March

26, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVII No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the following

members: the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member

for the District of Fortune Bay Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of St.

John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, and the hon.

the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate two fine gentleman of St.

Bernard's Jacques Fontaine who have devoted twenty and twenty-five years of

their time to their local volunteer fire department. These men are Clayton

Johnson and Gerard Hodder

I would like to thank the St. Bernard's Jacques Fontaine volunteer fire

department for the services they provide to their community and four other

communities: Bay L'Argent, Little Bay East, Harbour Mille, and Little Harbour

East.

Mr. Johnson was presented with the Firefighting Twenty-five-year Long-Term

Service Bar and Medal and Mr. Hodder with the Firefighting Twenty-year Long-Term

Service Bar and Medal.

It is our volunteer firefighters who are there when we are at our darkest

time, during life-changing events, risking their lives to save our homes and

properties. It is the men and women like these whom we the people of this

Province depend on to keep our homes, businesses, and communities safe.

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

congratulating Clayton Johnson and Gerard Hodder and all the fire department

volunteers throughout this Province for their devoted services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Chef Dereck Collier,

originally from St. Alban's and now residing here in St. John's. Earlier this

year, on January 14, Mr. Collier received the Chef of the Year award from the

Newfoundland and Labrador Chef's Association.

This award is presented to a chef who participates in culinary events,

competitions, assists the chef's association, and contributes their spare time

to helping chefs across borders. Among his achievements and volunteer charitable

contributions are provincial and national skills competitions, Hot Soup Cool

Jazz Competitions, local collunarium competitions, Cupcakes for Breast Cancer,

and the World Chefs Tour against Hunger in South Africa. Dereck has also served

as acting vice-president of the Chef's Association and is an instructor for the

College of the North Atlantic.

Very well respected, Mr. Collier is a tremendous individual, with tremendous

talent and a genuine desire to help others.

On behalf of myself and my hometown, I ask all members of this hon. House to

join me in recognizing the culinary skills and charitable generosity of Mr.

Dereck Collier, Chef of the Year for 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize the achievements of three high school graduates in my District

of Baie Verte Springdale.

Terri-Lynn Baggs of Baie Verte Collegiate, Danielle Locke of H.L. Strong

Academy, and Lauren Robinson of MSB Regional Academy were the proud recipients

of Electoral District Scholarships, valued at $1,000 each.

Mr. Speaker, the awarding of these scholarships is based solely on the public

examination results.

All three schools and the communities are to be commended for fostering a

strong learning environment and a positive culture that contributed to the

success of these aspiring students.

I conclude by respectfully asking my hon. colleagues to join me in

congratulating Terri-Lynn, Danielle, and Lauren upon their outstanding

accomplishments.

We wish them every success in their pursuit of academic excellence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize an organization that has been providing alternative

education to youth in this area for twenty-five years.

The Murphy Centre was established in 1986 and first set up on Water Street.

In 2006, its academic programming moved to Prince Philip Drive. The Centre also

operates career and employment programs from Torbay Road and a thriving arts

program from Harbourside Studios on Harbour Drive here in St. John's.

Just over 500 participants participate annually in the various programs,

which range from high school credits and Adult Basic Education through career

and lifestyle programs, including assessment, counselling, personal development,

and job placement support.

The Murphy Centre celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary on February 3 of

this year. In its quarter-century of service, more than 5,000 participants have

benefited from its unique person-centred approach. A very dedicated volunteer

board of directors governs the Murphy Centre and equally dedicated staff members

make the experiences of the young participants worthwhile. Funding from several

government departments allows the centre to keep on enriching lives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the Murphy Centre

for twenty-five years of outstanding work to this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate

three youths from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They are Grade 9 students, thirteen

year old twins Kelsey and Courtney Roberts, and fourteen year old Sarah Fowler.

They have spent the past year raising more than $11,000 for a new animal shelter

for the local SPCA.

Mr. Speaker, they witnessed a stray dog that sparked a discussion on what

they could do to make a difference. They young ladies organized bake sales,

barbecues, grocery bagging at the local Co-Op, and they also went door to door

fundraising. Their message is a simple one, they want people to know that it is

very important to give back to your community and anyone can do this type of

fundraising, no matter what their age. They want other youth to know that you

can indeed have fun while doing something that supports a good cause.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Kelsey

Roberts, Courtney Roberts and Sarah Fowler for their outstanding fundraising

efforts in putting their community first, and raising an incredible amount of

money for their local SPCA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the girls'

volleyball teams at Greenwood Academy in Campbellton.

Greenwood Academy is a small K-9 school in rural Newfoundland with a usually

successful volleyball program. They have four teams: Grade 5s, Grades 6 and 7,

Grade 8, and Grade 9. They are coached by Ambrose Patterson and Jody Curlew.

They hold practices twice a week and, Mr. Speaker, any girl who wishes to play

gets the chance. There are no tryouts. Everybody is welcome. The girls started

at a young age and they have learned to have fun, even when they lose. Their

enthusiasm and skill level have made them consistent medal finishers at

tournaments. In fact, in ten tournaments this year, Mr. Speaker, they have won

eight medals, including six gold.

The Grade 9 team, who have been together since Grade 5, consist of the

following members: Tanisha Harris, Catlin Steele, Lacey Lewis, Caley Thoms,

Keesha Cooper, Jenny Yeomans, Jenna Burt, Amber Mills, Samantha Budgell, Kayla

Hoddinott, and one Grade 8 student, Cara Thoms.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing the

success of these students and also in thanking the teachers involved for their

interest in their students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to observe Purple Day for

Epilepsy in Newfoundland and Labrador, a worldwide event that began in Eastern

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our government received a letter from Luke Noftall, requesting

our recognition of March 26 as Purple Day for Epilepsy. I am pleased that Luke

and his mother, Elizabeth Noftall, have joined us today. Gail Dempsey and Pamela

Anstey from Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador are also present today in the

gallery.

I commend the work of Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador. For nearly thirty

years this organization has provided support and information to individuals and

their families throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as part of their Paint the Province Purple campaign, Epilepsy

Newfoundland and Labrador has organized community activities that will take

place throughout the Province this week to help raise awareness and

understanding of epilepsy.

Nine-year-old Cassidy Megan from Nova Scotia organized the first Purple Day

at her elementary school after being diagnosed with epilepsy in 2008. Cassidy

reflected in a letter to her supporters that her diagnosis had made her feel

"afraid and embarrassed of what other people would think." By encouraging people

to wear purple, the internationally recognized colour for epilepsy, she hoped

that people who experienced seizures would feel less alone.

Mr. Speaker, one little girl's idea has grown into a global event in just

three short years. March 26 is now celebrated as Purple Day for Epilepsy in

dozens of countries and has done a great deal to further understanding, reduce

stigma, and improve the quality of life for people with epilepsy.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects over

10,000 people in our Province. I invite the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador to participate in Purple Day activities and support those who live with

epilepsy each day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for her advance copy of the Ministerial

Statement.

I, too, want to welcome Luke, his mother Elizabeth, Gail Dempsey and Pamela

Anstey in the gallery today. As was mentioned, epilepsy is indeed a very

prevalent disease amongst Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; as a matter of fact,

it is second only to migraine. As was mentioned we have 10,000 Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians dealing with epilepsy. It is great to have a day like Purple

Day as we bring public awareness to epilepsy. What this does of course is

educate the general population, not only about epilepsy but how to intervene in

case of emergency.

We all heard, in recent days, stories about how dogs are used now, dogs that

will actually sense the seizure in advance of them happening. It is important

that we do acknowledge days like Purple Day and epilepsy, it gives us all an

opportunity to learn more about this prevalent condition, and another

opportunity to thank all the volunteers and the associations across Newfoundland

for the great work that they do on behalf of the people with epilepsy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and join with her

and the Leader of the Official Opposition in welcoming our special guests here

today. I congratulate all the children and parents affected by epilepsy who are

involved in making the public more aware of this condition and dispelling the

myths and stigma that have existed for too long a time.

Wearing purple ribbons and purple in any way we can is one important thing to

do, but the 10,000 people in this Province with epilepsy deserve every effort we

can make to make their lives easier. Government should support education and

awareness sessions in every school in the Province on a yearly basis, beginning

at the elementary school level and on through high school. Regular on the ground

education in our schools will make a difference in the attitudes of the next

generation and it will paint the Province purple all year-round.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Don McKay, local

poet, teacher, and editor. He has been named the winner of this year's BMO

Winterset Award for his collection of literary essays The Shell of the

Tortoise .

In addition to this recent honour, Mr. McKay won the Governor General's Award

for Night Field in 1991 and Another Gravity in 2000. In June 2007,

he won the Griffin Poetry award for Strike/Slip .

Mr. McKay's fellow nominees for the BMO Winterset Award were Edward Riche for

Easy to Like and Mark Callanan for Gift Horse . Mr. Riche is the

award-winning author of Rare Birds , which was adapted into a major motion

picture in 2001. Fellow poet Mark Callanan is the author of Scarecrow and

Sea Legend , which was short-listed for the bpNichol Chapbook Poetry Award in

Mr. Speaker, the BMO Winterset Award was established by Richard Gwyn to

encourage and promote excellence in writing by Newfoundland and Labrador

authors. Mr. Gwyn created the award in memory of his late wife, the

prize-winning author and local historian, Sandra Fraser Gwyn.

