May 15, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 24

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the House of Assembly today, ten Level III students from Basque Memorial Red Bay

All Grade School in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They are

accompanied by teacher, Ms Ida Marrie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group of young West Coast poets attending Sir

Wilfred Grenfell College who, inspired by the work of the late Al Pittman, one

of Newfoundland's best known writers, recently unveiled a collaborative book

of poetry titled, Humber Mouths.

These young poets, collectively known as The April Rabbit, were formed as a

writing group in 1998 with the help of the late Al Pittman and Stephanie

While A.J. Marks and Linda Tibbo are the only two original members of the

group it is clear that all members of The April Rabbit have been influenced by

Pittman and by his writing.

The slim, thirty-one page book features twenty-one poems with titles

reminiscent of Pittman's own sense of place, as shown by such poems as St.

Joseph's Feast Day, St. Leonard's Revisited and Another Night in

Crawley's Inn.

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

congratulating these young writers for their contribution to the arts community,

and to recognize the continuing, positive influence and inspiration of the late

Al Pittman on our Province's young writers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been recognized for their great

contribution to our society. Today I am pleased to stand in the House and inform

all hon. members and the general public of an individual who is about to be

recognized in a very special way.

On Friday of this week, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gary Browne, Deputy Chief of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, will be at Rideau Hall in Ottawa for a special

ceremony. Mr. Browne will be one of twenty-three Canadians and the only

Newfoundlander, I might add, who will be invested into the newly created Order

of Merit of Police Forces.

Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, will preside over the ceremony on Friday

in Ottawa.

This new Order of Merit of Police Forces recognizes conspicuous merit and

exceptional service by members and employees of Canadian Forces.

Mr. Speaker, following in the footsteps of his father, Ben, Deputy Chief

Browne joined the RNC in 1972 and was named Recruit of the Year. Gary has had a

long and interesting career. The part of his life that stands out is his

involvement in the community. He is a third-degree member of the Knights of

Columbus, past-president of the Army Cadets, vice-president of the Royal

Canadian Legion, founder of the Constable William Moss Softball Tournament,

vice-chairman of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment Advisory Council, honorary life

member of the Rovers Ground Search and Rescue Team and member of the Signal Hill

Tattoo Advisory Council, and the list goes on.

He was very involved in the Emergency Measures Organization during one of the

Province's worst marine disasters, the sinking of the Ocean Ranger.

Mr. Browne was nominated for the Order of Merit of Police Forces Medal by RNC

Chief, Rick Deering and Rob Shea, Director of Career Development and

Experimental Learning at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I have know Deputy Chief Browne for many years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: He has a close connection with the district I represent,

namely the communities of Branch in St. Mary's Bay and my home town of St.

Bride's. As a matter of fact, his brother Keith resides in St. Bride's.

Mr. Speaker, all of us who choose to be part of public life, I am sure, wish

that in some way we will make a positive difference to our fellow human beings.

I believe Gary Brown has made a life out of making a positive difference to all

who have been part of his very successful career.

I am sure his wife, Paula, and their three children are very proud of Gary. I

know his mom, Bride, is beaming with delight as she always has for her son.

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

Deputy Chief Gary Browne on this significant achievement and recognition of his

splendid thirty-year career of serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Congratulations, Gary, on a job well done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate two students

from my district who won first place in their respective divisions at the

Canadian Parents for French Annual Public Speaking Competition which was held

here in St. John's on May 4.

Pearce Middle School student Crystal Miller won the prize in the Early French

Immersion Category, Division A, while Gaetan Kenway of Marystown Central High,

took first place in Core French Plus, Division B. They were two of forty-three

French speaking students from across Newfoundland and Labrador who were involved

in this competition.

Mr. Speaker, these two students will now attend the Francoforum which will be

held in St. Pierre and Miquelon this summer.

It is a great accomplishment for these students to win their respective

divisions, Mr. Speaker, because we all realize the necessity of our students to

learn French to further opportunities for them in the future.

On behalf of all members in this House, I congratulate Gaetan and Crystal on

this achievement .

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Northern Stars Unit of MS in Labrador West

and the Knights of Columbus, Michael Hickey Council, on their successful

fundraising event held on Sunday, May 5.

Almost $7,000 was raised in one afternoon on their Music for MS where people

called into the radio station, requested a song and, in turn, made a donation

towards research and to finding a cure for MS.

Each person who made a donation had their name entered into a draw for prizes

that were generously donated by local business, including a deacons bench by Bob

Pollett, and Marilyn Ryan, Wabush Manager with Provincial Airlines, donated a

return trip for two.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Bernadette Boone and the Northern Stars Unit of

MS, the Knights of Columbus, Provincial Airlines, Bob Pollett and all others

who, in any way, helped to make this event an overwhelming success.

Thank you.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a member's statement,

if I could seek permission from the House.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House, I

really do.

I rise today to recognize and commend two groups of fine young people in the

district of St. George's-Stephenville East. Last Saturday, I attended the 38 th

Annual Ceremonial Review of the 194 th St. George's Calypso Royal

Canadian Sea Cadet Corps under the direction of Commanding Officer Naval

Lieutenant June McKay.

In addition to the Ceremonial Review, the cadets also put together some

excellent static displays on: Seamanship, First Aid, Sail, the Duke of Edinburgh

Awards, and the History of Calypso. They were all fine examples of the many

positive experiences the cadets have gained in the last year. The Calypso Sea

Cadet Corps was formed in 1963 and is sponsored, in St. George's, by Branch 38

of the Royal Canadian Legion.

On Sunday, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the 41 st

Annual Ceremonial Review of the 708 th Stephenville Royal Canadian Air

Cadets under the direction of Commanding Officer Captain Valda Styles.

The 708 th Stephenville Royal Canadian Air Cadets was formed in

1961 and is presently sponsored by Branch 35 of the Royal Canadian Legion and

the Ladies Auxiliary. Since their formation, they have had eleven Commanding

Officers and 3,800 cadets go through the ranks. Over the past several years, the

squadron has consistently rated in the top five squadrons in the Province.

It was an honour, Mr. Speaker, to attend both reviews and to witness

firsthand what a dedicated and courteous group the next generation are becoming.

If the future of Newfoundland and Labrador lies in the hands of youth such as

these, then the people of the Province are going to be well served indeed.

I congratulate all the award winners, the names of which are too many to

mention here. I commend both Commanding Officers, Captain Valda Styles and Naval

Lieutenant June McKay and staff on their community involvement and a job well

done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as you know yesterday I was out of the House of Assembly and I

spent a nice sunny day in the District of Bonavista North, which of course is

now in the federal Tory District of Gander-Grand Falls. I was there to hear the

concerns of the people in the district who are, of course, now unrepresented and

have no voice in the House of Assembly due to the resignation of Mr. Tulk.

On my way home last night, as I bounced along in my truck on the poor roads

in the district - actually, I nearly went off the road a couple of times. I did

hear that the Premier was about to announce that there would be a debate on

Voisey's Bay in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I honestly cheered and

said: Yes. The people are finally going to have a say. That was my reaction.

