-Council relating to the funding of pre-commitments

for the 2008-2009 and the 2012-2013 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

As required under the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and

Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly

Management Commission. Those meetings were for August 29 and November 28, 2007.

Those minutes have also been circulated at a previous time to hon. members.

I would also like to table, in compliance with the Public Tender Act, the

report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August

and September, 2007, and the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the

months of October, November and December, 2007, and January and February, 2008.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 65. (e), I would like to move that the following

members do, in fact, constitute the Election and Privileges Committee: the hon.

the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame; the hon. the Member for St. John's

East; the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile; and myself, as Government House Leader, the Member for

Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition with regards to a long-term care

facility for the Conception Bay North area. There is no need to read the prayer

of the petition, the body of the petition; it has been presented before and

accepted, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that back in 2001-2002 Conception Bay North was number one

on the list for a long-term care facility. As I present those petitions, I am

going to start a program now that I am going to call ABC - Anything But

Conception Bay - because we know, Mr. Speaker, they were number one on the list

back at that time and we know that they have dropped out of sight. People say

they are on the radar, but I do not think there is very much on the radar these

days with regards to a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North

area.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the facilities that are there have served

their purpose. We have two facilities in Carbonear, there is one in Clarke's

Beach, and they have served the purpose, but it was determined back at that time

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close down (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I reference the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne. I am not saying to close down any one, but we all know we need

a long-term care facility.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to call upon my hon. colleagues but I guess I know

where some of them stand on this now. They have already spoken out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I want to call upon the Minister of Justice, the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Trinity-Bay de

Verde, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and probably it takes in the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's as well, to petition government and ask

that at least if they cannot come out and say yes, we can build a facility in

the near future, ask government to have another assessment done and see what

went wrong: why an area of the Province could be number one on the list for a

long-term care facility and all of a sudden you are not up to a standard to be

accepted.

That is not speaking out against all the other centres, all the other

communities in this Province that have had long-term care facilities in the past

and the ones that have new facilities now. We are not against that. We know each

and every area of the Province needs those facilities. The need is there. By

building a new long-term care facility in the Conception Bay North area, it will

also alleviate the problems that are encountered at the Carbonear General

Hospital.

I call upon the members opposite, the members of the government, to step

forward and ask this government if they would even consider asking that an

assessment be done for the Conception Bay North area so that the people can have

a long-term care facility which is greatly needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Before the Chair moves into Orders of the Day, the Chair would like to bring

members' attention to Standing Order 26.(4) as it relates to Oral Questions.

The Speaker brought this forward yesterday and talked about prefacing Oral

Questions by reading from letters, telegrams, even our own Hansard, I say to

members, is unparliamentarily. While members can refer to documents and to

statements said by hon. members, reading the document itself is certainly

against our Standing Order.

While the Chair is not going to stand everyday after the act takes place, I

just want to bring it forward for the second time and in the future the Chair

will stand when this Standing Order is not adhered to.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to do first readings, Motions that are on the

Order Paper.

I would like to call Motion 2, standing in the name of the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, first reading of a bill entitled, An

Act to Amend the Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Finance shall have leave introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control

Act Respecting A Licensee Levy, Bill 18, and that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance shall leave to

introduce Bill 18 and that the bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy," carried. (Bill

18)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A

Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 3, first reading of Bill 19, standing in the name of the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board,

An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee

Act, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Loan

And Guarantee Act, 1957, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Finance shall leave to

introduce Bill 19 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," carried. (Bill 19)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill

19)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, Bill 14, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice,

An Act To

Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act, be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice

shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyist

Registration Act, and the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 14 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act," carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act. (Bill 14)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 5, Bill 15, standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And

The Municipalities Act, 1999, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities

Act, 1999, and that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 15 and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act

And The Municipalities Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of

St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 15)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: ( Inaudible.)

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

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

It is my pleasure to inform the House that I have received a message from His

Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

The letter is April 4, 2008.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I

transmit Estimates of the sums required for Public Service of the Province for

the year ending 31 March 2008, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance

with the provisions of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I

recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:_______________________________

John C. Crosbie, Lieutenant Governor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message together with the amount be referred to

the Committee of Supply.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the recommendation and the amount, along

with the letter, be provided to a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave

the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The Committee will now debate Motion 1, the resolution that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions regarding

the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 13)

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the

granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of $10,700,200.

Resolution

" That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the

granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 2008, the sum of

$10,700,200."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have just gone through a procedure here, and I know the Opposition House

Leader from time to time talks to some friends of his out there in TV land to

try to explain what is happening here. I will try to do that now, after we have

just gone through this procedure where we talked about the Constitution and

talked about moving to Committees of Supply.

At the time of the Budget we pass a bill called the Main Supply because the

government has no right to pass legislation, or to spend any money, I should

say, unless that has been first approved by the people's representatives, the

Members of this House of Assembly.

We went through a procedure a while ago in which we asked for Interim Supply.

That is the second one. We had Main Supply, which is the Budget bill, and we

have Interim Supply, which is recognizing that there has to be a certain amount

of debate that takes place around the Budget and there will be some time before

that debate is completed and the Budget is passed. The government comes before

the House, as we did not too long ago, and sought Interim Supply which provided

the government of the Province with funds to pay its bills and pay its employees

for a three-month period of time that will end at the end of June.

This is Supplementary Supply, what we are doing today, and I have been

advised that there are two types of Supplementary Supply that governments will

bring before the House. The first one is: if, in the main Budget, there is a

certain amount of money allocated to a head of expenditure and if that money is

all spent and the House of Assembly is sitting then the government will have to

come back, if it needs more money for that head of expenditure, and seek

Supplementary Supply and seek the approval of the Members of the House of

Assembly to allocate and spend additional monies.