The provincial government remains committed to the growth of our literary

sector. In Budget 2011, more than $338,000 in funding was committed through the

Publisher's Assistance Program and the Cultural Economic Development Program to

support a variety of events and activities, including professional development

opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. McKay as

well as all of the Province's remarkable writers and publishers for their

dedication to the growth and promotion of the literary sector in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the advanced copy and

I would like to join with him in congratulating Mr. McKay on receiving this very

prestigious award.

I would also like to add that over the last dozen or so years our Province

has come a long way in literary functions and events. We have the Writer's

Festival in Woody Point, which has been ongoing for eight, nine or ten years.

The town literally jams full. Then, all summer long we have Theatre Newfoundland

and Labrador and they produce home-written productions at Cow Head in Gros Morne

National Park. These are locally written and also locally performed and is a

great sense of entertainment for tourists from May until September.

One of my favourite Newfoundland and Labrador writers is Earl Pilgrim. Earl

would never be classified as a literary writer such as Mr. McKay; however, he is

a fabulous storyteller and this former member of the Canadian Armed Forces,

former prizefighter, and wildlife officer is getting on for almost twenty books

right now and they are all very entertaining. So, congratulations to Mr. McKay

and I would like to see all of our writers encouraged.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: I would like to thank the minister for the advanced copy of

his statement.

Don McKay, Mark Callanan, Edward Riche we are rich indeed. Congratulations

to the late Sandra Fraser Gwyn, Richard Gwyn, and BMO for your vision,

commitment, and investment. Art and artists are vital to our community, they

inspire us to dare to dream, hope, and see what could be. Don, bravo, and in

Don's words, "You are the crystal that picks up its many deaths. You are the

monetary mind of rock."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, The Fifth Estate documentary on Burton Winters has rocked

the Province by revealing some very shocking information around protocol and DND

guidelines. It is unfortunate that it took The Fifth Estate to uncover

those disturbing facts.

My question is to the Premier: Did your investigation following this incident

identify any of those shocking revelations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our investigation was around our own protocols, and a review of

those protocols to see if we need to be doing something else provincially. Mr.

Speaker, I, like others, accepted that weather was an issue. The Fifth Estate

has made it quite clear that weather was not an issue. There is a letter leaving

the minister's office today to the Minister of Defence asking the question: If

weather was not an issue, why weren't the Cormorants deployed? The answer to

that question, Mr. Speaker, will dictate further actions by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: A follow-up to that, I'd like you to add one little sentence to

your letter and let us know, let the people in the Province know, if equipment

is not available would they let the Province know.

Mr. Speaker, The Fifth Estate has revealed contradicting information

around weather conditions, call back protocol and the unavailability of

aircraft.

I ask the question of the Premier: Surely, we have heard enough by now to

initiate a full independent investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy.

Premier, will you do it now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I had the authority to do it I certainly would do it. I do

not have access to federal government information. I can ask for same, but I do

not have the authority to begin an investigation into protocols, procedures, and

actions of the federal government. I can ask that they be reviewed, Mr. Speaker;

I am doing that. I am asking for explanations that the people of this Province

are demanding, Mr. Speaker, certainly in light of The Fifth Estate

report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, I watched, along with the people of Makkovik,

in disbelief and shock Friday night as The Fifth Estate reported the true

facts and shortcomings of DND's mishandling of the terrible tragedy.

If DND is not prepared to do a full investigation, my question is to the

Premier: Will your government step up, do what is right, and get the real

information for the families and friends of Burton Winters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Member for Torngat Mountains' concern. This

young man, whose tragic end we all feel, was from his own community. He

participated in the search and rescue activities, Mr. Speaker. I understand

that. I understand the outrage that is being felt, not only in Labrador, but

right throughout this Province, because the explanations that are being provided

are not satisfactory, and appear now to be contradictory, Mr. Speaker.

If I had the power to begin an inquiry into the actions of the federal

government, and have access to the pertinent information, Mr. Speaker, I would

call one today. I do not; only the federal government can do that. I am

demanding explanations from the Minister of Defence, Mr. Speaker, and once I get

them, I will make that information available to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, young Burton's family and the people of

Labrador are really struggling with the Rear Admiral's decision not to send a

Cormorant helicopter from Gander because they may have needed it for a maritime

emergency.

My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Province: Do

you agree that this is totally unacceptable, and what requests have you made to

ensure that Cormorant helicopters are available to respond in all emergency

situations in our Province not just in marine emergencies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disconnect between the members on this side of the

House and the Member for Torngat Mountains, nor is there a disconnect from the

people of the Province in the island part of the Province in Newfoundland

and Labrador. A life is a life, whether that life to be saved is on the sea or

on the land. We all believe that, Mr. Speaker. The information that we were

initially given by DND, according to The Fifth Estate , appears to

be wrong. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are owed an explanation. I am

demanding that explanation from the minister responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if The Fifth Estate and journalists in this

country can shine more light on what happened with the Burton Winters case than

people, will the Premier now recognize that it is important to take the next

steps?

I ask the Premier today: Will she instigate a judicial inquiry which would

allow the access to information that we need to know to see what happened in

this particular incident on search and rescue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue, a very sensitive issue,

particularly for the people of Makkovik and the family of Burton Winters. Mr.

Speaker, the House Leader well recognizes that I have no authority to institute

an inquiry into the federal government's activities to have access to the kind

of information that we would need. I can call on the federal government for such

an inquiry. That may very well happen, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I am demanding

an explanation from the Minister of Defence with regard to the information that

was in The Fifth Estate program. Once I receive the response to that

inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I will make it available to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I beg to differ with the Premier in

terms of being able to launch a judicial inquiry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the countdown is on for the closure of the Maritime

Search and Rescue Sub-centre in St. John's. We have just

heard the questions from my colleagues in the House with regard to the Burton

Winters tragedy.

I now ask the Premier: Are you prepared to launch a full-court press and

force the federal government to uphold their responsibilities for search and

rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has had a full-court press ongoing with the

federal government since the decision was announced. I was accused in the media

by one of our MPs of trying to drag the MPs into this issue. Yes, I am yes, I

am, Mr. Speaker screaming and bawling, but I am trying to drag them in to this

issue to make their positions known in Ottawa and to do their jobs in Ottawa.

The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are doing their jobs, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have anything other than the force of my arguments to compel the

Prime Minister to do the right thing and to reverse that decision. I am going to

keep making them, Mr. Speaker, day in and day out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the letter-writing campaign is just

not enough. We were told by the Minister of Municipal Affairs weeks ago that

there were letters sent to Ottawa, which we have not seen any response to yet on

this. His response is like the response that I got from Stephen Harper's office;

there is not much odds about it, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, what we are hearing is of Griffon helicopters that are broken down,

Hercules aircrafts that are out of service, Cormorants that are not available;

to top it all off, now the federal government wants to close the Maritime

Search and Rescue Sub-centre in St. John's.

I ask you today, Premier: Are you prepared to go to Ottawa - because we are

prepared to go with you, stand with you shoulder to shoulder - and fight the

federal government? If you are not prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker, we are

prepared to go and rally on Parliament Hill without you. Which way would you

like to have it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Ottawa several times on this issue and it is high

time you went. I encourage you to go. Mr. Speaker, I encourage them to make a

meeting with the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, standing outside a building

screaming or standing on the dock screaming, it does not always hold people

accountable. My view is that it often lets them off the hook, Mr. Speaker.

My responsibility is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prime

Minister Harper has a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker, and I am going to hold him accountable. I step up, and I step up

every day. I encourage the Opposition to do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, in the media last week the Minister of Natural

Resources avoided a question about new timelines and targets for the Muskrat

Falls Project. He lashed out at the Opposition, as he has all of his critics

throughout all of the questions that have been asked.

I will ask the minister: Let's keep it very simple, if you have all the

information on this project, can you start telling us what the new timeline is

for this project sanction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize I have to keep it simple. Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the PUB

report. We are also waiting, Mr. Speaker, for the final Decision Gate 3 numbers

from Nalcor. We are in the process of finalizing the loan guarantee in the deal

and the negotiations with Emera.

Mr. Speaker, once all of that information is in, as a government - and as I

said last week, I was hoping for more fruitful debate in the House of Assembly

to inform the decision. As we move ahead, Mr. Speaker, we will look at all the

information and we will make a decision on sanction. That is what we were

elected to do and that is what we will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about discussions he has had

about natural gas with natural gas companies, and he has admitted that no

detailed studies were completed on those alternatives.

I ask the minister, they must have been detailed enough, your conversations

with those companies at least detailed enough that you could actually dismiss

natural gas as an option. What was the price per kilowatt hour for using natural

gas as an energy source?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to natural gas; there is the importation

of natural gas because of the low prices in the United States. The price paid in

the United States at approximately $2.50 per million BTU does not translate into

delivered cost to Holyrood. Wade Locke has indicated that it would cost at a

minimum the minimum or maximum would have to be $5.75. What we are told, Mr.