Shortly after, Mr. Speaker, a news report indicated that debate would only occur

after the deal was done and after it became final and binding on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question for the Premier is: Why did he try to mislead the people into

thinking that there was going to be a debate in this House on Voisey's Bay

that could actually influence the outcome of whether a deal would be signed or

not, when in fact nothing is further from the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition must have been in the wrong district in

Bonavista North yesterday on two accounts: One is that the majority of the

communities in Bonavista North are in the Liberal federal riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception;

secondly, they actually have some of the better roads. He should try the La Scie

Highway. Ask the Member for Baie Verte, if he wants to find roads that are in

bad shape; and there has been a lot of work done. So on both accounts he must

have been in the wrong district.

Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is this - and maybe through the

questions today we might find out what the position of the Opposition is today

about this particular issue because it changed from last night to this morning

with the Opposition House Leader. Maybe we will find out what the position of

the Opposition is, because everybody knows what our position is. It is to get a

deal that is the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador that sees all of the

resource over the life of the project turned into a finished nickel product in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is the deal that we are hoping to

negotiate and would gladly bring to the Legislature.

The question is: Why would you bring the issue after we have a deal? The

point is this, if we don't get a deal there is nothing to bring. If we do not

get a deal there is nothing to debate. We must have a deal first or there will

be nothing to debate in this Legislature or elsewhere in the Province. Secondly,

let me again try to assist the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the rules of

this place. By virtue of bringing a deal to the Legislature and having a vote,

which is not required, which we plan to have anyway because we plan to debate it

and explain it everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, including right here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and by virtue of bringing it here, where the resolution offering this House

of Assembly an opportunity to ratify the agreement, if that vote fails then

there is no deal because this is the ultimate sanction right here in this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, the vote is very meaningful as well.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what the Premier says here day in and day out

is absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense. He plays with words day after day. He

continues to try and mislead the people of this Province, and last night this

Premier insulted the intelligence of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: A simple question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier: What is

the point in bringing this deal before this House of Assembly after the deal is

signed, after the deal is delivered, after the deal is final and binding and

committed, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the point?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me use the opportunity in answering the question to demonstrate again and

to illustrate exactly what the point is. Let me say it again. If we are not

successful in getting a deal, there is nothing to bring here. I think everybody

acknowledges that. There would be purpose of having a debate if we do not get a

deal.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition and the

Opposition House Leader and others did acknowledge and nod that that was a fact.

Mr. Speaker, we have to have a deal with Inco or there will be nothing to

debate. That has been acknowledged. Yes that makes sense, he says, again. The

Leader of the Opposition says that makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, we are the negotiators on behalf of the people of the Province.

Let me put it in this point because maybe he might like to challenge this. We

have the mandate, as the elected government, to do that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Get up and ask about it. I want you to ask about it, he

said.

We have the mandate, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Province,

elected to do so, to negotiate the deal, if one can be accomplished. Then, what

we have said is we would welcome an opportunity to explain it, to debate it,

everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, including in this Legislature and to

have it ratified by this Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go to that step, which is not required

by law, and if the same people that have agreed to it in the first place and

believe it is a good deal and strikes the balance and meets our mandate that we

were elected to deliver on, if we change our minds after bringing it here and

vote against it, then it won't be binding. It won't happen, Mr. Speaker. So

the debate is very important and the vote is critically important because if the

vote turns down what we are going to bring here in the first place, then there

will be no deal, Mr. Speaker, and we will gladly put it to a full debate here

and a very meaningful vote in this Legislature about that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to play with words. He

continues to try and insult the intelligence of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are not asking this government to bring the deal itself before this

Legislature. We want the framework of the deal, not when the deal is done. We

want the framework of the deal!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What you want to do is bring the deal when the deal is

done. What kind of games are being played, Mr. Speaker? The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have seen enough of bad deals from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Friede Goldman deal. What about the Upper Churchill

deal? What about those deals, Premier? What about the deal now that is going to

see our ore go to Manitoba and create jobs for Manitobians and Ontarians instead

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is, given the fact

on those two particular deals that someone outside of government might have made

a suggestion, maybe they might have suggested that safeguards be put in the

Friede Goldman contract in the event of bankruptcy, or maybe someone might have

suggested that escalator clauses be put in the Upper Churchill agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it possible that we could help? Is it

possible that there might be some positive help coming from a debate in this

House of Assembly that could end up getting a better agreement, a better deal

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: What have you got to lose by bringing it into this House

and bringing it before the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the consistency

of the Leader of the Opposition in changing the position again, even from this

morning.

MR. WILLIAMS: We don't want a done deal. We want to see a deal before

(inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he said again: We don't want to see a done

deal, we want to see the framework.

This morning on Open Line the Opposition House Leader, the former leader,

stated to Bill Rowe: If you sign a deal, Bill - listen to the words because

words are somewhat important - all we want is to see the deal debated in the

Legislature before it becomes final and binding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition is saying: We

don't want to see the deal, we want to see a framework; a framework we want to

see. Well, I can give you the framework right now. The framework we have been

talking about for months is this: we will lend Inco some of the concentrate for

a period of time that will be determined in negotiations so that they can raise

the money to build the plant that we want to see in Newfoundland and Labrador so

that finished nickel will leave this Province long after the mine is closed and

gone and forgotten about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: That is the framework of a deal that we want to do. Now,

do you want to debate that this afternoon in Private Members' Day? We will

gladly give consent to debate a framework.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is important. The two others that the Leader of the Opposition likes to

reference, Churchill Falls was debated in this Legislature, and the word

suggestion of inflation. The final point -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to quickly conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: The final point with respect to Friede Goldman, the

government did ask Friede Goldman to put another clause in and they said: If you

want another clause, we don't want the yard. So it was either take the deal or

have no deal, and we took the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: And that is my concern. You just said it, Premier. That is

my concern. You are going to take the deal rather than leave the deal and we

would leave a bad deal on the table. That is what we would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are very, very

concerned about the details of this agreement and they have a right to know

before it is finalized.

My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier is: Why would you not bring it

before this Legislature and before the people of the Province? If you are about

to sign a deal that could possibly be another giveaway of our resources, of our

future, of our children and our grandchildren, why would you not bring it before

this House if it is going to be such a good deal for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? What is the Premier trying to hide, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me illustrate again for members of the

House and the people of the Province the change in the position of the leader,

himself. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, in a news release from the Leader of the

Opposition outlining the ad campaign in the petitions and so on, the program as

to why they wanted a debate in the Legislature, his own words are this: We want

the government to debate the terms of the deal in the House of Assembly; his

words. Today he is saying: We do not want to know the terms of the deal. We just

want a framework. We just want a general framework, that is all we want. So, Mr.

Speaker, let us know, maybe you will put out a new release. Maybe they will

start a new ad campaign on a different issue because they want us, and we are

more than willing to debate all the terms of the deal if we are ever fortunate

enough to get one, in this Legislature and everywhere in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Now, if they want to talk about a framework, we can talk

about that this afternoon and I would gladly do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the framework

of the deal includes all the terms of the deal. That is what we want to see in

this House of Assembly.