What has happened here, and what we are dealing with here, is what happens

when the House of Assembly is not sitting and the funds in a particular head of

expenditure are fully expended and an emergency or urgency comes up and

government needs more funding. A great example would be emergency funding, when

we have a tropical storm and there is damage done to people. If the House of

Assembly is not sitting, then what government has to do is seek the issuance of

special warrants signed by the Lieutenant Governor. Those special warrants

authorize the government to spend money.

Of course, what will happen is that as soon as the House of Assembly

reconvenes, the amount of the special warrants and each of the special warrants

must be tabled in this House within I think it is fifteen days after the House

reconvenes, and we did that. I stood in this House and tabled the special

warrants some time ago. Today we are here seeking ratification of those

expenditures, seeking ratification from the elected representatives of the

people of the Province, and that is the purpose, why we are here today.

Now, what happened, just to explain to the people who are watching and the

people who may not understand this, I received a letter from His Honour the

Lieutenant Governor, John C. Crosbie. It was dated April 4, and he reminded me

that the Constitution Act of 1867, which was referred to here by the Speaker and

by the Chair, that sections 54 and 90 make it unlawful for this House to adopt

or pass any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenues, or of

any tax or impost that has not first been recommended to it by the Lieutenant

Governor.

The Lieutenant Governor provided me with a message recommending the adoption

of a Supplementary Supply bill in respect of the fiscal year from 1 April 2007

to 31 March 2008. I stood here a few moments ago and I informed the Speaker that

I had a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and we all stood up and the

Speaker then read that message from the Lieutenant Governor. I have a copy here

if anyone would like to have a copy. We are now into Supplementary Supply and I

am now standing to introduce or to at least speak to Bill 13, which seeks

Supplementary Supply totalling $10,700,200 for the 2007-2008 year which ended on

March 31, 2008.

Bill 13 makes reference - and that bill is on your desk - the bill makes

reference, it is called

An Act For Granting To Her Majesty - that is the

government - Certain Sums Of Money For Certain Additional Expenses. Now, the

Budget bill does not have the word additional in it; Supplementary Supply bills

do. So, what we are seeking here is clarification of the special warrants that

were issued by the Lieutenant Governor when the House of Assembly was not

sitting.

I would like to refer you to the

Schedule at the back of the bill which lists

the Heads of Expenditure, where the money was spent. The first one is the

Legislature, $2,572,300. The second one is Justice, $3,844,900, and the third

Head of Expenditure set out in the

Schedule is Municipal Affairs for $4,283,000,

for a total of $10,700,200. Again, these expenditures were urgently needed. They

had to be incurred prior to year end of March 31, 2008 when the House of

Assembly was not in session. The Special Warrants were tabled by me in this

House on March 11, 2008. The need for the Special Warrants, of course, had not

been anticipated when we passed the Budget bill or the main Supply bill for

2007-2008. The Special Warrants were urgently required to enable government to

provide funding for unanticipated costs because the House was not in session at

that time. It has been the practice to table these warrants in accordance with

the Financial Administration Act and to seek formal ratification of the warrants

through the House of Assembly through Supplementary Supply bills, and we are

doing that here today.

As I said, there were two Special Warrants issued for the Legislature. The

first one was for $563,000. It was issued on September 10, 2007 to provide

funding for unanticipated costs relating to special ballots and poll division

size for the October 2007 General Election.

The second warrant under Legislature was issued on December 11, 2007 for

$2,008,700, and that was to provide funding for costs that were anticipated in

implementing the recommendations of the Green Report called Rebuilding

Confidence: The Report of the Review Commission on Constituency Allowances and

Related Matters.

With respect to the Department of Justice there was one Special Warrant. It

was for $3,844,900. It was issued on August 7, 2007 and its purpose was to

provide additional funds to enable the Department of Justice to meet its

financial requirements related to the Cameron commission, the judicial

commission of inquiry on estrogen and progesterone hormone receptor testing for

breast cancer patients.

With respect to the Department of Municipal Affairs there were two Special

Warrants. The first was for $1,283,000. It was issued on July 17, 2007, and the

purpose of that Special Warrant was to provide additional funds to compensate

homeowners who were affected by landslides in Daniel's Harbour on the Great

Northern Peninsula.

The second warrant of $3 million was issued on December 10, 2007 and the

purpose of those funds was to provide monies to compensate property owners whose

property had been damaged by Tropical Storm Chantal.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my opening remarks on this specific

Supplementary Supply Bill that gives legislative authority to the Special

Warrants that I mentioned, and that, as I indicated previously, were tabled in

this House on March 11, 2008.

This bill is a money bill and that means that all members of the House are

entitled to speak on any particular topic that they wish to. Normally when a

bill comes to the House members are required to speak to the principle of the

bill, but money bills give all members the opportunity to talk about general

things that are affecting their districts, and this is a good opportunity for

members to give their maiden speeches. I understand there will be one today and

I am certainly looking forward to hearing the hon. Member for Bay of Islands

give his maiden speech, as I know are the people in the Bay of Islands.

With that, Mr. Chair, thank you, and I urge passage of this Supplementary

Supply bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to speak to the Supplementary Supply bill that has been put

forward by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. For those who do not know,

whenever there are bills before the House of Assembly that deal with financial

matters of government, that the debate is very broad and wide-ranging and you

can pretty well debate any particular topic that you want.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about some of the issues that came forward in

Question Period today and yesterday in the House of Assembly. There is

absolutely no doubt that we are asking questions and debating an issue in this

Province today that is probably the most significant health issue to ever affect

the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt and no question about

any of that. In fact, to that extreme, we have a public inquiry ongoing in the

Province around it. An inquiry, I might add, that resulted because of the lobby

and the asking of the Opposition.