Speaker, is that we are looking at $10 to $12 for delivered costs, it is not

economically feasible. The building of a pipeline, Mr. Speaker, from the Grand

Banks is anywhere from 350 to 650 kilometres. We have production licences to the

oil companies and what we are looking at there, Mr. Speaker, they are saying

natural gas would have to be at $10 to $12 to develop, it is not economically

feasible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: So here we go, Mr. Speaker, we do not know the price but it is

no good, it cannot work. It is obvious that the minister wants a more informed

debate on Muskrat Falls; yet, he is refusing a full debate on the project in the

House of Assembly. He is refusing to provide information that has been

requested. He is also refusing to allow the PUB the mandate and the time it

needs to complete a full and intense study.

Now that you stated you want a more informed debate, are you now going to

publicly share all the information that you have on this project and allow the

Public Utilities Board the opportunity to look at all other options and

alternatives, just as they are going to do in Nova Scotia, or are you going to

refuse that as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: If I were the Leader of the Opposition I would be looking

over my shoulder. Their saviour, Dean MacDonald, supports Muskrat Falls; perhaps

he should talk to Dean.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at here, we brought in eight boxes of

documents. There is all of the information that was filed with the Public

Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board will provide their report this week,

Mr. Speaker. They have been asked to look at two options. Other options, Mr.

Speaker, have been analyzed and have been looked at. The Manitoba Hydro

International report is, Mr. Speaker, an independent report. It concludes, one

that we need the power, and two, Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister announced a new generic drug pricing model today. It is likely

that prescription fees will go up for everyone in the Province and we know

seniors and those who do not have a private insurance are at high risk of paying

more under your new model.

I ask the minister today: What assurances can you give our most vulnerable in

society that they will not have to pay more for their drugs or for prescription

fees in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can give every assurance that we are concerned about seeing

that seniors in this Province do not pay more for their generic prescription

drugs. In fact, we will ensure that through policies that we will implement as a

result of this. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, what we intend to do around

generic drug pricing modelling is that we will reinvest in rural pharmacies

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be savings. We will have money

to invest, and we will see those investments benefit the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Official Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are five days from seeing this particular bill and the new generic drug

pricing program come into play in the Province.

I ask you today, Minister: Why are you not tabling the regulations and the

policies around this, why are you not telling us what program you are going to

put in place to ensure that seniors in our Province and the people of this

Province do not have to pay more for medication and prescription drug fees? Lay

it out, give us the information.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will be laying it all out, and it will be laid out at the

negotiation table. That is what we are doing. We are negotiating with PANL

around how it is we can mutually agree to reinvest in Newfoundland and Labrador,

in rural pharmacies, and in terms of what we are doing with our seniors. So

there will be ample discussions; she is just not at those tables, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that she is prepared to reinvest into independent

pharmacies in this Province, and into seniors, with regard to the new generic

drug program.

I ask you, Minister: How are you proposing to that, what will be the cost of

those investments, and when are you going to be prepared to tell us about it

or, do you not have any program at this stage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they must be running out of time over there, she is asking five

questions in one, and I really do not know which one she wants answered first;

but, let me tell you what I am going to tell the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: We are very concerned about seeing that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have the lowest cost for their prescription drugs as

we can possibly arrange for them. Seven other provinces, Mr. Speaker, are going

down the same road six have already implemented it we have heard from New

Brunswick just in this last little bit of time. We will do the same thing for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will protect them and ensure that we

have the lowest cost for generic drugs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no secret, and the minister knows that this program will have major

implications for independent pharmacies in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we know,

from the Wade Locke report that was done in September of 2008 that this could

have such a drastic impact that we could see some of these independent

pharmacies go out of business in the Province.

I ask you, Minister: What follow-up have you done with regard to the findings

of Dr. Locke? Although he asked you and made the proposal to government to do

more work on that, you did not take him up on that offer, and I ask you why that

is.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today they like Wade Locke. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a serious issue (inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: This is a very serious issue, and you are 100 per cent

right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: That is why we have taken control of this issue, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: What we are trying to do in this Province is ensure that the

beneficiaries of our programs receive the lowest drug-price cost that we can

give them. That is what we are working toward.

We are also, though, concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are

also concerned about those pharmacies and we will invest in those pharmacies,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the Opposition House Leader propose that all

three political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador join together to ask Ottawa

to fix the se arch and rescue problems in this

Province. I believe and my caucus believes that the state of search and

rescue in this Province transcends political boundaries.

So, Mr. Speaker, I now ask the Premier if she would please agree to be part

of a united front in Ottawa, not screaming and yelling as she suggested was

meant, but sitting together with federal ministers to discuss this serious

issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues across the floor to make whatever

representations they can make in Ottawa that they consider might be effective.

That is what we have done since day one. Mr. Speaker, I encourage them to

encourage the MPs who are part of their political alliance to do their jobs in

Ottawa and to make this case as forcefully as they can.

Mr. Speaker, we were disturbed by what we heard on The Fifth Estate

program. As I said earlier in Question Period, we are writing to the Minister of

National Defence demanding explanations, Mr. Speaker. We will make that

information public when it arrives and it will dictate next steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I say to the Premier, and she knows as well, that the two NDP MPs from

Newfoundland and Labrador have been speaking out on this issue and will continue

to do so.

I would like a better explanation from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as to why

she is refusing to visibly show us united together by physically going to Ottawa

together. Could we have explanation for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in this House day after day and am told, especially

by the Opposition Party, that we are weak, that we are ineffective, that we are

directionless, that we do not know what we are doing, and that we are not taking

a positive stand on behalf of the people of the Province. Therefore, I have to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with everything they say, why they are

so insistent on joining with us? If you are that strong, if you are that

effective, if you have all the answers

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: then you should be making those arguments in

Ottawa. Why would you want to hook yourself to a sinking ship, Mr. Speaker? So I

am not interested in playing those kinds of politics, Mr. Speaker, that is the

bottom line, because that request is nothing only pure politics. I work on

behalf of the people of the Province and I will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is really too bad, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot show that we are united on

this front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It is very, very sad that we cannot show that. Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Natural

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has acknowledged the Leader of Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has publicly dismissed the

expertise of the people who sat on the only truly independent study of Muskrat

Falls, the Joint Review Panel. Mr. Speaker, the provincial government agreed

when this panel was formed that these people were qualified to do the work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is she now dismissing the expertise of

the people her government approved to conduct the independent study?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the only group I have heard refer to this

environmental assessment panel as truly independent is the Leader of the NDP.

Manitoba Hydro International is an international consulting company that was

hired by the PUB independent of government, Mr. Speaker, and independent of

Nalcor. They looked at all of the issues that have been put forward in terms of

determining the least-cost option. They determined, Mr. Speaker, that wind is

not an option to replace Holyrood. They looked, Mr. Speaker, at Muskrat Falls

versus Holyrood and concluded that Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost option.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB will speak later this week and we will then take into

account what they have to say. The environmental assessment panel looked at the

environment, Mr. Speaker; they made certain comments which we have made clear we

do not agree with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister knows as well as I do that the groups that he has referred to

had restrictions put on their research, because all they could do was look at

what was being proposed by Nalcor. He knows and I know that an environmental

assessment panel has broad powers. They look at everything that is

socioeconomic-related to the project that is being proposed. He is totally

dismissing their research, having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this

panel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is she allowing her Minister of Natural

Resources to dismiss the qualifications and expertise of the very people they

appointed to the panel without any restrictions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What I find interesting here is that the groups with whom the NDP are so

closely aligned, these environmental groups, are the very ones who are

questioning the panel's expertise. They filed a lawsuit, Mr. Speaker, in federal

court indicating that the environmental assessment panel did not do their job;

they did not look at other alternatives. So, which way is it? Are the

independent? Are they competent, or does the NDP agree with these environmental

groups that they did not do their job properly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario recently announced that

it would continue its all-day Kindergarten programming despite its

multi-billion-dollar budget deficit.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why does his government not have a similarly

high value for all-day Kindergarten?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We investigate and explore all options to ensure that the students of our

Province get the best-quality education that they can. One of the areas, Mr.

Speaker, that I mentioned the other day, is $4.8 million over three years to

invest in that zero to six years. We have, based on research Memorial being a

part of it, the academic community all a part of it, Mr. Speaker; anyone who

follows education knows that the zero to three years where we invested first is

critical, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to explore options, and I will keep the

member informed, I guess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education keeps repeating himself

over and over again on this issue. I do not know who he is trying to convince,

himself or me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the research clearly shows that investments in

all-day Kindergarten over the long term result in higher productivity and higher

tax revenues.

I ask the minister: Are you unaware of this research or are you simply just

ignoring it? Which is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if he was not smitten

by the leadership bug in Toronto this weekend, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering.

Mr. Speaker, he keeps asking the question. Unfortunately, he seems not to

like the answer that I give him. I cannot help it if it is not sinking in. Mr.