I ask you, Premier, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will he provide all the

terms of the deal before this House before he commits the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador to a final deal? Everything.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe there are different

definitions of

framework in different environments. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might

like to check with the lawyer from St. John's East or the lawyer from Quidi

Vidi to determine whether or not there is a definition of framework that says a

that we would have, that there would be some kind of a contract, Mr. Speaker. I

have done frameworks before where we lay out the basic principles that we are

trying to accomplish and then we see if we can accomplish them and the

negotiations lead to the details and the terms and the conditions that give

substance and give real meaning to the framework and the concept -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - because a framework talks about the concepts. So, the

point is, Mr. Speaker, if he would like to have a debate about the framework, we

will gladly change and suspend the rules of the Legislature today and have that

have to wait until we get them negotiated because that is not done yet, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

In the Estimates Committee on the Public Service Commission on Monday

morning, I raised the issue of delegating hiring in the Public Service to

departments from the Public Service Commission. Both the minister and the Public

Service Commission acknowledged that this has been going on for a number of

years. In fact, all temporary hirings, Mr. Speaker, are done by departments and

they are not subject to the Public Service Commission. We have had numerous

complaints of hirings based on political affiliation and not necessarily on the

merit principle.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, and I asked her in Estimates on

Monday, and I want to ask her again now: Is there a ministerial or government

list from which people are hired in the Public Service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: The only list I am

aware of - in fact, it was raised by members of our caucus - was in the 1980s

when the Tories were in power and they were told: if you don't work for me and

vote for me you won't get a job. That is the only list I am aware of, Mr.

Speaker, we have no lists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, and somebody talked about the list that Charlie

had, his Charlie's Angels list. I am not aware of it, but I can tell you

personally, Mr. Speaker, we have full respect for the Public Service Commission

and we have full respect for our Human Resources Directors who do the hirings

and use the merit principle. There are no lists that are used to hire people

that require either six months work or in permanent positions. Mr. Speaker, I

can say he asked me in the Estimates the other day and I told him. I told him

last night but the cameras were off last night so I will tell him again today.

Mr. Speaker, we have full confidence in the Public Service. We have full

confidence in our Human Resource Directors and, Mr. Speaker, we do not use

lists. We have a competent Public Service and we are very proud of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to let the minister know, in case she has a very short-term memory, the

cameras were on last night when I asked that question and you responded.

Mr. Speaker, one day after I raised this issue in Estimates on Monday, a

young lady who has worked at Pippy Park for the past two years phoned me just

yesterday. She was told by an assistant to the manger that she cannot get her

job back this year because hiring must come from a list that came from

Confederation Building with names to be hired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: Who supplied this list? Why

should this young lady with an exemplary record be forced to lose her job, yet

see it filled by somebody else?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I made the offer the other day in Estimates

when the camera was not on and I will make it again today. If the member

opposite knows of instances in a Public Service -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I have to question the legitimacy and concern

because I asked him two days ago if he had any issues or concerns, I would be

happy to look into it. I can say to the member opposite, before anyone is hired

in a temporary capacity all of the people that are required to be hired through

the collective agreements and those sorts of relationships are followed to the

letter of the law. I would say to the member opposite, if you have a name of a

person who has applied for a job and meets the requirements of that job and is

somehow telling me that she is being biased outside of the normal process, I

asked him two days ago in the absence of cameras, I ask him today in the

presence of cameras, if he is truly concerned send over the information and I

would be happy to look into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This young lady who was informed that then went to speak with the manager.

The manager said to her: It is out of my hands. The decision came from above my

head. She asked him who should she speak with. He said you many want to speak

with the CEO, Mr Curnew or speak with the Chairman of the Pippy Park Commission,

Mr. Tom Murphy.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, would she confer with her former

Liberal cabinet minister, the Chairman of Pippy Park, Mr. Murphy, and ask him

for that list, and would she table that list here in this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give the name to you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member just said he would give me the name. I asked

him seriously -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no. In the Estimates - I have to say the member is

talking across the House, but I do not mind answering the question that he never

got around to.

I said in Estimates the other morning that I would be happy to look into any

inquiries that he had. In fact, in the presence of my officials who were here,

they also offered to do the same thing. I would say to the member, as I said in

the Estimates, I do not do the hiring. When people apply for jobs I, as a

minister, my colleagues as other ministers, do not do the hiring. There is a

process that is followed. If the member has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The only list that I am aware of is the list that

members had in the 1980s when they were told: If you don't vote for me you won't

get a job. That is the only list I am aware of. There are no other lists, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services the

following question. In light of the fact that the minister has continuously

suggested that there are standards for the provision of health services across

the Province, will he now tell us why a resident of a long-term facility in, say

Botwood, who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's can be provided with the much

needed drug, Aricept, but when that same resident transfers to St. Patrick's

Mercy Home in St. John's the drug must now be paid for by the patient?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I have said in the past, it is very difficult for me, as minister,

to rise and discuss in this House the particulars with regards to any one

individual. But, the hon. member persistently chooses to raise issues related to

individuals in this House and asking that it be discussed in this public forum.

I can just speak generally to the drug program which is delivered by the

Province and by the department. There are certain drugs which, at the present

time, there is a formulary that is maintained and there are drugs - I indicated

last night in debate here in the House. It is interesting - I don't know if

the hon. member was here - speaking on a number of issues with regards to the

department, but the whole area of pharmacare was one of them. The idea that this

is one of the areas where there are increasing demands, particularly with new

drugs that are coming on the market, many of them with fairly high price tags

that are diving the cost of that particular area.

With regards to the medication which the hon. member references -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: - at the present time that particular medication is not

included on the provincial formulary. My understanding, in terms of the nursing

homes, is that in some instances there is a decision made at the local level

with regards to whether or not that drug is provided.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Normally, under normal circumstances, if there would be a

transfer within the Province, the understanding is that that contract would hold

and the same thing would apply in going to another institution. My understanding

of the situation, in fact that the hon. member references, has in fact been

rectified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that it was rectified after the

Opposition office started to ask questions.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: The reason that I am asking the question, I say to the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to ask the minister this: Does he not agree

that paying for a drug, for instance Aricept, for one resident in a long-term

care facility, and probably the resident in the next bed or in the next room

does not get the drug paid for, is that not discrimination against the seniors

and the people who are suffering from Alzheimer's in our Province? Isn't it

creating a two-tier health care system? I ask the minister now: Will he commit

to doing the right thing and provide Aricept for all of the patients with

Alzheimer's and make them all even?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, the hon. member begins

her question with a

preamble saying, that the reason why the situation has been

rectified is that the Opposition has gotten involved, which is typical of the

members opposite. On any given day - here is the hon. member now waving his

infamous Blue Book. I said to him yesterday: We cannot wait for volume two to

come out, because the hon. member repeatedly says that everything else has been

applied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: Bring it on! Bring it on! If it is worth doing, then we will

continue to do it.