Back on May 15, when this issue first came out in the spring for debate we

took it to the House of Assembly on two or three different occasions. In fact,

we even brought in a private member's motion at that time asking for a public

inquiry to be launched in the Province, and it was after considerable debate in

the Legislature that government finally agreed that they would have a public

inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, we have a job as an Opposition to ask these questions, and we

intend to ask them. In fact, we have dozens and dozens more questions that are

coming forward every single day, every hour that this inquiry is unfolding and

we will be bringing them to the House of Assembly. As long as the doors are open

and we have questions around this issue, we will be bringing them forward.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am really taken back by the response that we have

seen from the Premier on a number of these questions. First of all, we have been

able to establish that he first knew about the incident in October of 2005. We

have been able to establish that he does not know if he was told in July of 2005

about this by his senior staff or not, but we do know that his senior staff was

informed, both his communications director and his chief of staff.. There are

e-mails that have been submitted as exhibits at the inquiry that are stating the

same.

We do know that two top leading officials, senior bureaucrats, who were given

a raise, I might say, only a year ago, and the Premier's defence for giving

these individuals a raise, some of them up to 18 per cent, his defence on that

was the fact that they were very competent and great workers in his office and

he did not want to lose them. Mr. Chairman, that was the reason they were given

raises. Yet, when they were given information in July, 2005 saying that well

over 1,000 men and women in this Province whose health had been impacted by

faulty testing in our hospitals, they failed to communicate the message, or if

they did communicate it, no one remembers.

Well, Mr. Chairman, how could someone not remember being told that thousands

of persons' health in this Province was affected? Thousands, not a dozen. Even

if it was one or two, but we were talking over 1,000. Now the numbers kept

changing as the retesting was done. As new information came forward the numbers

kept changing, but initially in the briefing notes, in the information that is

now being tabled and the testimonies that are being given at the public inquiry,

we are learning that back in July, 2005, when the Department of Health and

senior officials in the Premier's office were informed of this issue, that it

was thousands of people that they were talking about who had wrong testing in

laboratories in our health care centres in this Province and today no one

remembers having that conversation. Well, Mr. Chairman, to me that does not

speak of competence, I am sorry. I am sorry, but any senior person within

government and especially in the Premier's office who is being told

information like that and cannot recall if they had a discussion with the leader

of the government around it, is not competent in the job they are doing and that

would be my assessment of it. Mr. Chairman, we are going to ask these questions

and we are going to try to get the answers because the people in this Province

want the answers.

I have to say to members opposite, they are not the only people who have

heard from the victims here, who have heard from the families, we have heard

from many of them as well. We have heard from many of them. We have sat and

listened to their stories of how they found out the information, how long it

took to get the information, when their retesting was done, then how long it

took for them to get the results, and I have never seen as much horror around

any story in my life as I have seen around this entire ordeal. To say that there

was anxiety caused to these people, or that there was fear instilled, is an

understatement.

Government was cautious. They said we did not come forward and disclose

information to the public in a period of eighteen months because we did not want

to cause anxiety and fear amongst people in the Province. Well, what did they

think was actually happening? Every time a person was getting a phone call

saying that your tests results were wrong and you need to be retested, there was

fear being caused then. There was anxiety for those people then.

Every time an individual was notified that their treatment had to change, and

should have changed a year before, or fourteen months before, don't you think

there was anxiety and fear in those families? Don't you think there was stress

for those individuals? Can you imagine the stress that people, individual

patients, were under when they found out that they had been wrongly treated,

that they had unnecessary surgeries, that they took radiation and chemotherapy

that they may not have needed?

Don't talk about stress and anxiety and fear around the disclosure of

information when you know, and know very well, that there was much more at stake

for these individuals. They had the fear, they had the anxiety, they went

through the stress and they are still doing so. Mr. Chair, that does not explain

away government's rationale for not informing the public.

We just had a previous Minister of Health and Community Services testify at

the stand, testify at the inquiry, and say: I came to the House of Assembly

every day prepared to answer the questions and no one asked me.

Have you ever heard of such an idiotic response in all of your life? Any

minister, in any government - not just your government but in any government -

has an obligation first and foremost to the public and the people that they sit

and represent. Mr. Chair, to say I didn't answer because no one asked - what a

cop-out. What a cop-out!

In fact, in 2005 Clare Gosse from the Independent has already stated

that the Department of Health was contacted for comment and they refused to

comment. In fact, if you look at all the media articles over that period of time

you will find out that never once did the government comment during that period

of time. It was always deflected to Eastern Health and Community Services to

comment.

There were many opportunities for Minister Ottenheimer to be able to respond

to that issue. He did not need to wait for the media to call him, or the

Opposition to ask. We have seen ministers in this House stand and give

Ministerial Statements on things that were non-issues, things that were

unimportant, things that were irrelevant to the issues and the things that were

going on in the Province at any particular time. We have had numbers of

statements I can go through Hansard and pick out hundreds of them - over the

twelve or thirteen years that I have been here. There is absolutely no excuse

why any minister, on any given day, cannot stand in this House of Assembly and

give a Ministerial Statement on any issue in this Province, or any issue that

affects their department or their government. That has always been the process.

In fact, if we went back through Hansard, I can find a number of Ministerial

Statements in which ministers came into this House and stood up and made a

statement on issues that were not even in the media yet, that nothing had been

done with. In fact, in cases there were only verbal statements made because they

had not even had time to sit down and prepare a written statement and present it

to the House of Assembly. So, it has been done. That was only an excuse, and an

excuse with very little substantial information or accreditation behind it, in

my opinion.