Speaker, research from Memorial, academics, people who have been in education

for years are talking about where you make the investment. We have invested in

the zero to three years of age. We are laying out a framework up to, from four

to six, Mr. Speaker. Our work is ongoing and, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I can keep

the member informed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess if we are talking about leaders listening, we have a new leader now

and believe you me he is listening, so stay tuned.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation

who recently announced a frightening decline in the moose population on the

Island. On the Great Northern Peninsula outfitters and residents have been

saying publicly for some time that there are very few moose to be found in the

area. Mr. Speaker, many people in the area depend on the outfitter and tourism

industry for their work in this regard. The moose population decline could lead

to their jobs being in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he doing to get a handle on this

resource which he is charged with managing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To analyze the moose population, it is certainly a significant one. You have

the social carrying capacity, Mr. Speaker, which is certainly not lost on this

government and you also have the people like the outfitters who contribute $40

million to the economy of this Province. Obviously, it is very, very important

that we come up with a plan. We have said that we were; if you reference our

Blue Book, a five-year moose management strategy, Mr. Speaker, it is in the

works. It is important I think that we consult and have a look at other

countries throughout the world, including Scandinavian countries that deal with

significant moose populations and deal with the socio issues, as well as the

economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, we are working through that. We will have a plan in place

hopefully for the next hunting season.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some time we have heard from groups deploring the fact that there were

too many moose causing too many accidents on our highways. Mr. Speaker, recently

the minister made the startling comment that there are too few moose on the

Island, and he called the population frighteningly low.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Can he explain the apparent anomaly between

the fact that there are too many moose on one hand and I guess in this regard

not enough moose in other areas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be

against the moose population and then in favour of it at the same time. I do not

mind a fellow speaking out of both sides of his mouth a scattered time but this

fellow is actually changing his clothes on this one, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the member opposite, this is a very serious issue. It is a unique

balancing act that we have to take into consideration. That is why we are having

a five-year moose management plan. In the late 1990s, Mr. Speaker, there were

147,000 moose estimated here in the Province. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are

down to 110,000, and another few thousand in our national parks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move, seconded by the Member for Humber West:

WHEREAS the current government, in its 2011 policy Blue Book, promised to

deliver wait time strategies for emergency departments and hip and knee joint

replacement surgeries; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Health and Community Services fulfilled these

election commitments by announcing strategies to reduce wait times in both of

these vital areas of our health care system; and

WHEREAS we have made significant progress in improving wait times for the

benchmark areas outlined in the 2004 Accord; and

WHEREAS 83 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians received access to

care in the five priority areas within their respective benchmarks according to

the Canadian Institute for Health Information annual report on wait times, the

second highest of all the provinces; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has directed resources to other areas

outside the 2004 Accord where access has been a challenge, such as emergency

departments and diagnostic imaging; and

WHEREAS the current government has invested over $140 million over the past

eight years to improve wait times throughout the Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the significant

actions this government has taken and is continuing to take to enhance the

access and reduce wait times throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The private member's motion we will be discussing on Wednesday will be the

motion just read into the record by the Member for Terra Nova.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27; and further, I give notice under

Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, March 27, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on family caregivers, Mr. Speaker.

I will read the petition:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people

to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care

workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne

committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people

the option of receiving that care from their family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to

implement paying family caregivers;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013

Budget.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise and present this petition. Many people from

the Bay of Islands have expressed the concern of this over a number of years.

They are very concerned, especially in rural Newfoundland, and I know all

members come across this, when they cannot find people to give the home care

services that they need and they need to call upon the family members.

I know the PC Blue Book in 2011, Mr. Speaker, committed to have this done.

The minister herself stood up and said it will be done, but we were just

wondering when and if it was going to be in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker.

This is something that people have been asking for. This has been committed

by the government on several occasions. It is a necessity, especially for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people who, in many cases, find it hard to

find a caregiver for their loved ones, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, and I know we

all go through it at certain times with our family, a lot of times when there

are personal needs to be taken care of by a caregiver, and it is kind of

private, they would love a family member because the dignity steps in.

This is a very important issue for all people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a very important issue. It has come across my desk on many occasions, Mr.

Speaker. So, I present this petition again on behalf of the undersigned and I

call upon government to have it done in this year's Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I again arise in this House with a petition

regarding cellphones in communities in Gros Morne National Park.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Pauls, Cow Head,

Sally's Cove, or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities within Gros

Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros

Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous

travellers, hikers, and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, imagine all of the advertising that is done for Gros Morne

National Park. Imagine all of the beautiful pictures, all of the wilderness, all

the small towns. People come from far and wide. They come from North America.

They come from Europe. They come from Asia. They come to Gros Morne National

Park and the simplest instrument that they can use in Bombay, India, or they can

use in Tokyo or they can use anywhere in Europe, a cellphone, they cannot use in

Gros Morne National Park. There are only two or three places in Gros Morne

National Park where it is possible to receive cellphone service.

Besides being a gross inconvenience for the people who reside within the

park, the black eye that it gives to tourism in the Province that we appear to

be so backward technologically, yet the government spends tens of millions of

dollars for fibre optic cables and we do not have a simple cellphone service.

The geography of Gros Morne National Park is such that only two or three

additional towers strategically located would easily provide cellphone service

throughout the entire park. Situated on headlands, on Cow Head, near Trout

River, back on the mountains, this would provide cellphone service for everybody

who visits the park and for all of the residents who live and like to carry on

business within the park.

Mr. Speaker, those are my comments regarding cellphone service within Gros

Morne National Park.

Again, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I rise today to read this petition. To the hon. House of Assembly in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

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

to travel to and from La Poile; and

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

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

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

Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom

facilities; and

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

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

of their travels or wait inside out of the elements and harsh weather

conditions, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

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

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

immediately construct and operate a waiting room/restroom facility at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, such that all users of the provincial ferry

service may be able to utilize such waiting area/washroom facilities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, certainly from the comments I am hearing from across the hall, this is

not the first time that the members here have heard this petition. Certainly,

the member before me read this petition in which is unfortunate that we have

had to wait this long to get facilities that are considered basic. These are the

most basic facilities.

I have to travel down to Rose Blanche and again, these people have to

travel every day for just about anything; for health care, for medical, for

work, they have to go up and down. Now, it is bad enough that they do not have

cellphone service coming in and out of here, but when they get back, if they

have to wait for the ferry, they have to wait in their cars or wait out in the

elements. They do not even have a simple restroom; they do not even have a

porta-potty there to use. This comes down to basic human necessities.

Now, I guess the member for Mount Pearl would know, when he deals with

occupational health and safety, this is pretty basic health and safety stuff

right here. I do not think that the people of La Poile, and certainly, the

travelling public, are asking for much here. When we talk about tourism in this

Province, that is certainly something that is not included in our tourism

brochures, that you better hope that the ferry does not make you wait too when

you are waiting to get on, or else.

Again, it is basic, basic stuff that the people are asking for. I will

continue to rise and enter this petition, and hopefully, between the Department

of Tourism, or the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Service

NL, maybe we will get this basic human need taken care of, and hopefully in a

short period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: I rise today to present a petition for the removal of

the Englee fish plant public safety hazard and environmental concern.

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

Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the provincial government has not acknowledged that they have a role

to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and

WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven

years, lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay of new

infrastructure, and has become a concern of public safety, as large debris has

fallen into a major shipping route.

We, the undersigned, petition the House to urge government to immediately

order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned property, a

former fish plant, in order to restore public confidence in the system, and

settle land issues to permit new wharf development, providing residents of

Englee with a mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized economy.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray, sincerely, the undersigned.

Now this petition has been circulated and has thousands and thousands of

signatures on it. This is something that is not new; it has been a matter since

2004. Ever since this government has been in power this has been an issue for

the past eight years and it really is a major environmental concern. The roof

has collapsed in part of the facility; there has been debris, shingles, large

parts that have flown around in the town. The residents are gravely concerned.

It has been a huge economic loss. Because an environmental assessment has been

done, the plant has been shut down. They are not looking for a new plant to be

put in; they are just looking for the property to be removed and remediated and

they are asking for government to step up, step up to the plate, to really

protect the safety and health of the residents that are there. Not only is the

lack of action by this government impacting economic development, because the

federal government has looked at putting in wharfing infrastructure in this

facility in the multimillion dollar range. This is having a big impact in

looking at where we move forward. It is an area of prime real estate and it is

an ability to really advance.

The message is quite clear, for other fish plants and other operators that

are pulling out like in Port Union: Be aware; be very, very careful as to what

is going to happen. They had put in a fisheries compensation package to do

retraining, but it certainly was not enough, because this town is on the mere

survival of the Community Employment Enhancement fund. We need to do more like

has been done in Grand Falls Windsor and Stephenville, where we have seen

provincial government offices go into play.

I really ask Service NL, the Department of Municipal Affairs, Environment and

Conservation, and Fisheries and Aquaculture, in partnership with Justice, to

really step up to the plate and remove this facility.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: I rise in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, to submit the

following petition.