I do say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: We understand why you are waiting, to get some ideas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says we are depending on them for

ideas. Well, all I would say to the people of the Province is, if their future

is dependent on what is coming from the crowd opposite, then God help us all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the point that the hon. member raises, there

is no doubt in terms of the medication that she has referenced - and again this

has been under active review, as she would be aware, for some time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. SMITH: I would remind her, as well, that the medication that she

references is at the present time not included in any of the formularies for the

Atlantic Provinces. It is under review, but the thing is, as I said, until it

gets accepted on the formulary - and my understanding the reason for that is

that the evidence is still not conclusive, there are still studies that are

being done. I certainly understand for families who are involved - and believe

me, Mr. Speaker, I do not need any member opposite to preach to me with regards

to the issues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member - and I give him two seconds - to finish his answer.

MR. FITZGERALD: The man that knows it all.

MR. SMITH: That honour goes to the Member for Bonavista South, I would

suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and concerns the proposed debate and vote in

this House of Assembly on Voisey's Bay.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I suggested that such a process should

be compared to labour negotiations where a negotiating team negotiates an

agreement and the members of the union get to vote on it. The Premier used the

same analogy this morning on CBC and used the term ratify here in the House

today.

I want to ask the Premier: Will he confirm that what he is now talking about

is negotiating a tentative agreement withVoisey's Bay Nickel and Inco subject

to the ratification of the Members of this House of Assembly when we get to vote

on it? Will the Premier confirm that is what he is talking about, a tentative

agreement, not binding but subject to the ratification of the Members of this

House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the concept certainly and

completely and entirely, that in fact - and I described it earlier today in

answer to questions - we will have an agreement that will be the agreement,

unless it is not ratified by the House of Assembly. The only way it can not be

the agreement is if it does not pass a vote in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I am trying to say, in all honesty, to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - because I don't want to be cute, I don't

want to be seen as playing with words, Mr. Speaker. The point is this: We have

said before, we will only bring - we will only bring! - an agreement to this

Legislature if we already support it and are convinced that it meets the

criteria, that it meets our mandate, and is in the best interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, maximizes benefits and fully fulfills the

mandate that we were elected to get and gain and achieve with respect to Voisey's

Bay in the Red Book from 1999. The only thing that can stop it from being an

agreement would be for it to be voted down in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a quick supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that the Premier confirmed that what we will have is a tentative

agreement negotiated by this government subject to ratification.

Will the Premier commit here, today, that when this is brought to the House

for this vote, will it be a free vote of all members of this House of Assembly

as to whether they approve or not of the deal? Will his caucus have a free vote

on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me be clear again in terms of the analogy, Mr. Speaker. I understand the

official Opposition is uncomfortable with it because they really do not want us

to get a deal. They are frightened to death, Mr. Speaker, that we might actually

get a deal. I have never seen the likes of it in my thirteen years here in this

Legislature, of someone being frightened to death that something good might

happen for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, to follow the analogy that the Leader of the NDP, the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, takes with respect to collective bargaining, it is

exactly as if we were the negotiating team and the executive and we have reached

a tentative agreement and we are saying to our membership that we are

recommending that you pass it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Absolutely! Just like we have sign offs at the bargaining

table. Mr. Speaker, maybe they do not understand because, I guess, they have not

done these things for a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do recognize the discomfort.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the particular discomfort

today of the Opposition House Leader, who this morning - he is making a great

fuss now about the word sign' and what it means - who this morning on Open

Line said: We expect them, Bill Rowe, to sign it and then bring-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to get to his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - it to the Legislature before it is final and binding.

He used the word `sign' himself this morning and said: We want the signed deal

brought to the Legislature before it is final and binding.

Mr. Speaker, to seriously follow the analogy of the Leader of the NDP -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to now conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To follow the analogy, and maybe to get a few more hoots and hollers from the

Opposition: In negotiations, it is common practice for people to sign off on the

articles before it is a tentative agreement and then recommend it to - they

actually sign off. I have been there many times myself. You actually sign off on

the things you have agreed to present to your membership.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention and to the

attention of hon. members the ever increasing frequent use of the word

`misleading' in this House. It is not an appropriate term to be using in this

House. No hon. member on either side of the House is supposed to be engaged in

misleading; misleading anybody. When we speak in this House, we speak

truthfully. Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is difficult to categorize any group

of words to be unparliamentary because it depends on the tone in which the words

were uttered, it depends on the context in which they were uttered.

I refer the Speaker to Beauchesne 489, page 144, which says,

"Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following

expressions:" The first I want to bring to the Speaker's attention are,

"Attempted to misrepresent"; "Deliberately misled";

Deliberately misleading".

Turning over, Mr. Speaker, a bit further, under the same clause on page 146,

references made to just, "Mislead"; and then, "Misleading the

public". These have been determined to be unparliamentary terms.

I refer Your Honour to a couple of references today by the Leader of the

Opposition when he was questioning the Premier. He said: Why did he try to

mislead the people? Now, in the interrogative form, why did he try to mislead

the people, that is certainly a way of saying deliberately misleading which is

clearly unparliamentary; deliberately misleading the people.

Mr. Speaker, it has been ruled in this House on many occasions that you

cannot do through the backdoor what you cannot do through the front door.

Another reference in the same questioning again was why he continues to

mislead the people. I would suggest to Your Honour that in the context in which

the hon. Leader of the Opposition used those terms, I would suggest that they

were used in an unparliamentary sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am always interested in the protest offered by the Government House Leader.

When we first came to this House there was an attempt to take on the Leader of

the Opposition as if he did not know anything about the rules. They have moved

from that. Then they went to personal points of privilege. The Premier got up

one time, got pounded on it, haven't seen him up since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now we see the hon. House Leader talk about the word

unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, he knows this - he either knows or ought to know

because this is the House Leader who has said publicly that he has forgotten

more about parliamentary rules than everybody in the House will ever know.

In case he has forgotten this section, let me remind him of this. On page 147

of Beauchesne , 490, for example, it says: "Since 1958, it has been

ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions: Cover-up..." - the

Leader of the Opposition did not use that, although it might be applicable -

"Debased, Deceive..." He did not use that, although that might be

applicable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: "Fraudulent" he did not use that, that might be

applicable. But, to the point, Mr. Speaker, it has been ruled parliamentary to

use: "Misinforming, Misleading, Misled, Misrepresentations". The

Leader of the Opposition is clearly within the rules and the Government House

Leader knows it fully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, all hon. members know that there is no list of words

that are ruled consistently unparliamentary or parliamentary. It depends on the

context, the tone, whether it causes disorder in the House at the time, all of

these have to be taken into consideration when considering whether a phrase or a

statement is unparliamentary.

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. Government House Leader

under advisement and rule on it later.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition as we have been doing everyday this week

asking the government, and I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full

disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, what we have seen can only be described as a Premier and a government

being there last night, here today on one question, there on another question.