Mr. Chair, we have asked a question here now on four different occasions, in

four different ways: Why did government not go public and release the

information over a period of eighteen months? Other than the fact that we are

being told that it might have caused fear and anxiety and stress for people,

other than that aspect - we have already seen tremendous fear, tremendous

anxiety and ongoing stress with all of these individuals and families that were

impacted, so that holds no water for me - the other issue was the fact that

numbers were changing, that information was changing. Well, information will

continue to change. We will continue, as this issue unfolds, to find out how

many of the 108 women who have deceased, if they could have been saved if their

treatments had been changed. We will find that out as this inquiry is ongoing.

We will find out if other remedies could have been put in place earlier that

could have saved the lives of individuals, could have changed the course of

treatment to make things better for people. We will never know the full

information and facts and numbers - as government like to refer to it - to all

of these things for a long time to come. Is that a reason not to talk about it?

I do not think so. It is never a reason not to talk about it. Just because

numbers change and information shifts, does not renege government of its

responsibility to inform the public and inform people.

Mr. Chairman, the reality of what has happened here is that government failed

when it came to communicating appropriate information and messages to the

public, and at some point, someone has to admit to that failure. I cannot

believe that there were e-mails circulating within government departments that

actually talked about how they could keep this out of the media, what they could

do to quieten it down, what they could do to let it blow over before the House

of Assembly actually opened. None of that is a myth. That is all fact. That is

all written and disclosed and tabled and exhibited and is being included as part

of this particular inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of actions that were being taken within

government. So I am the messenger. I am asking you the questions. I will take

the brutal attacks from the Premier. I will tolerate his offensive behaviour,

his angry and vehement words that come across the House of Assembly, with no

answers. I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman, but it will not deter me

from asking the questions that need to be asked of this government, and that is

why you choose to ignore it, why officials in departments were sending off

e-mails that were talking about letting the issue blow over, letting it be

covered up and things like this. I am not making any of this up. All of this is

being submitted as part of this inquiry. It is being reviewed, it is being

questioned, it is being read, it is being looked at, and those things, Mr.

Chairman, cannot be ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I have some issue with the fact that there are individuals who

are being appointed to oversee the interests of government in this particular

liaison, in this particular inquiry. They are the official liaison people with

government. I have some concern about that, Mr. Chairman. One of the individuals

I questioned the government on today was Robert Thompson, who was once the Clerk

of the Executive Council, the highest bureaucratic office that any civil servant

can hold in this government. He was also, after this ordeal broke open in the

Department of Health and John Abbott was offered a lesser position, in which we

all know he was pushed out the door, and he left the office of Deputy Minister

of Health. We will find out, I guess, he is being subpoenaed to the public

inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, then Mr. Thompson took over as the Deputy Minister of Health.

He managed government -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has

expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly conclude my remarks when I debate again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Chairman, I rise here today with great pride and honour to

represent the beautiful District of the Bay of Islands.

On October 9, 2007, I was given the confidence to be their representative in

the House of Assembly. From the day I received the nomination until the Election

Day, a lot of hard work went into my campaign and I could not have done it

without my family, friends and my new friends that I have gained.

I would like to extend my thanks to my family: my wife, Vivian, my two

beautiful daughters, Stacy and Mallory, and my mother, Marie, who encouraged me

from day one. I would like to thank my brothers and sisters and other members of

the family and offer my deepest appreciation and thanks.

I would also like to take this opportunity, too, Mr. Chairman, to thank my

campaign manager, Richie Park, and the entire team in my campaign who took so

much time away from their family and friends and worked endlessly for

approximately three weeks.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a couple of stories that

occurred while on the campaign trail. In the first incident my campaign manager,

Richie, and I went to the Town of Lark Harbour and was invited in by a lovely

woman who sat us down at the table and the first question she wanted answered

was: Who is the oldest? My campaign manager, Richie, was seventy-one years of

age and I am fifty-four.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: A few days after we went to McIver's, and this time I took

another helper with me by the name of Joe. At one point I was up standing on the

steps talking to this beautiful lady and she happened to look down and saw Joe

who was accompanying me, of course, and she responded to say something to the

effect: Oh, that's your young fellow down there, is it? Mr. Chairman, Joe is

sixty-two years of age and I am fifty-four.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: I was telling this story to one of my colleagues, I think it

was the hon. Member for Exploits, he told me if I looked old when I am young,

when I get old I will look young.

So, that brought me back to an incident there about three weeks ago when the

hon. Premier was telling the story of 2041, when we are going to take possession

of the Churchill Falls project, in its entirety. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to

that particular day of sitting with the hon. Premier who will be ninety-five

years of age and I will be ninety and still look like I am here today. I am

looking forward to it.

Continuing on, I would like to thank the citizens throughout my district for

giving me the mandate to represent them in this beautiful House. Many thanks go

out to the hon. Member for Humber East and Humber West and our hon. Premier for

their work, they helped me going door to door during the campaign. Without this

wonderful combination of family and friends, I doubt it very much if success

would have occurred.

When I was thinking of running years ago in my district, my family told me to

run with the same approach I used in everything else I sought to do. Whether it

was doing the best job I could do as an independent insurance adjustor, whether

it was scuba diving, repelling off cliffs in Summerside, running and

successfully becoming the fire chief of the HIS fire department or becoming a

lay minister in our church - each act took determination to complete and I used

the same determination to put me where I am today in provincial politics.

Mr. Chairman, just one of the many areas of concern which was voiced to me

over and over during the campaign and even right up until now, was the

conditions of the roads. Being from the area, of course, and driving over the

roads everyday, you cannot realize the advanced condition until you took a trip

to both sides of the district and only then could you understand the complaints

and how they were justified.