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

Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Labrador is a vast land mass with many isolated communities; and

WHEREAS search and rescue assets were not adequately deployed during the

Burton Winters search; and

WHEREAS it is clear that permanent search and rescue assets are required in

Labrador;

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

government to do a full investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy and search

and rescue in Labrador and lobby the federal government to establish permanent

search and rescue capability at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the facts presented by The Fifth Estate ,

there is a level of neglect to the lives in our Province. Mr. Speaker, search

and rescue assets were not adequately deployed because they were not adequate.

In our Province we have had two recent tragedies where search and rescue did not

respond. One was because DND would not supply an aircraft, and the other was due

to absence of aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, the need for search and rescue in Labrador, as well as

co-ordination with Maritime Sub-Centre is the only way that the lives in our

Province are to be protected. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make a living

from the land and from the sea, and as long as we live in this harsh

environment, Mr. Speaker, we will be calling on search and rescue for service

because accidents and mistakes do happen.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I call upon all members of this hon. House to urge the

government to lobby for search and rescue in Labrador, as well as fight to keep

the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's open.

Thank you.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 1, third reading of Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill 8.

MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me; Order 3, Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister -

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we are into third readings. I call now Order 3,

third reading of Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Finance, that Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, be now

read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now a third

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 8 be now read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act. (Bill

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be adopted as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act", read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 4, third reading of Bill 10.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional

Support Orders Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 10 be now read

a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders

Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill now is read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill be passed and the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders

Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 10)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, third reading of Bill 7.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance,

that Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read the

third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 7 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Order 12, second reading of Bill 12.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Official

MR. BALL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege or

clarification.

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

of order or a point of

MR. BALL: Clarification.

The point I want to raise is that I think many members of this House realize

that I am an active pharmacist and still actively registered with the

Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the

Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board, and I have written the Commissioner of

Legislative Standards and asked him, obviously, where I stand on this position.

There is no question, I think, in response, and as I personally feel there is

a conflict of interest under

section 21 of the House of Assembly Act and in

principle 7, the members' Code of Conduct, the decision would be that I would

not participate in the debate; nor would I vote on Bill 12,

An Act To Amend The

Pharmaceutical Services Act.

I would like to table the letter, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point, I want to make

it clear that I did not raise this matter with the Opposition Leader. I felt

that his own integrity would allow him to make the decision that needed to be

made, so I welcome the decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member raised it as a point of clarification or a point

of order. There is really no point of order, and you provided clarity in your

statement, so I am assuming you are presenting the information for the House's

benefit and not needing a response from the Chair.

MR. BALL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill

12,

An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, be now read the second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12,

An Act To Amend The

Pharmaceutical Services Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical

Services Act". (Bill 12)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before this hon. House today to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. This bill, which will

amend the Pharmaceutical Services Act, will enable the provincial government to

introduce a new, generic drug-pricing model for all residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The bill also includes other changes and edits of a non-substantive nature.

For example, we modernized the names of the components of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Prescription Drug Program several years ago so the act now needs to be

modified to reflect those changes.

We also added a new component to the program since the current act was

introduced, and that is the Assurance Plan. This plan provides coverage for

individuals and families whose prescription drug costs are high relative to

their net income.

The appeals process for drug coverage requested under special authorization

was amended to reflect the Department of Health and Community Services' updated

organizational structure, removing the specific title of medical consultant and

allowing a delegation of a medical practitioner within the department to assess

these appeals. The appeals process with respect program eligibility was

clarified.

We have added reference, Mr. Speaker, to a new expert review committee, the

pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Committee, or pCODR. The department seeks

expert advice from various committees to inform decisions as to which drugs are

covered and under what circumstances they are covered. The act had already

referenced the National Common Drug Review and the Joint Atlantic Common Drug

Review processes. The recommended criteria of these expert committees are

utilized when assessments are made regarding drug coverage under our

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program has five components

or plans: the Foundation Plan, the 65Plus Plan, the Access Plan, the Assurance

Plan, and the Select Needs Plan. The provincial government invests approximately

$151 million annually in this program, Mr. Speaker, to provide financial

assistance for the purchase of eligible prescription medications for residents

of the Province who qualify for enrolment. Currently, more than 121,800

residents of our Province or almost 24 per cent of our total population are

receiving drug benefits through this program. Funding for our public drug plan

has increased from $127 million in 2006-2007 to our current budget of $151

million in 2011-2012.

The five components of the program are intended to protect and support some

of our most vulnerable populations: those individuals receiving Income Support,

seniors receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, individuals and families

whose incomes are more modest, and individuals whose total drug costs are high

and create a significant burden relative to their income. There is also

flexibility, Mr. Speaker, amongst the various components of the program so that

an individual is assessed and made eligible for the plan that financially suits

them best.

The provincial government has provided many enhancements to the program over

the last several years. The two most significant enhancements include: adjusting

the income thresholds to qualify for the Access Plan in 2010-2011 to reflect

increases that we have made to the minimum wage over the last few years in

2011-2012, over 33,600 clients were beneficiaries of the Access Plan at an

estimated cost of $10.8 million and the addition of the Assurance Plan.

While national attention has been paid to the possible introduction of a

catastrophic drug program, these discussions have not translated into action,

Mr. Speaker. In light of this, the provincial government introduced the most

recent component of the program, the Assurance Plan, in October 2007. This plan

recognizes that even with a higher net income, expensive drugs can create a

significant financial burden for an individual and their family. Since its

introduction in October 2007, the Assurance Plan has grown to include over 6,400

clients in 2011-2012, with an annual budget of approximately $17.5 million.

Decisions to list medications for coverage under the drug program are

evidence based and reflect the recommendations of one of several national and

Atlantic review processes: the National Common Drug Review, the pan-Canadian

Oncology Drug Review, or the Atlantic joint review process. The program also has

a special authorization process to ensure that coverage for certain drugs is

consistent with the utilization criteria recommended by these expert committees,

thereby representing clinical and cost-effective usage of public funds.

Mr. Speaker, we are all proud of the Province's prescription drug program,

but with any public program we must always be prepared to review and adjust the

program to better meet the needs of the Province's population and to recognize

the fiscal realities of the world in which we live.

In 2010-2011, the budget for the Department of Health and Community Services

was an unprecedented $2.9 billion, Mr. Speaker. This represented approximately

40 per cent of government's total Budget. Our aging population and high

incidence of chronic diseases will continue to tax our current health care

system. To ensure the sustainability of our health care system now and into the

future for our children, we must ensure that we have a system that is as

efficient and cost effective as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as we face this challenge, our government remains committed to

providing affordable access to prescription medication for beneficiaries of our

prescription drug program. We are also committed to ensuring that all residents

of our Province, whether they are beneficiaries of our public drug plan or not,

pay reasonable prices for their generic drugs. Introduction of a new generic

drug pricing policy will ensure this happens.

A 2006 study conducted by the national Patented Medicine Prices Review Board

found that on average, prices for generic drugs in ten other developed countries

were 15 per cent to 77 per cent less than the same drugs purchased in Canada.

We also know that people in this Province are paying higher prices for the

same generic drugs than people in provinces that have already implemented new

generic drug pricing policies, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia,

Saskatchewan, and most recently, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I stand before you today. The Newfoundland and

Labrador Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary, known as the formulary, is a

comprehensive list of commonly used generic drugs, drugs which have been

determined to have the therapeutic equivalent to, or the same clinical effect,

of a brand product. This formulary is established under The Pharmaceutical

Services Act and the Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary Regulations, 2007.

The drugs listed in the formulary are produced in accordance with sound

manufacturing principles and have been found, based on acceptable testing, to

conform to official Canadian standards. These drugs are also subject to a

continuous review process. This Province has been a leader in the establishment

of its generic formulary in legislating that the prices we establish for generic

drugs apply to all generic drugs being purchased in the Province. This includes

not only those purchased under our public drug program, but also applies to

those purchased through private insurance drug plans and by residents who pay

out-of-pocket for their medications. This approach ensures, Mr. Speaker, that

all residents in the Province who are provided with, or purchase, generic drugs,

are treated equally with respect to the ability to obtain generic drugs at

reasonable prices.

Based on generic drug costs in the drug program in 2011-2012, residents of

this Province have been paying, on average, approximately 60 per cent of the

brand drug price for their generic drugs. We know that the cost of generic drugs

in this Province should be lower. Other provinces are achieving lower costs and

our residents deserve, Mr. Speaker, the same opportunity.

The provincial government has developed its generic drug pricing policy

thoughtfully, fully recognizing the unique challenges we face as a Province in

delivering high-quality health care services based on our unique geography and

demographics. Currently, six other provinces have generic drug pricing models.

We have had the opportunity to observe and learn from these provinces as they

have implemented their own provincial generic drug pricing model. Government has

drawn on the experiences of these provinces to ensure that as we move forward we

are making decisions based on best practices.

We have heard from many individuals and stakeholder groups over the last

several months through public debate on this issue. In January 2012, we also

completed a consultative process with major stakeholders inviting written

submissions on the proposed new pricing models, groups such as associations

representing pharmacies and pharmacists, employer and business organizations,

the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry. All of the information,

Mr. Speaker, all of the observations and feedback collected over the last twelve

to eighteen months was carefully considered in the development of the new

generic pricing model which is enabled by the changes being proposed to the act

today.