Here it is, the Premier stood up last night and said he was going to hold a

special legislative sitting, if a deal is signed, for the people in the House of

Assembly. But, he said, and this is the important point because here in lies the

distinction that he is going to sign the deal - and he said it here again today

- that he was going to sign the deal before it came here. That means before it

reaches this House that legally it will be binding on the people of the Province

no matter what happens here. That is what he said.

Today in the House, under questions from the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, he tried to leave the impression - and this is the words and the

splitting of hairs that this government is getting on with. He tried to leave

the impression that it was going to be a tentative arrangement that was going to

come back to the House for ratification but last night out in the scrum area he

said: I am confident that everyone in my caucus will support me and the deal

will be done before it got here. So, Premier, which is it? People of the

Province are not stupid, Mr. Speaker, like the Premier would like to believe

they are. They know what this government is up to. They know that what this

Premier is actually saying is that he is going to sign the deal. He is going to

bring it back here and twenty-eight Liberals are going to decide for the rest of

us if it is good or not, and that is not acceptable, I say, to the people of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they also know what last night was. It was a

shameless, cheap attempt at a public relations gimmick that has blown up in your

face. Mr. Speaker, that has blown up in the government's face.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: They also know - and there are members, Mr. Speaker, on

that side of the House who are not supportive of what this Premier did last

night because they were just as surprised as the rest of us were when he stood

up and did it. That is for sure.

Mr. Speaker, to the pray of the petition. All that people in this Province

are asking for this morning is what a former member of this House talked about

this morning. They want a chance to see the deal before it is legally binding on

them and the people of the Province. They want a chance for the members, the

duly elected members of this assembly, to have a chance to debate it thoroughly,

to vet it thoroughly and to understand if the deal in essence is good or not for

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: The most telling comment, Mr. Speaker, today is that when

asked (inaudible) he would not answer. He would not understand the meaning of

free vote in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I proudly rise today to present a petition regarding the Voisey's Bay

pending deal. I will read the pray, if I could:

To the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS Inco Deputy Chair and CEO Scott Hand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The pray reads as such, Mr. Speaker, "we hope to be shipping Voisey's

Bay concentrate to Thompson [Manitoba], and Ontario, as part of an eventual

agreement reached with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador" and

that "We remain hopeful that the combination of exploration, technology and

external feed will enable us to keep those operations productive and competitive

for a long time to come";

WHEREAS your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full

disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you today that the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to you today, Mr. Speaker, that certainly the words

are important, very, very important, as we look at the possibility of a deal

coming to this House of Assembly already signed, already done and expect us to

debate something that is already a sealed deal, then I say to you, that this is

not what the constituents in my district want. My constituents want this deal to

be open, to be brought to this House not signed. That it needs to be debated.

That it needs to be looked at. To make sure, Mr. Speaker, that this deal is the

best possible deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only my

constituents but all the constituents.

To talk today about a deal coming by much like a labour agreement and I say

to you, Mr. Speaker, labour agreements are proposals that are brought forth.

They are not signed beforehand, and the Premier knows that because as the NLTA

President he certainly had brought deals back or proposals back to the

membership to vote on, but certainly it was not sealed. It was not signed. It

wasn't delivered without, I guess, any thoughts of debate, of openness, of

change. I say to you, it is very, very important that this deal - if it such a

good deal, why isn't it brought here not signed so that we can look at it,

that we can discuss it, we can debate it? But to bring it here to this House

signed, sealed and delivered is an exercise in futility, I say to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No. leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present a petition on the Voisey's Bay

development. This petition is signed by residents of St. John's and area. It

reads as follows:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to bring any proposed Voisey's Bay deal to the House of Assembly for full

disclosure and thorough debate prior to the signing of any final agreement by

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nothing can be plainer than that. Nothing can be more

simple to understand than simply the language of this particular group of

petitioners. They want the deal that this government is negotiating brought to

this House and debated and discussed prior to any signing of a final agreement.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw last night hasn't really fooled anybody. We saw

the Premier call the media people to come in, he said: I have a big

announcement. The media people all rushed in and then he said: I am going to

have a debate in the House of Assembly after I have negotiated it, after I have

the ink on the contract and I have signed it, I will bring it in here and we

will debate it. Ninety-two per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

and I repeat again, 92 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

want this deal to be debated thoroughly before it is signed and ratified by this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Let me repeat, because we have the stats to show it, 92

per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this government to do

the right thing. What happened last night doesn't fool anybody, doesn't

change anything. All that happened last night was that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, today, are more convinced than ever they have been

that what this government is doing is wrong. It is the wrong process, the wrong

procedure, and will lead to potentially the wrong result.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want better, they

deserve better, and 92 per cent of them are showing in a poll result that we are

doing, that they support what we are standing for here today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, 3:00 p.m, we will move to the

private member's motion.

Before we do that, I want to bring to members' attention Standing Order

63.(3) as it relates to private member's motion. We probably have not been

following this as we should have been. Standing Order 63.(3) states that,

"On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's

motion is to be debated, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House

Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House the Private Member's

motion to be debated on that Wednesday."

I ask hon. members from here on - we have not been really adhering to this as

we should have been, to do that. The purpose of this Standing Order is to allow

members some time in advance of a motion being called to prepare for the debate.

So, again, I ask the House Leaders to try and be on time with their motions and

to have an early announcement as to what private member's motion will be

debated so that members can prepare for it.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask if maybe

the Opposition parties - I know the Leader of the NDP is here and I know that

the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader are close to the

precincts of the Legislature - that maybe they might want to recess for a minute

to consider an offer from the government to suspend the normal orders of the day

in private members to have a debate for the next two hours on the framework of a

Voisey's Bay agreement which we would gladly put forward to the House

immediately for full debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the House agree?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). What the Premier has suggested was - so the hon.

Opposition House Leader can get what the Premier just suggested - that maybe

hon. members would like to suspend the rules today, as Private Members' Day -

PREMIER GRIMES: By agreement.

MR. LUSH: - by agreement. By agreement, we can do anything - to debate

the framework of Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: He didn't ask (inaudible). He just asked by agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to buy into the political posturing of the Premier today. When

he has an agreement that he feels he can bring to the people of the Province,

bring it to the Legislature and we will debate it then. That is what we say to

the Premier of the Province.

No framework, no fooling around, if you have a deal that you think you can

sell and you live up to your word that it must be ratified here and it is not

legally binding and finally binding on the people of the Province before it gets

here, we will debate it then.

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member for Trinity North has

an important resolution on today and that is the one we will be debating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, just to make this final comment under

the point of order, to the offer that I did make, and to point out again that

the Opposition House Leader again, as I understand - we will check Hansard

tomorrow - just said something completely different than the Leader of the

Opposition said earlier today. The Leader of the Opposition said: We would like

to see a framework.