Other issues which were brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman, during the

campaign but not limited to was a lack of cell phone service in certain areas of

the Bay of Islands, the landfill site at Wild Cove, home care for senior

citizens, and water and sewer infrastructure and so on. Mr. Chairman, these

concerns have been acknowledged and have been passed on to the applicable

departments for consideration.

As for the roads and upgrades, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of

Transportation and Works for meeting with me several times and discussing our

highways and work that had to be completed. I would also like to thank the

minister's support staff from the Regional Director in Corner Brook to the

Members of the House of Assembly. I could not ask for any better direction and

assistance than what was provided to me by these fine people. It is wonderful to

see $73 million go into the Provincial Roads Improvement Program for 2008-2009.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for

Transportation and Works again for over $2 million for road servicing for this

fiscal year. With the monies remaining from last year we will be investing $2.5

million into road improvements this year, and this was well appreciated by the

District of the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Municipal concerns also were brought to my attention by all

the towns, and I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the

financial assistance provided to the district to date. My hon. colleague agreed

to meet me on a moment's notice when requested. Of course, I cannot forget the

fine staff he has and I have most respect for these fine people when providing

assistance to me.

Health care also is a major issue, and that was brought to my attention by

not only young people but the seniors. Many thanks go out to the hon. Minister

of Health and his parliamentary assistant and the whole staff throughout the

Province.

Mr. Chair, I could spend all day up here thanking the various ministers and

hon. MHAs and their staff for the work they helped me with this past six months.

Mr. Chair, the District of the Bay of Islands is unique to the point it

covers both sides of the Bay of Islands and a portion of Corner Brook. Basically

any announcement for Corner Brook is reflected back to all residents on both the

North and South Shores.

The hon. Member for Humber East and the Premier and hon. Member for Humber

West

have worked hard for the area, and of course announcements such as the long

term care facility at a construction cost of $68 million, a new courthouse at a

construction cost of $19 million and a new provincial addiction treatment centre

at a cost of $3 million are just a few of the major investments. As everybody

knows, plans are in the works to have a regional hospital constructed which will

run in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Chair, the whole

West Coast is going to be affected in a positive way by these major

announcements.

We are fortunate, Mr. Chair, to have such close ties with the City of Corner

Brook as the city is regarded as the regional centre for practically the whole

Western Region of the Province.

I would like to publicly thank Mayor Pender and his counselors and staff for

being successful in obtaining the ECMA awards next February and the Provincial

Summer Games this summer. Mr. Chair, the Bay of Islands has a high employment

rate thanks to major companies which have set up in the area. As the Bay of

Islands and Bay St. George are known for their abundance of herring and mackerel

the past number of years, the trend continues today.

In the Bay of Islands we have two fish processing companies that continue to

do business, greatly enhancing the labour market. For example, Barry Fisheries

operates a mink farm as well as fish plants in Curling and Cox's Cove and

employs 470 part-time and fifty full-time employees on an annual basis. We have

Allen's Fisheries in Benoit's Cove, another major employer using hundreds of

local people for their processing and secondary processing within their

facilities.

Mr. Chair, we cannot forget the construction companies within the district,

the general contractors, the roofing contractors, again bringing employment

within the rural area. Retail operators such as confectionery stores, gas

stations, and the second-biggest pig farm in Newfoundland and Labrador is

located in Summerside, also contributing to the labour market. It is great to

see our Province's employment rate at its highest level in thirty years.

We have also seen the construction of seniors' homes within the district,

such as the Lohens Complex on O'Connell Drive, the Guardian Angels Seniors

Home in Lark Harbour and the Mountainview House in Meadows with its

million-dollar view of the Bay of Islands; and plans, of course, are underway

for seniors' cottages to be constructed in the Town of Irishtown.

Mr. Chair, the District of Bay of Islands is maintaining its own when it

comes to its population. I have reviewed the community profiles as provided by

the Greater Humber Joint Council and it appears the population from 2001 to 2006

was only reduced by a mere fifteen people. I would think that if a census was

taken today we would find an increase in its population. Here again it shows the

confidence people have in the district, and one of the most valuable resources,

our young people, are starting to come home and find employment in our Province.

These are exciting times for the Bay of Islands; we have so much potential. I

would like to take a few moments to discuss some of these ventures which will

take place hopefully within the near future.

One such venture would be the oil exploration in the Lark Harbour area. We

understand drilling will take place within the months ahead, and everyone is so

excited about a possible major oil discovery which will result in a major

industry set up in the West Coast of the Province.

With oil exploration going on in the Bay St. George area, the Bay of Islands

area, the Deer Lake Basin, and up as far as Parsons Pond, who knows, we could be

looking at the construction of a third oil refinery within this great Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular to the West Coast of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the areas that is so

positive for the district, but we do have so much tourism potential which is

basically untapped, on both sides of the Bay.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, visiting the Guardian Angels Seniors Home in Lark

Harbour where I spoke to one of its seniors, Mr. Elias Tuma, who is about 96

years of age, and a business person all of his life, who, quite frankly,

informed me of the lack of tourism in the area; but this is changing, Mr.

Chairman. We are working in conjunction with the local Department of Innovation,

Trade and Rural Development to establish a tourism board for each side of the

Bay. The York Harbour-Lake Harbour Tourism Committee has already been formed and

we are hoping that the North Shore Committee will be up and running by this

fall. Hopefully, all towns will get involved.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we do have encouraging signs of tourism

development such as the construction of Candlelite Bay Inn in York Harbour with

its breathtaking view of the Bay of Islands. We have boat tours offered by

Crystal Waters Boat Tours in Curling and True North Adventure Tours in Cox's

Cove. Both companies, which are locally owned and operated, offer professional

tours in and around our scenic Bay.