I am pleased to bring forward a bill today to reflect the needs and realities

of our Province. Mr. Speaker, the proposed new generic drug policy for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, once it is fully implemented, will see

the price of most generic drugs decreasing to a maximum of 35 per cent of the

brand drug price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We plan to phase in the new pricing policy over time as

follows: from April 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 all generics, except for a

small number that will be considered for an exemption, will be priced at no more

than 45 per cent of the brand price; from October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 all

generics, except for those approved for an exemption, will be priced at no more

than 40 per cent of the brand price; and, from April 1, 2013 onward all

generics, except for those approved for an exemption, will be priced at no more

than 35 per cent of the brand price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Our intention to develop and implement a new generic drug

pricing model has been well-known for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, and we

expect that pharmacies have already been preparing for changes to generic

pricing in this Province. This phased-in approach will allow pharmacies and

owners further time to adjust and transition to the new pricing model.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that not all generic drugs can be brought to market

at 35 per cent of the brand cost. To address this, we will be establishing a

review process whereby on a drug-by-drug basis, if a manufacturer can

demonstrate extraordinary production or manufacturing costs, exemptions to the

maximum of 35 per cent of the brand price can be considered. This exemption

process will be implemented so that prices for the generic drugs that will be

considered for exemption will be established by July 1, 2012. Not all will be

exempted and we will be carefully reviewing the information put forward by these

manufacturers in the best interest of the people of the Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we know that our new generic drug pricing policy will provide

significant savings, not only to the provincial government through the

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program but also to employers

throughout the Province through the private drug benefit plans provided to

employees, and to residents of the Province who pay for prescription medications

out of pocket.

While we work to ensure maximum value for the public, the savings achieved by

the provincial government through the introduction of this generic drug pricing

policy will be reinvested for the benefit of every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: During our consultation process, we heard very clearly

concerns about the potential impact that a new generic drug pricing policy may

have on pharmacy businesses and their clients. Our government understands and

respects the fact that as a Province we face unique geographic and demographic

challenges in terms of the location of our communities and the distribution of

our population.

We recognize that health care services pharmacies and pharmacists provide are

valued by the people of this Province and are an essential element in the

delivery of health care services. Our communities and all of residents benefit

from the services they offer and the expertise they provide. This is

particularly true in the more rural and remote areas of our Province. Based on

experiences in the other provinces that have introduced their own provincial

generic drug pricing model, as well as stakeholder input, we recognize and

understand that this new pricing model may reduce the amount of professional

allowances some pharmacies currently receive from generic drug manufacturers. To

address this and to help offset this potential loss in revenue, the provincial

government will be reinvesting a significant portion of its projected savings to

assist pharmacies in adjusting to their new market reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Exactly how the money will be reinvested in pharmacies will

be determined through negotiations with the Pharmacists' Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador or PANL. As an association, PANL is tasked with

ensuring that the major issues and concerns of their members are voiced and

understood. Our government enjoys a very open and collaborative relationship

with PANL.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that these negotiations are actively

underway as I speak. In fact, this afternoon these negotiations are taking place

and will continue to take place all week. It can be anticipated that in response

to the provincial government's new generic drug pricing policy, a new agreement

negotiated with PANL may include such things as increased dispensing fees and

may also include other targeted investments that would provide added benefit to

the health care system.

We also recognize the potential impact that a new generic drug pricing policy

may have on our seniors covered under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription

Drug Program. Currently, the cost of drugs under the 65Plus Plan are paid for by

the provincial government and the senior is responsible for paying the

dispensing fee and any mark up on drug costs that is applied by the pharmacy. As

such, the provincial government recognizes that seniors covered under the 65Plus

Plan will not benefit themselves from reductions in the drug cost component of

their prescriptions for generic drugs, while seniors under the 65Plus Plan will

not benefit directly from reduction in drug costs, government remains committed

to ensuring that these changes do not negatively impact our seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in order to sustain our health care system for

future generations, for our children, Mr. Speaker, we have to find efficiencies

within the current system. Coupled with the knowledge that generic drug prices

in Canada have been documented to be higher than in many other developed

countries and that across the country the residents of other provinces are

benefiting from price reductions, it is our responsibility to the public to

introduce a new generic drug pricing model.

The goal of the provincial government's new generic drug pricing policy is to

ensure the future sustainability of our health care system by implementing

changes that ensure the entire population of our Province is paying reasonable

prices for generic drugs. By changing the generic drug pricing policy, as I have

described here today, millions of dollars can be saved in this Province. These

savings will not be at the expense of any of our residents, Mr. Speaker. This

includes not only the clients of the public drug program, but also those with

private drug insurance plans and residents who assume the cost of their own

prescriptions. On average, all residents of the Province can expect to pay less

for their prescription medications as a result of this policy. Through strategic

reinvestments in our payments to pharmacies and modifications to our 65Plus

Plan, service providers and clients will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing this legislation passed so we can move

forward to meet this goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 12 today. I know the minister held a

news conference this morning with regard to this bill, and I guess she

anticipated that there would be a number of concerns coming forward, and

obviously, the reason why she chose to address it early on in introducing the

bill in the House of Assembly. She is right; there are a number of concerns with

regard to this particular bill passing in the House of Assembly.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want people to realize and understand how

the bill works. If you were to read this particular bill, Bill 12, you will

note, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little change in that particular bill that

has any significant impact on what would happen with pharmacies, to drugs, or to

people in the Province. The details are in the regulations that come attached to

a bill. We are debating a bill in the House of Assembly today that does not have

the regulations attached to it because the government has not yet provided that

information or developed those regulations so that we can have an informed

discussion around them. Mr. Speaker, if everybody in the House and all members

of the Opposition got up and supported Bill 12, it would really have little or

no impact, because the real details are going to be in the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking that Bill 12 be passed and be able to

implement this by April 1. I think the minister in her comments that she just

made said that they are looking at a system where they will bring in so much of

a change this year. What was it she said from April 1 to September 30, all

generic drugs except for a small number that will be considered for exemption

will be priced at no more than 45 per cent of the brand. She is looking at doing

that come April 1, which is five days away, but yet we do not know what the

regulatory pieces are.

The minister went out today and she said, we are going to look after the

seniors, do not worry about it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say a

nice pat on the back do not worry, I am going to look after you is fine, but

it is not fine. When you pass regulations or you pass a bill in this House and

then you have the option to go away and develop those regulations, I think you

should be telling us what it is you are going to do. This is where our concern

is today.

We know, Mr. Speaker, even from the briefing we did in the Department of

Health with the minister's own officials because she was not there that day;

it was the officials from her department. No, no, I do not have a problem with

that, but they are the people who develop all of this; I do not have a problem

with that. In the briefing that we had with her officials, they outlined to us

unequivocally that one of the groups that are going to be negatively impacted by

this change in generic drugs and the pricing of generic drugs is going to be

seniors in the Province. We all know that today, seniors are the very people in

this Province who live on fixed incomes. They have no ability to earn extra

income; they are really restricted to whatever their take-home pay is on a

monthly basis and they cannot grow that income in, I would say, 99 per cent of

the cases.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we also know that we live in a Province where people over

the age of sixty-five are more susceptible to chronic disease than any other age

group. We also live in a Province where chronic diseases are growing at a rapid

rate. We know that 80 per cent of people with chronic disease in this country

today, Mr. Speaker, are usually terminal or end up dying as a result of chronic

disease. We know that in Newfoundland and Labrador we have one of the highest

death rates, Mr. Speaker, associated with chronic disease of anywhere else in

the country. So that is what we are dealing with.

We know today that seniors in this Province have a very strong reliance on

medications and access to those medications. We know that affordability is an

issue for them and we need to ensure there is going to be protection for them.

It is okay for the government to say: We will save $30 million on this program;

that is $30 million in our pocket. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, for the

government to have the money in their pocket; it is another thing for the people

of the Province to have to pay it out of their own pocket. It is a very

different story, I would say to the minister.

We are five days away from this bill being implemented in the Province and

this new formula being implemented. The very least, I would say to the minister,

is: Tell us what you are going to do. Tell us how you are going to protect the

seniors of this Province from having to pay more for their drugs. Tell us how

you are going to do that. Tell us how much it is going to cost to do that. Tell

me how many seniors in the Province are impacted by that. We are five days away.

Surely that information is in the department. The minister has weighed it out.

She has thoroughly looked at all of this. If not, I would hope that she is not

bringing this bill to the House without that kind of knowledge.

So we need to know this, Mr. Speaker. We need to know how it is going to

affect seniors, people today who are making decisions about paying their light

bill and putting food on their table. That is the reality for many seniors in

this Province seniors, Mr. Speaker, who are getting warm in the Avalon Mall

because they cannot afford to keep the heat on in their homes. These are the

people, Mr. Speaker, who could get dinged on this bill with the higher drug

costs, the very people, the very seniors who do not even have an avenue to

socialize in many cases in this Province because they cannot afford to. They

cannot afford to leave their homes and become active participants in gyms, in

fitness clubs, and all of these kinds of things, because they do not have the

ability, the financial ability, to be able to do it.