A framework, Mr. Speaker, is defined as a skeletal open work or structural

frame, a basic structure, as of ideas. The Opposition House Leader said: We don't

want any framework. When you have a deal that you think you can support, bring

it here and we will vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, again we make the offer in all seriousness but we do not know

who is speaking for the Opposition. That is why we offered to let them recess

first and consider it, if they want, but we certainly take our direction from

the Opposition because it does need leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand from the Opposition House Leader that there is no agreement to

suspend the Private Members' Day and to move to a debate on another matter.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will read into the record again the motion that I made and introduced

yesterday. I hope the motion is pretty straightforward, pretty clear, and I

trust that the Premier, when he stands to speak to this issue, because it is

applicable to his district, it will much clearer, much more cut and dried, and

he would find it much easier to just stand and say: Yes I will, yes I do support

it and I pledge my commitment. I hope it will be that straightforward for the

Premier on this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker.

I will just read it into the record again, Mr. Speaker, but before I do that,

I think it is important that we acknowledge and recognize that this resolution

that we are bringing forward today is a resolution that had the unanimous

support of our party at our recent annual general meeting in Gander. I am

extremely pleased today to be able to acknowledge Mr. Lorne Woolridge, who is in

the gallery, who in fact was the individual who brought this very important

resolution forward, had it debated at our annual general meeting, and we felt,

as a caucus, this is a significant issue for all of the people in Central and

Western Newfoundland, and we wanted to bring it to the floor of this Legislature

for a full discussion and look to the members opposite, particularly the Premier

and the other couple of members of Cabinet whose districts are in this area in

question, and look for their pledge of support and commitment to make this a

reality.

Mr. Speaker, let me read the resolution. It says:

WHEREAS there is only one MRI scanner in the Province, located at the Health

Science Centre in St. John's, and an independent study on the future direction

of health care recommends the Province should have at least two, and possibly

three, MRI scanners; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation, the Central West Health Care

Corporation, and Central East Health Care Corporation, which provide health care

services to over 202,000 people in 153 communities, recommend the purchase of a

mobile MRI scanner that can be shared between Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor

and Gander, and have agreed that an appropriate

schedule can be arranged which

would provide a high level of diagnostic services to patients in the area; and

WHEREAS diagnostic imaging with an MRI scanner saves lives, reduces the

severity and duration of illness, and reduces health care costs through early

detection, diagnosis and treatment of major health problems; and

WHEREAS the availability of state-of-the-art diagnostic technology in western

and central regions of Newfoundland and Labrador will help in the recruitment

and retention of medical specialists in such areas as radiology, neurology,

cardiology and oncology;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

allocate funding to purchase a mobile MRI scanner to provide medically necessary

diagnostic services to the 202,000 people who live in Western and Central

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition House Leader indicated earlier, this is a very

important resolution. It is a significant resolution in the provision of health

services in Central and Western Newfoundland.

There are a couple of things that I want to point out before my colleague

from Windsor-Springdale seconds the motion. It is important, I think, to

acknowledge here that this speaks to a tremendous spirit of co-operation between

three very significant and distinct regions of our Province and three very

significant health organizations in our Province. It speaks to the

recommendation and comments that have been made about sharing of health

services. It speaks to the need to regionalize certain major services and have

significant mass to be able to justify certain services and to be able to have

the critical mass that is necessary to be able to maintain the skill sets of our

physicians and our technicians who operate this type of equipment. More

importantly this speaks to the whole issue of access.

We have heard the Minister of Health and Community Services talk several

times about the new strategic plan that he is unfolding later this month. The

other day in the Estimates debate he talked about some of the content of that,

or gave us some indication at least that it will talk about issues around

standards. It will talk about issues with respect to access. This is a very

significant issue, Mr. Speaker, because this issue and this request speaks to

that very point of access.

Newfoundland has a very diverse and dispersed geography. Many of our people

are in Labrador and Northern Newfoundland and Western and Central Newfoundland,

and coming into St. John's for all of the major diagnostic and medical

procedures that many people require limits access to many people. We have as

well, with only one machine in the Province, a long waiting list. Today, for a

routine MRI, just to do some exploratory work, you may find yourself waiting six

or eight months before you can get an MRI, and sometimes even longer. Other

jurisdictions in this country - my colleague from Bonavista South shared a story

yesterday about a family member of his living in Fort McMurray, who was able to

get access to a MRI within two weeks. What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, what a

contrast. What we are talking about here is making what is a critical piece of

diagnostic equipment available to many more residents of the Province.

Let me speak to that issue of access for a moment. I said there is a long

waiting list. If you lived in Grand Falls, Gander, or in Western Newfoundland

today and you went to see an orthopedic surgeon that surgeon may want you to

have an MRI. He calls to the Health Sciences only to find that it is six or

eight months to have that procedure. Do you know what that surgeon will do? That

surgeon will then start to engage in a much more invasive kind of process. He

will do exploratory surgery, put that patient at risk under anesthetic to do

what might be an unnecessary exploratory surgery, when, in fact, if they had

access to the critical MRI diagnostic services they may be able to go in and

quickly find that maybe there is no need to do surgery. Maybe a much more

conservative type of treatment might be appropriate. What we have done is a

couple of things: We have provided a better quality of care, we have not put

that patient at risk, and we have saved the health system a tremendous amount of

money not having to hospitalize that person and having them go through the

surgical procedure.

This just speaks to a couple of critical issues that we need to talk about in

terms of this new service going into the West Coast. One of the things that is

kind of bothersome, I think, is that the three boards got together - this was

not something recent. This business was not something that came up two or three

weeks ago, but well over a year ago these three boards got together and started

having this discussion because they recognized a couple of things. Number one,

that their areas were well under-serviced; and they recognized that

individually, within their own geographic locations, they could probably not

justify the $2.5 million investment to be able to go out on their own and buy an

MRI scanner. However, collectively they could.

Over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, those three boards made representation to

government to have that scanner purchased within the provincial plan for

technology replacement and located outside of St. John's. The boards

acknowledge that the study that we referred to earlier has been done. That study

itself acknowledges that the current MRI scanner in St. John's, in fact, is

outdated. It is more than ten years old. There has been many generations of new

technology that has come since then and that technology is now outdated, and it

too needs to be replaced. The Province, no doubt, is faced with a question about

having to, number one, replace the MRI in St. John's; number two, respond to

the recommendations of the study that said the Province needs at least two,

possibly three, MRIs for the Province.

I plea to the minister that he ensures, in his strategic plan that he talks

about, there is a

section there that is dedicated to technology and technology

replacement, and a long-term plan to ensure that the technology that we are

using in our health facilities is state-of-the-art, it is current, it is able to

do the job and do the job safely.

I think the critical question here now, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that the

department gets a clear message about the spirit of cooperation, but more

importantly, gets a clear message that the people of this Province who live

outside the greater Avalon area need to have equal access to sophisticated

diagnostic equipment just as readily as those who live in the greater Avalon

area.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I will have a few moments to clue up the

debate this afternoon and I am sure there are many other members in the House

who would like to make comment, particularly those who live in the region. I

understand my colleague from Windsor-Springdale is prepared to second my motion

and speak in support of it.

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

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this House and to have the opportunity to enter into

this debate -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Just grant me a minute to make a motion that I should have made

back a little earlier, if hon. members will permit me to.