We also have two marinas within the Bay of Islands. The major one, of course,

would be the Bay of Islands Yacht Club in Curling, which is full to capacity and

looking to expand. We also have one under construction - its first phase is

concluded - and it, too, is looking to expand its facilities to meet the growing

needs of the area. This is another example of how proud our local people are,

and the amount of volunteer work that goes into our towns.

Now, I would like to thank the volunteers within our towns, whether they be

from the churches, Lions Clubs, wellness committees, recreation committees, 4H

groups, senior organizations, cadet corps, school breakfast programs and various

other groups of importance. These people make a difference, and a town could not

operate without these wonderful volunteers.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the various councils throughout the

district, and the service they are providing to the people. So much work goes

into the running of the towns, and these men and women have to be recognized. I

enjoy working with these fine people for the betterment of their towns.

Another group of people I would like to honour here today, Mr. Chairman, would

be the various volunteer fire departments. I had the occasion of attending over

half of the local fire department's annual balls, and it is amazing the

commitment and professionalism these fine men and women are providing to their

towns.

I would also like to acknowledge and recognize the fine men and women,

especially in our own district and the Province, who are members of the Armed

Forces, and pray for their safe return from overseas, especially from the

war-torn Country of Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, I am quite excited about the potential of the

district, and I do see a bright future ahead. I feel our leader, and other

members of the Williams' government, gave the citizens of this great Province

of Newfoundland Labrador a sense of pride and hope for the future, which began

in 2003.

As Mr. Kevin Blanchard of McIver's stated during the campaign, when he met

with the hon. Premier: You are the only fighting Newfoundlander left - implying,

Mr. Chairman, that our Premier is the only fighting Premier we ever had.

This brings me up to another story, Mr. Chairman, that our Premier does have

an influence on young and old alike. I would like to take this time to tell a

little story about my grandson, Wesley, who, at the time of the visit to our

campaign on October 8, was at the campaign headquarters when the Premier

attended. I was looking at Wesley and saw him looking up at the Premier, who was

standing on a chair and giving a talk, and since that time, of course, as a

two-year-old, he was quite amazed and he never forgot that incident, to the

point now, when he sees the news come on at six o'clock, he says: Come on

Poppy Terry, the news is on; let's go see Premier Danny Williams.

A couple of months ago I saw him with an imitation cell phone, talking to

somebody on the telephone. I said: Who are you talking to? He said: I am talking

to Premier Danny Williams.

So, Mr. Premier, if you get a call any day this year from a little fellow

asking you to reduce the prices on tandies and tookies, you will know it is

Wesley.

Now, Wesley is not remembering just the Premier; he is remembering everybody

here. He is actually learning the minister's names of the various departments:

the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Health.

So he asked me to pass along and ask the Premier not to make a Cabinet shuffle

too early in the future.

Mr. Chairman, this is a time for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to smile.

We thank our Premier and entire Cabinet for giving us the opportunity to be

masters of our own destiny. We thank you for the largest personal income tax

cuts in the Province's history; a poverty reduction strategy that national

anti-poverty leaders acknowledge as a model for the country. We thank you for

increased funding for new diagnostic and other medical equipment including a new

MRI machine for our local hospital. We thank you for insulin pumps for our

children; new prescription drugs for those who need them; record spending on

education; the best post-secondary student-aid package in the country; the

investing of a multi-billion dollar strategy to improve infrastructure

throughout the Province, and many other programs.

Mr. Chairman, the most common question asked to me over the past six months

is: How do you like your new job? I tell them: If you like helping people, as I

do, this is the perfect job.

Mr. Chairman, like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I stand here today

proud, strong and determined.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All I can say is it must have been some speech that was just made by the

Member for the Bay of Islands that he got a standing ovation in the House of

Assembly from his colleagues. I will have to read up on it in Hansard later on,

Mr. Chairman, because I had to step outside on important business. I will make

sure and read it and see what I missed. It must have been a big announcement. He

must have pre-empted the Budget. I figure he pre-empted the Budget this evening,

more than likely.

Mr. Chairman, no doubt, I want to congratulate the Member for the Bay of

Islands on his maiden speech in the House of Assembly. Certainly, I am sure it

was a big event and he is happy to be here to represent the people of his

district.

Mr. Chairman, before I finished my comments last time, I was talking about

the events surrounding the public inquiry that is ongoing in the Province today

and actually talking about some of the issues that I raised in Question Period

in the last day or so. One of the issues I raised is that around Mr. Robert

Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue not in any way to diminish the

character of this individual or to underestimate the ability of Mr. Thompson to

do any specific job within government, because I have known him for a long time

in my political career and have served in departments in which he has worked and

been involved in. So, Mr. Chairman, I know of the fine qualities that this

individual possesses, but it does not exclude him from being in a position of

conflict. I explain that because Mr. Thompson was the Clerk of the Executive

Council, the highest civil servant position that you can hold within government,

in the period of time that this issue was being raised and brought to the

attention of government.

Mr. Chairman, subsequently when John Abbott was dismissed from the Department

of Health and Community Services as the deputy minister, while this issue was

unfolding, the person that government chose to put in that office to replace him

was Mr. Robert Thompson. So, he then went into the department as the deputy

minister. He managed the messages of government around this issue as the Deputy

Minister of Health and Community Services. When the public inquiry was

announced, Mr. Thompson was then selected by government to be the main liaison

person to the public inquiry for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Subsequently since that, he has now been asked and subpoenaed to testify at this

public inquiry. Now, while he is being subpoenaed, he is also the person who is

searching all the government records, all the government archives, all the

e-mail systems, for any information regarding this particular ER-PR faulty

testing and submitting it to the inquiry - the same individual. Now, Mr.