This is the group, Mr. Speaker, that could be most negatively impacted out of

everyone else in this Province. That is because they have no medical insurance

programs, in many cases. We know that from the statistics that we obtain from

the Department of Health; therefore, Mr. Speaker, they do not have that kind of

protection as well. They are the people who actually pay out of their own

pocket; the money comes right out of their bank account, right off their

seniors' benefit every month to pay this increased cost.

It is nice to have some reassurance from the minister, Mr. Speaker, that

everything will be fine, but let's see it; let's see the details. We want to see

the details. We want to know how these people are going to be protected, because

right now, today, I do not feel comfortable telling the people in my district,

oh, that is okay, we are going to bring in new regulations; that is okay, don't

you worry about it, because the minister said we are going to look after you. We

need to have more of a guarantee, Mr. Speaker. We need to see what the guarantee

looks like and how we are going to prevent this cost from being implemented upon

seniors in the Province.

The other piece is in prescription drug costs. Mr. Speaker, we pay the lowest

prescription drug cost, I think, in Canada or among the lowest. We are around

$7.15.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS JONES: Dispensing fees, sorry.

We pay $7.15 in dispensing fees, one of the lowest in the country, something,

I think, that we have all been proud of to say that we have been able to keep

that fee down for people in the Province, at a time when other provinces have

seen their fees increase. In fact, Mr. Speaker, forty years ago, our dispensing

fees were equivalent to what they are today, so that will tell you how long we

have been able to maintain that kind of a fee structure in the Province without

gouging consumers and patients on dispensing fees.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, you look at what has happened in other areas of

Canada where they brought in the minister, in her remarks said there were six

provinces who have adopted the generic formula for drug pricing. Let's look at

those provinces in terms of where their dispensing fees have gone, because we

have seen an increase. I am just going to take Alberta, for example; in Alberta

there is now a three-tier system. I do not have that note in front of me; I am

sure I have it here somewhere, but there is a three-tier system. When you get to

the third tier of drug dispensing, that dispensing fee has today reached $20.

That is what the patient is paying to access that drug. Now that is not for all

the drugs, but it is for some drugs, Mr. Speaker, that are listed. The fees

actually vary and they are done in a different tier system.

Are we going to see that in this Province? We do not know because you are not

telling us those things. We do not know how high our dispensing fees are going

to go. We know they are going to go up. They have to go up. We know they are

going to go up, but how high are they going to go? How much money will need to

be recovered by pharmacies in this Province in order to keep their doors open?

We are being told, Mr. Speaker, by independent pharmacists and I am sure

the minister has this because it was in a presentation, I think, that was made

to her when she was doing a review of this, I think is where I read it. They are

saying it could go as high as $14, which means we could actually see the

dispensing fees double up in the Province. If that is to double up, again, that

is going to have a significant impact on people within Newfoundland and

Labrador, a very significant impact. We need to know how high these fees are

going to go, because we know they are going up. What kind of fee structure are

we going to see? Are we going to have a two-tier fee structure system, a

three-tier? Are we going to have four tiers? Are we going to have the one right

across the board? All of those things, I think, are critically important

because, as I said before, it is one thing for the government to do this to save

money themselves; it is another thing for them to do it and cost everybody else

in the Province more money.

When you are talking about prescription drugs and when you are talking, Mr.

Speaker, about accessing those drugs, you know, people do not really have a

choice; in a lot of cases it means the difference between having good health and

worse health. Mr. Speaker, if they are going to recover and address the diseases

and the problems that they have, then they are going to need to have access to

these particular medications.

Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we are not seeing right now as a part

of these particular generic drug changes that the Province is proposing. These

things are not accompanying Bill 12. That is why, when you look at this bill, it

can be somewhat deceiving, but you need to really drill down into the details of

what the bill really means. The devil is in the details, as they say, because it

really is going to depend upon the regulations that the government brings in. We

have no control over that, as an Opposition. The patients out there in the

Province do not have a whole lot of control over it. Pharmacies do not have a

lot of control over it. We can give our input, we can tell the government what

we would like to see and the kind of protections we would like to see, but at

the end of the day it is their decision.

Mr. Speaker, what I would have hoped to have seen today in the minister's

press conference on this particular bill is her laying out the regulations for

us. We are five days away from having a new formula implemented in the Province

that could potentially affect every single person who takes medication, in terms

of what they pay out of their own pocket; yet, she went out and had a press

conference and did not deal with any of those things, still did not tell us the

regulations. I guess we are walking in the dark here in terms of what could or

could not come out of all of this at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the other impacts here. One of the

other impacts is obviously going to be on independent pharmacists in the

Province. I think this group have been somewhat vocal in the past. They have

come together as an organization to kind of raise awareness of what their issues

are and how they are going to be impacted by this situation.

Mr. Speaker, we have 190 pharmacies in the Province, and 104 of them are

independent pharmacies. This group, CICPO, has sixty-five members in their

organization. They are all independent pharmacists, and they are fundamentally

concerned by what will happen. Independent pharmacies are not the big chains.

They are not the Lawtons and the Shoppers Drug Marts. They are the small

independent people that you are going to see all over the Province, like I have

in my district. I have an independent pharmacy. They are a one-person operation.

They do more than pharmacy work to supplement the operations of their business

in order to keep their doors open. They are strongly reliant on the fees they

receive from generic drug companies, because that is going to be a major loss to

them. A lot of people may not understand how that works. How it currently works

is that right now many of these pharmacies, depending on how much they buy, they

get discounts or they get incentives from the drug companies. They may get two

for one deals, they may get rebates in other ways on the drug costs, but all of

that comes back to supplement their operations, to supplement their small,

independent pharmacies. These are all over the Province. One of my colleagues

who will be speaking to the bill actually has a list of them and will get into

the detail.

I know my colleague here, the Member for Burgeo La Poile has independent

pharmacies in his district. There are some members here with three; I think the

Member for St. Barbe has three in his district. I am sure there are members over

there who have independent pharmacies in their own district. I know the Member

for Ferryland has one in his district because I had the opportunity to meet the

pharmacist who works in your area and to listen firsthand to how this will

impact them.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the fact that they will be impacted. We also

cannot ignore the fact that in many other provinces where this generic drug

formula was brought into play, that a lot of these independent pharmacies, if

they did not go out of business, they certainly seen a reduction in their

business. They have seen it much more difficult to be able to survive from a

financial perspective and it made their profits more than marginal in terms of

what you would expect as a return from that kind of a business and being in that

kind of a business.

The most important thing I think that happened is as a result of the loss of

revenue, we have seen a compromise in service. What that means is that in many

cases - and believe me, I have a lot of experience in dealing with pharmacists

over the last two years, more than I have ever had in my life, and I know how

important they are in our health care system. Do you know something? Two years

ago I never would have known that. I never would have known that because I was

not a patient of the system. I was not dependent upon the pharmacists as a

health care provider until the last two years, and then I became significantly

aware of the job that they do. I have as good a relationship with my pharmacist

as I could ever have with my doctor, probably a better one on most occasions in

terms of consulting them for advice.

What we have seen in a lot of the independent pharmacies - and I think we

have to be careful that we do not lose that in Newfoundland and Labrador - is we

have seen the loss of that personal service, that personal touch, that health

adviser, that health information that is constantly being provided to patients.

That has been one of the key pieces for us, especially in rural areas of the

Province, but not just rural areas. I used a pharmacist here in St. John's

because I took all of my health care treatment here. So I used a pharmacist here

and a pharmacy here. I know the same level of service that exists.

It is critically important and I want to explain that for a little bit

because these pharmacies are able to provide that health information service,

that counselling service, to their patients and to their clients because they

have the marginal return on revenue to be able to do it. So what they are doing

is the kickback, for want of a better word, or the rebate they get back from the

drug companies goes into their independent pharmacies. Then they are able to use

that money to retain more staff so that their staff has more time to spend with

the patients so that they can do the kind of community supports and the kind of

community help that they do over-the-counter within their pharmacy. That is what

is happening.

Once we remove that subsidy, that rebate, from the generic companies, we are

removing a large portion of the revenue that would go into independent

pharmacies. So what does that mean? Does that mean we are going to take enough

revenue out that we could potentially see a number of them close? Which would be

absolutely horrifying, especially in many areas of the Province where you are

not going to get a Shoppers Drug Mart down in Ferryland, you are not getting a

Shoppers Drug Mart down in Forteau, it is not going to happen because they are

not going into those larger centres.

So we depend upon the independent pharmacy, the guy who borrowed the money,

set up his business, is running his practice, went to school, learned how to be

a pharmacist, came back home, did all of this, and invested in the community. We

are highly dependent upon these people. So if we are going to make regulations

now that are going to compromise their services, what does that mean? Does it

mean we are going to marginalize them to the point where they are going to end

up out of business? Then we have no service in many of these communities. Does

it mean that it is going to compromise them to the fact that we no longer have

that counselling, that health advisory and information service, that we always

had within the pharmacies?

Mr. Speaker, we do not all live in a bubble here. They are business people,

too. At the end of the day, they are no different than the airline company. They

are no different than the guy downtown who is selling you T-shirts. They have to

make money, too. If they do not make any money, they have no reason to be in the

business. So, we have to be realistic about what we are talking about here.