The motion is one that hon. members would be expecting, that we not adjourn

tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. or at 10:00 p.m.

You can take a vote, Mr. Speaker. Vote on the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion to the floor is that the House not adjourn on

tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. - I do not think - the Chair sometimes is led by the

Government House Leader, but it was my clear impression that that was a Notice

of Motion.

MR. LUSH: That is correct. Mr. Speaker, the Notice of Motion that I gave

(inaudible) the rest of the motion is still the same, that we not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. or at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Just to be clear, the Government House Leader has given a

Notice of Motion that this House does not rise tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. or 10:00

p.m.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Clarification. Does the Government House Leader need leave

to do that at this point in time, to move that motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: During the Private Members?

MR. LUSH: No, not really.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does he or doesn't he?

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk advises me that there is no need. He can do it at

any time in the proceedings.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the third time, we now recognize the Minister of Health and Community

Services. His time will now start.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to develop a complex I think if I keep getting these

interruptions, especially from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in debate with this very

important resolution, no question, as brought forward by the hon. Member for

Trinity North. It does certainly speak to what is recognized as a serious need

within the Province, an important piece of technology, the MRI scanners. As the

resolution does reference, we have, in fact, been reviewing the present

situation with regards to that service as it exists in our Province.

At the present time, we do have some recommendations with regards to

maintaining or improving on the service as it presently exists. The one machine

which we have presently available here in St. John's is recognized as having

some limitations and is in need of replacement. There is also recognition that

we probably need to move forward with a second machine. Beyond that, which I

guess is the issue that we are addressing here today, is to try and look at the

provision of the service outside of the greater St. John's area because I

think it would be recognized that once we have two machines fully functional

here in the St. John's area, that this whole region would certainly be very

well served. Then the real challenge would be beyond that, moving beyond what

the situation would be in Western and Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is an important issue indeed. I think also

that hon. members need to be aware that we are talking about an expensive piece

of technology. So whenever we, as a government and as a department, look at

making our decisions with regards to capital expenditure -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SMITH: About $3 million. So, it is not a decision you take lightly

because obviously all hon. members would recognize that it is certainly not a

piece of equipment that we could consider putting in every hospital or having it

indeed in every area of the Province. I guess our objective is to try to make it

as accessible as we can for most of the people of the Province, and that is what

we are looking at doing.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard from time to time here in the House

reference with regards to the demands. We certainly heard the minister speak to

the demands on the health care budget. Repeatedly, I think I have to use every

occasion to remind the people of the Province that at the present time this

government is, in its commitment to health care generally, at $1.42 billion.

Indeed, I guess to put it in a better context for people to understand, when you

are talking about forty-five cents on every program dollar going into health

care, then I think it becomes pretty apparent to everyone in terms of the

magnitude of the challenges that we face. Even at the forty-five cents on every

program dollar going into health care, hon. members Opposite, and rightly so,

raise the issues because they are hearing it from their district; as do I, in my

own district in terms of dealing with my own constituents.

There are still demands out there even at the rate of our present commitment,

that there are still demands out there that people are looking for more and more

in terms of additional services and new services. Mr. Speaker, the ability of

government to respond is certainly challenged. I guess first of all to speak a

bit to that - that is an issue that we all have to be concerned about, all hon.

members of this House, because day in and day out we hear requests from hon.

members again with regards to other programs, and as a member, first and

foremost in this House, that all of us are members representative of individual

districts. We do have a serious commitment that we must honour on behalf of the

people who elected us to represent them in this House of Assembly. And I, like

all other hon. members, on a regular basis hear from my constituents with

regards to concerns related to roads, related to municipal infrastructure,

related to tourism concerns, and on and on the list goes. All of them very, very

legitimate, Mr. Speaker, and no one would suggest that when people come forward

and are looking to have decent roads on which to travel, no one in this House

would question the validity of that request. Indeed, I have had occasion outside

of my own district to travel in other areas and to see firsthand some of these

concerns. The same thing with the infrastructure that the hon. Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in terms of the allocation of his funds, is

trying to meet the many demands that are out there.

Within the capital equipment budget, Mr. Speaker, this year - in response to

questions here in the House and in the Committee Estimates, that I did inform

the hon members and they would be aware from the Budget document - there was

some $15 million that was allocated on the capital side. Again, of course, what

we have undertaken throughout the Province - and I have to commend our

foundations, in particular, and I can certainly speak to the one that operates

in my own area of the Province, the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital Foundation,

which I was one of the original members. I am proud of the fact that I had

occasion, for some time, to work with that group in trying to assist government

in providing the dollars that are required to meet the capital needs for that

particular area.

I have to say that in the Stephenville-Port au Port-Bay St. George's area,

as my hon. colleague, the Minister of Environment, would attest to, that our

people have been generous to a fault in terms of their giving in terms of

providing the additional monies that are required to provide additional services

to the people of our area. Most recently, at our hospital, we were pleased, my

good friend and I, to have occasion just last year to be at the present Sir

Thomas Roddick Hospital and to participate in the commissioning of a new

service, the dialysis service, to serve the people of Bay St. George's.

I know in other areas of the Province we had demands for - I know in Central,

my colleague, the Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary, has a very active lobby

in her area and that is a service that they are looking at. I am sure if she

speaks in debate this afternoon, she will want to speak to that.

So, the list is there, and the kinds of concerns are there. In our own area,

again in the Stephenville area, that mammography is another service has been

recognized as a priority. It is a service that, I think, we will all be pleased

to see in our new beautiful hospital which is scheduled to open next year, and I

have to say is a tribute and a credit to my good friend, the Minister of

Environment, who laboured long and hard for many years to bring about a new

hospital for the Stephenville area. I think I would have to say on behalf of the

people of Bay St. George's, minister, a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue today, I guess the one thing that is probably -

when I read the resolution, even though I have no difficulty with the basic

intent of the resolution. The only thing that does provide some difficulty again

- and I am not sure if the hon. member is aware. The difficulty is this, with

regards to what is being proposed in the resolution, that the final decision has

not been made as to what is the most appropriate course of action in terms of

addressing the needs of that area. At the present time, there is still a debate

as to whether or not the MRI unit, itself, should actually be based in one of

these sites, either in western or one of the central sites, either central west

or central east, or if in fact we should be looking at a mobile unit which would

provide an itinerant service that would travel to the different sites. No

decision has been made on that. We are still reviewing that. Just a short time

ago I had occasion to have been briefed on that and to have had the opportunity

to raise some of the questions as to what are the arguments for going one route

over the other. Obviously, that is not - I freely admit to having no expertise

in that area so I have to look to other people to share their expertise with me

and provide me with the knowledge on which ultimately we will be able to make

that decision.

The advice at this point in time, there is one school out there that says:

You will be better served by having it stationed - just make a decision - in one

institution of the three rather than move it around. The argument against having

itinerant services that primarily, or at least what has been suggested to me, it

is difficult to recruit the necessary personnel. To begin with, they are not

easy to recruit, I understand, but it is more difficult to recruit them to come

and work on an itinerant basis where they move around and serve two or three

institutions. The preference of the professionals, who work in that field, would

be to actually work at one particular site. I guess that gives them some sense

of permanency.