Chairman, is there anyone else who does not see the conflict here, besides the

Premier, because there is an obvious conflict for this individual?

Mr. Chairman, I know of many cases where good people, and it has nothing to

do with whether they are good, bad or indifferent, but lots of cases where

people find themselves in a position of conflict and have to remove themselves.

For example, you look at town councils in this Province, and boards. All the

time there are people who sit on those organizations and groups who have to

remove themselves when decisions are being made because of a perceived conflict

or because of a conflict. We have seen it all the time. I know business people

who sit on municipal councils who remove themselves from decisions as to what

business taxes will be instated in the town and things of this nature, because

they are in a conflict.

Well, we believe, Mr. Chairman, that Robert Thompson is in a conflict in this

particular case and should be removed as the main liaison person for government

- or at least, Mr. Chairman, he should not be the person managing the

information that is to be submitted to the inquiry. In fact, what we are asking

is that the inquiry be given an independent process whereby all the information

in government is gone through, all the archives are searched, all the databases

are checked, all the briefing notes are read, all the minutes are reviewed, and

the appropriate information that needs to be submitted to the public inquiry is

indeed submitted in its entirety. That is all we are asking.

Mr. Chair, the fact that government maintains that they want to be open and

transparent in this entire process would certainly mean that they would want to

see the same kind of an independent process, but I gathered today, from the

Premier's remarks in the House of Assembly, that is not where they are; that

they are going to make sure that Mr. Thompson is the only person who gets his

hands on any of these files, in any of these departments, and he will be the

person who determines what is submitted to this inquiry and what is not.

Mr. Chair, the point that we are trying to make has nothing to do with the

character of the individual but has everything to do with the fact that they are

in a conflict of interest, they have been subpoenaed, and therefore they should

be removed. Now, whether government wants to keep them in the loop is entirely

up to them. That has nothing to do with what I am referring.

Mr. Chair, I want to raise another point because yesterday the Premier was

very adamant in Question Period about those who want to assign blame. In fact,

he attacked the CBC, the national news, he attacked the local media - I think it

was The Telegram in particular, and I think the local CBC radio station -

for comments that they had made, for questionnaires that they put on their

on-line sites, and things that he felt were not reflecting a very good image of

the government, and was very offended by it. Actually, he talked about blame,

and the fact that one of the questionnaires pointed to who should be blamed, and

took great offence to that.

Well, Mr. Chair, in my opinion, the first one to inflict any blame in any of

this was the Premier himself, and the government members opposite; because, when

this all happened, the first person to get the flick was George Tilley, the CEO

of Eastern Health. So, was the firing of George Tilley not assuming blame? Was

that not pointing the finger and saying: You are somewhat responsible here.

No one else could make the decision to fire the CEO of Eastern Health, only

the government, only the minister in the department and the Premier within

government. Was that not inflicting blame in some way, by saying to George

Tilley: You didn't do a good job at this and we are upset with you? You are

gone. You are out the door. Pack your bags. Clean out your desk.

To me, Mr. Chair, that was inflicting blame. What about John Abbott? John

Abbott, who was a long-time deputy minister through successive governments, was

the Deputy Minister of Health and was given the flick, shown the door, taken out

of that position, and we all know the only person who has the right to remove a

deputy minister is the Premier himself. A minister cannot remove a deputy

minister. Only the Premier can appoint and remove deputy ministers within the

government - for those who do not know that. Well, John Abbott, at the time that

this issue was heating up, was removed from the position of Deputy Minister of

Health by the Premier.

Now, we were told in the media and in some of his comments that the reason

was: We offered him another position and he did not want it. Well, I think they

offered him a position as the Deputy Minister of Tourism, which was quite a

stretch from the background that he came from as an economist and a Deputy

Minister of Health for a number of years.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Abbott took his leave from the civil service as one

of the top civil servants that this government had at the time, and probably one

of the most experienced civil servants who was serving in the capacity of a

deputy minister at that time. If that was not inflicting blame in some way, by

taking him out of that particular position, I do not know what it was.

So, if you want to talk about where the blame has already been laid, well,

government and the Premier have already laid the blame at the doorstep of two

very prominent civil servants in this Province, that being George Tilley and

John Abbott.

Mr. Chair, they do not want to hear about those issues, they do not want to

talk about those issues, and they use character assassinations and anger, and

throw words back and forth across the House of Assembly, and take a very

offensive, aggressive approach to try and shut down questions from the

Opposition or questions from the media. Well, Mr. Chair, it is just not going to

fly this time. It is just not going to fly this time, because we intend to ask

the questions that we have here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I sit here in amazement as I listen to the Opposition again

today. The inaccurate, irresponsible comments being made are simply beyond my

ken. I cannot believe what I just heard; the Opposition Leader stating that the

Inquiry should be given an independent process. Will she not listen to what she

is saying? She is questioning the independence of the Inquiry. She is

questioning the independence and impartiality of Madam Justice Margaret Cameron.

Does she realize what she is doing?

When she refers to offensive and aggressive approach, when I hear comments

like that, can I say, well, she doesn't have the legal training? Well, Mr.

Chair, she has been sitting in this House now for a number of years and it seems

to me for too long the Liberals have gotten away with saying whatever it is they

feel like saying. When I hear the questions coming from the Opposition House

Leader today, I wonder: how could he, as a practicing lawyer, have so little

knowledge about the inquiry process? When I listen to the questions put to the

Premier today, all I hear are accusatory, irresponsible questions.