I think for government to say, listen, we are going to reinvest back into

independent pharmacies is one thing, how are you investing back? How much money

are these pharmacies going to lose as a result of this? That brings me to the

2008 Locke report because in the Locke report he specifically outlined, Mr.

Speaker, that there was going to be a tremendous loss of revenue to independent

pharmacies. He made the offer to government because we are talking four years

ago now and he basically said to government: Listen, I am prepared to do some

work for you on this. I am prepared to have a look at this. What would you like

me to do? Of course, as a result of it the government did not bite, they did not

say that we want you to do this or we want you to do that. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

they did not even act on that particular report. When, in fact, they could have

gone back and did a very thorough review and found out exactly what this impact

was going to be. They should be concerned today that they could end up with

places in this Province in the next twenty-four months that will not have

pharmacies because they are not going to be able to keep their doors open.

I would have preferred to have seen government due diligence on this and take

Dr. Locke up on his offer and go back and do a real, thorough investigation into

what the implications were going to be, but just from his report we know that

there are significant implications. These implications could very well affect

many rural pharmacists and many independent pharmacists here in the city that

fall into that particular category.

Mr. Speaker, when I talked about chronic illness, I need to tie this into

pharmacy because I think it is very important that I explain to the people of

the Province where we are with regard to chronic illness. When I look at this

and I read it, I find it very alarming, to be honest with you. So alarming, in

fact, that I do not know why government has dragged its feet on implementing a

management plan for chronic diseases in this Province. They have not done it,

and every time I read the information, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled by

what I am seeing. I am looking for my note here, Andrew; do you have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when you look at chronic diseases, it is not a proud

record to say that we are leading the country in many cases with regard to what

is happening. It is the leading cause of death in Newfoundland and Labrador. We

know, Mr. Speaker, that lifestyle factors are the major contributions to the

development of chronic diseases and by modifying these factors, the risk of

developing and dying of such diseases can be reduced in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, I want to outline that, because this is where pharmacies come into play

in a lot of cases.

We have not done a good job as a government. In terms of reducing the number

of chronic diseases in this Province, we have not done a good job on prevention

and management. As a result of it, Mr. Speaker, as the population is aging, we

are seeing the rates of chronic disease rising within our health care system. We

need to be able to respond to those particular circumstances. When I am talking

about responding to that, we all have a role to play, and the pharmacists have a

role to play in doing that. That is a role they have been trying to play outside

of government, outside of the health care system, in a very ad hoc way when they

provide health information, when they provide a voice, when they do all of this.

That was my experience.

When I started accessing the care of a pharmacist not just going in,

passing in a prescription, paying my fee, getting my prescription, and paying

for my drugs; when I go in, I talk to my pharmacist. They tell me, Mr. Speaker,

what this drug is going to do, what the side effects are going to be, how it is

going to react to the other medications that I am taking. They also tell me what

I should be taking to help counteract some of these side effects. They tell me

what I should be eating, they tell me what kind of physical activity I should

limit myself to or I should do. It is a whole gamut of things.

Up until two years ago, I thought a pharmacist was a person who I walk in to,

I give them a piece of paper, they gave me a bottle of medication, I give them

some money, and I walk out. All of a sudden I am starting to realize that one of

the key people in providing health care to me is that person behind the counter,

that pharmacist who knew more about the drugs and medication that I was taking

than anyone else I dealt with in the health care system, who I could call up

twenty-four hours a day because I was a patient with a chronic disease and

because that pharmacist cared about me as a patient.

I know I am not the only one, because I know this person and I know they take

calls from all kinds of patients long after they close up their stores or their

dispensary at 9:00 o'clock or 10:00 o'clock at night. They would take calls from

me with regard to my drugs and my medications. On weekends, I had pharmacists

who I could call if there was an emergency and I had questions, which I had to

do on a number of occasions.

I look at that now in retrospect, and I do not know what I would have done

without that service. I would have been a person who would not have been able to

provide for my own health care in the way that I did because I did not have that

expert advice available to me.

That was here in St. John's and I had the ability to access those services

here, but you can access it all over the Province. The only difference is the

pharmacy that I went to in St. John's yes, there was a Shoppers Drug Mart down

the road from it. I did not go to the Shoppers Drug Mart. I have no problem with

Shoppers Drug Mart. I like their point system; I buy cosmetics there. Mr.

Speaker, I did go to a different pharmacy, but in my district people do not have

that option. They have one pharmacy. It is an independent pharmacy.

In Burgeo, you have that one independent pharmacy. There is probably any

number of them here. So what happens to Mr. and Mrs. Littlejohn who have to go

down the road to the independent pharmacy, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. and Mrs. Jones,

or Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who have to go down the road to that pharmacy, and all of

a sudden that pharmacy is no longer there? Now they are going to a place where

they have a person behind the counter who stands up and can explain to them

about their medication. They can give them their phone number to give them a

call. They can talk to them about when and how they should take their

medications to best improve their health. In doing so, they themselves are

practicing chronic disease management and prevention within their own

communities. That is a community service that they are providing to people.

Let's talk about special authorizations, because I have been the person who

had to deal with special authorizations. I went to my doctor. I got a

prescription. I went to the pharmacy and they could not fill it because I needed

special authorization. How do I get a special authorization? I do not know. They

gave me a prescription. I thought I would come in, pass it in, and you are going

to give me my medication. It does not work that way. There are forms to do out,

and there are things that you have to do. I could have gone back, set up another

appointment, gone back to my doctor, sat down with them, got them to do the

paperwork, send it into the Department of Health, let it go through the system,

and eventually someone would have called me back and said you are either

approved or not approved for special authorization under this drug.

Instead, guess what my pharmacist did? He did all of that for me. He did all

of that for me. Did he have to do it? No, he did not have to do it. The process

was I go back to my doctor. I have to wait a week, get another appointment with

my doctor because they are full, the list is this long, and then I finally get

the paperwork done and finally get in the system. You never know, in a couple of

weeks I might find out if I am going to be able to get this drug covered or not.

What do they do? They do the paperwork, they send it in, and they do it all the

time for people. I know of many people, especially seniors, Mr. Speaker, who are

not familiar with how the special authorizations work and the paperwork that is

involved, or do not have the ability in many cases to do a lot of that. They

look to their pharmacist to do that for them, and they do it.

As we cut back the resources and the revenue of these pharmacies, what

happens to this service? That is where my concern is. My concern is ensuring

that the level of service we currently get today will not be lessened as a

result of this. It is one thing to save money, it is another thing to reduce

services and cost more money to people. Those were the points that I wanted to

make on this bill.

The other piece, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the special authorization a

little step forward. I do not know what the process is right now, maybe the

rules have changed and I might have somebody hauled up on charges if I am going

to say this. I know of cases where people have walked in with special

authorization prescriptions this did not happen to me but I know several cases

of people where it did happen. Because they needed that medication right away

and because they did not know the process, not only did the pharmacist and

pharmacy fill out the paperwork for them and get it all sent in for special

authorization, they actually let them have the drug until that authorization

came back. I know that. They actually let them have the drug because they knew

the patient, they were a person who was commonly coming to their pharmacy and

they said look, we cannot see you without these medications. One of those cases

was a cancer case, they just went out there and they said listen, it is going to

take a few days to get all of this approved so you take the drug, you take the

medication.

Some of these medications are very expensive. I took medications that were

$1,200 and $1,300 a shot for one particular drug, for one shot of one drug. They

were letting patients have those medications, not knowing if they were going to

special authorization, not knowing if they could even pay for them at the end of

the day when it was all said and done. That was a service that they offered,

that was the service that they gave to those patients because they lived in the

community with them, they were community-based pharmacies, they knew the people

intimately and they said listen, we are not going to see you stuck, we will do

this.

I do not think we can overlook any of those things. We have to maintain that

level of service. It is like everything, as you weed away at the revenues and it

becomes much and much more difficult for them to keep the lights on and the heat

on, it is going to be even harder to continue to provide the quality of service

that we have seen from a lot of independent pharmacies in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was really disappointed that a lot of the

independent pharmacists did not get to have more say in terms of the regulatory

piece around this. These were the questions that I asked in the minister's

department when I went for the briefing because I am told that the negotiations

with regard to any supplements for pharmacies in the Province is going to be

done through the Pharmacists' Association and not through the pharmacies. I have

a problem with that, Minister, and I am going to explain to you because I

explained this to your officials.

The pharmacy in my district, the pharmacy in the District for the Member for

Burgeo La Poile and I will use those two as an example are not owned by

pharmacists. The owners of our pharmacies do not sit on the pharmacy board, Mr.

Speaker. They do not sit on the board. In fact, it is their employees who are

members of the Pharmacists' Association. It is their employees. Minister, you

are telling me that your government is going to negotiate with the employees of

the pharmacy in my district to determine what that pharmacy owner is going to

get at the end of the day. You are not going to negotiate with the owner; you

are going to negotiate with the pharmacist, who is an employee.

I have a problem with that, a huge problem, because I think if you were

really, really wanting to do something here substantial, you would be talking to

the people who have to make the decision at the end of the