This Inquiry is independent. By its very nature it has to be independent.

Madam Justice Cameron has been sitting on the Court of Appeal at least for ten

if not fifteen years. She sat at Trial Division, if I remember correctly, since

1985. She is perhaps now one of the senior jurists in this Province. I simply

sit in amazement when I hear this kind of comment.

Which brings me to the point and I am sorry that I have gotten engaged in

such an elementary discussion, but unfortunately I feel it is required. When I

listened to the condescending tone of the Opposition House Leader today or

yesterday, I am not going to adopt that tone, I am going to adopt an instructive

tone. I am gong to say: Sir, here are some of the cases you can read if you want

to talk about this kind of thing.

The inquiry process is not new in this country. We have had the Red Cross

inquiry in the early 1990s. We have had the Westray Inquiry, the Gomery Inquiry,

and there have been two major inquiries that I have been a part of, the Lamer

Inquiry in this Province and the O'Driscoll Inquiry in Winnipeg.

The purpose of an inquiry is to determine the truth, what happened, how did

it happen, who did what and how can we prevent it from happening again. Now,

that is what we are trying to do. That is the purpose of the inquiry.

Unfortunately, when political hyperbole gets thrown into the mix, the truth

can be lost because what the Opposition is doing by asking the kinds of

questions they are asking and making the kinds of comments they are making is

detracting from the seriousness of the situation that we have before us, Mr.

Chair. As pointed out by the Premier, peoples lives are affected. There were

tragedies and ongoing tragedies, and as a government we have an obligation to

get to the bottom of what happened, and that is why this inquiry has been

called.

Unfortunately, in this country, Mr. Chairman, inquiries are only usually

called in light of a tragedy. So, what we have is an inquiry that serves three

or four purposes. One, it is investigative. Mr. Coffey, I can assure the members

of the Opposition, and Ms Chaytor, they will conduct their roles quite well.

They will get to the bottom of what occurred. It is educational, so that the

public is informed of what took place and how it occurred. It is a fact finding

role and that is where Commissioner Cameron will come in. She does not need the

Opposition to tell her what the facts are.

I heard the Opposition House Leader, I heard the Leader of the Opposition

say: these are facts, they are written in stone. Well, nothing is a fact until

Commissioner Cameron finds it to be one. They may have their opinions, but they

have to distinguish opinion from fact. At this stage there are no facts. There

are simply ill-informed, misconceived and prejudicial opinions that I am hearing

from this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The other aspect of an inquiry, and this applies globally to

all inquiries, is preventative. We want to know what happened so we can prevent

it from happening again. We all have to work together. How often have we heard

the word blame? It is not coming from us. We want to find out what went on.

As for what happened with a deputy minister, if that is relevant to the

inquiry I am sure the Commission counsel will find that out. As for what

happened with the CEO, I am sure that if it is relevant to the inquiry they will

find that out.

Mr. Coffey, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, is a very experienced and

thorough lawyer. There will be no stone unturned. The difficultly I am having as

I listen to this today is that: Is the Opposition setting out to jeopardize the

fairness and independence of the inquiry? Now perhaps they should ask themselves

that question as they continue down this road. This inquiry is to determine how

this terrible tragedy could have occurred. There is no place, I would suggest to

you, Mr. Chairman, for political gamesmanship and irresponsible commentary, and

that is what I saw today, again, is inflammatory comments.

Now the Opposition House Leader may get up and say later: Well, I don't

have to tell him what to do. Well, I am going to suggest to him that there are

certain case laws he might want to read before he comes back into the House and

starts talking about this inquiry and the inquiry process. Then he can take what

he reads and learns and he can inform the Leader of the Opposition of some basic

principles of law. One of those basic principles of law that applies to

inquiries are the rules of natural justice. Everyone has a right to be heard and

everyone has to know the case against them. It is the equivalent of the

presumption of innocence. But, in the Opposition side of the House, there is no

presumption of innocence. We all knew everything. The Premier did not do

anything.

Let's let the inquiry run its course. Calmer heads should prevail and the

inquiry should be allowed to do its job. Because if not, Mr. Chairman, what is

going to happen is that sooner or later the question is going to be asked as to

what are we doing in the House of Assembly with the ongoing inquiry? We are not

set up to conduct this inquiry. You take bits and pieces, you take them out of

context and what happens? Then we get the smearing of reputations. The

irresponsible smearing of reputations like the Liberal Leader has done today.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated: A

person's reputation is oftentimes the best, the most valuable asset he or she

has. So to state, as the Liberal Leader has stated, that Mr. Thompson is in a

conflict. Why is she using the word conflict? Is there a legal term she is using

here, because if there is I am not hearing it? Is it real? Is it perceived? She

equates it with the town councils. So, as the Premier pointed out today, Mr.

Coffey worked for the government, he was the Assistant Director of Public

Prosecution. Is he in a conflict? Madam Justice Cameron worked here in the

Department of Justice one time, is she in a conflict? There is nothing else.

This is an ill-conceived or misconceived attempt to smear Mr. Thompson's

reputation and I would suggest to you, sir, that that is not fair. At the end of

the day, Madam Justice Cameron or Commissioner Cameron will make her findings.

One basic principle - and perhaps I should not have to remind the Opposition

House Leader of this, but in regard to his condescending tone yesterday, perhaps

I will. You are not judge and jury. You are not judge and jury and perhaps you

should take that into account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, and I am not trying to be. All I am saying is let the

procedure play out. Let it follow its natural course.

Sir, I say it to you today - Mr. Chairman, what I am asking the Opposition to

consider is to tone it down a little. If there are reasonable questions - how

many subpoenas have been issued? Mr. Opposition Ho