Having said that, I must remind -

MR. FITZGERALD: I have a question: What hours do they operate

(inaudible)?

MR. SMITH: I am not sure of the actual hours, but I can certainly get

that information for the hon. member. I do have it somewhere here in my notes,

but rather than give you an answer that might not be accurate, I will check and

let you know later on this afternoon.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is there any reason why we can't operate twenty-four

hours a day?

MR. SMITH: I think part of it is staffing. You have to keep in mind, in

terms of the one particular unit - I guess the idea, when you bring in the

second unit, then you will bring in the additional personnel that will go along

with that. The other thing, as well, we have to keep in mind that whenever we

are introducing new technology - and our foundations do such a tremendous job

for us in assisting us in raising the money to come up with the capital cost -

there is also a cost beyond that. It is a recurring cost. It is a cost that is

annualized and we have to pay year after year, and that is in terms of providing

the additional trained staff who can provide that service, because the

technology, as good as it is, can only serve us if it is in the hands of trained

professionals who know what they are doing and can then deliver that service.

Just getting back to the issue that I was mentioning with regards to the

arguments that have been put forward with regards to going with the mobile as

prepared to having it placed in a permanent site, I have to say, Mr. Speaker -

and again remind everyone that certainly to this point in time there is no

decision made. I am completely open and certainly looking forward to having the

opportunity to dialogue with the different institutions and the health care

professionals in those regions, to get further input from them as to what their

feelings are with regard to the choices which we presently have. Certainly, at

the end of the day, I am hoping that we will be able to collectively arrive at a

resolute that will serve in the best interest of all the people of that

particular area.

I am sure the hon. member opposite, in terms of the resolution he has brought

forward, I know where he is coming from. It is underlining the importance of the

service, and I guess for all of us who want to make sure that when the service

is implemented, that it is positioned in such a way that it is the most

effective use of the technology that we have available.

Mr. Speaker, in line with that, I would like to move an amendment to the hon.

member's resolution. The amendment would be: by striking out the resolution

clause and substituting the following:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourage the provincial

government in accordance with its independent study regarding the provision of

MRI scanners to consult with the Health Corporations of Western, Central West

and Central East to finalize a decision with regards to the provision of an

additional MRI scanner.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not intended in any way to take away

from what the hon. member has here. It is, in fact, to reflect a reality,

because if we were to adopt the resolution as it is presently presented it would

be preempting the process which is currently ongoing, that arriving at a

decision as to what is the best way to go. Is it, in fact, to go with the

mobile, which the hon. member has referenced here, or is, in fact, once we have

done the deliberations and talked with everyone, maybe the decision may be that

the people would be better served to have that piece of technology stationed at

one of the institutions, whether in Western, Central East or Central West.

That is merely the intent of the resolution. It is certainly not, in any way,

intended to take away from the intent. I would certainly submit it for the hon.

members consideration and for the consideration of you, Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in support of the resolution as put forward. Certainly, I know

firsthand of the need for more MRI machines in this Province because in the

district that I represent a number of people throughout the district have long

waiting periods to come to St. John's to get an MRI.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can proudly say is that workers in Labrador West

contributed greatly to the MRI machine that is here at the Health Sciences

Centre today, even through payroll deductions through the mining systems, or

through the mining companies, through their payroll system. They had payroll

deductions to help finance the MRI machine that is presently in the Province.

To talk further on the resolution, I would say to you that if there are going

to be two or three MRI machines in the Province, or a mobile unit, then I would

suggest that serious consideration be given to having one of them located in

Labrador. Right now, what is happening in Labrador, anytime anybody has a

medical need which they need to have addressed, nine chances out of ten, Mr.

Speaker, they have to travel to St. John's to get that done. We always wonder

about the fact that there is nothing even discussed, not a second thought given

to the fact that people in Labrador have to travel. It seems as if it is

different when the situation is reversed. That applies not only to medical, that

applies to sporting groups, it applies to conferences, it applies to a whole lot

of things that take place in Labrador. Once it is decided that something is

going to be in Labrador, people understand and recognize the cost it takes to

take

part in whatever event there might be.

An example, Mr. Speaker, I would give, and people in Labrador say this

consistently, is if Inco had developed a nickel deposit or found a nickel

deposit on the Island portion of the Province and someone said we should put a

smelter in Labrador, then I would tell you that maybe they would not be sent for

an MRI, but I can assure you they would certainly be assisted by somebody in the

Province because people would not think that makes sense. When it is coming out

of Labrador to other parts of the Province that is perfectly acceptable but the

reverse, people seem to have a great deal of difficulty with.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the medical aspect and the medicare in this

Province is largely dominated by the Avalon Peninsula and people in the outlying

regions of the Island portion, or in Labrador, who need medical attention have

to travel to St. John's in order to get their needs met. That, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment, as proposed, and we have deemed it to

be in order so we are now speaking to the amended motion. Just for clarification

for the member. I believe a copy of the amended motion is now on your desk.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, when people have to travel from Labrador to this part of the

Province, it is with great cost that they incur in doing so. It is not only the

cost for airline travel. It is the long time, missed work; it is accommodations

and meals while they are here. That runs into thousands of dollars, Mr. Speaker,

and maybe not just on one occasion. It is not uncommon for someone to have to

travel to St. John's for any medical reason, to have an appointment with the

doctor and be told to come back in five weeks' time. Something is wrong with a

system like that.

You would think that people would recognize that, when someone has to travel

a great distance, at great cost, then the most would be done for them and, when

they set up the appointment, other things would be set up at the same time;

because; as I said; it is not uncommon for someone to have to travel there and

be told to come back in five weeks and then another follow-up appointment at

eight weeks. Each time, people incur thousands of dollars to their cost of

getting medical attention.

Now, there is a program in the Province, the non-emergency medical relief

fund, but that doesn't go anywhere near addressing the financial burdens that

people incur when they have to come here. It is 50 per cent of eligible expenses

over and above the first $500. I say, Mr. Speaker, that does not come near

meeting the financial costs that people have to burden to have their health

looked after.

I am glad to say that there is a new hospital now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

one that was very seriously needed, because the old one was from the World War

II building and was in a complete state of disrepair. Now they do have a nice

building there; however, other areas of Labrador are not as fortunate. I know

that in the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador West, when

that was run by the Salvation Army, prior to the hospital boards being re-zoned,

prior to that, the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital had a surplus, when

it was run by the Salvation Army, of $700,000. That is gone. When the boards

joined together and made one board for the Labrador Health Corporation, that

$700,000 was swallowed up to go towards the deficit that was incurred in other

areas of Labrador, and right now the hospital in Labrador West has to go through

Goose Bay and the Labrador Health Corporation to get anything, even in terms of

supplies, they may need. So, we have suffered greatly. Our medical care coverage

in Labrador is certainly not equal to regions of the Island portion of the

Province where people can get in their car and drive.

To complicate matters even further, Mr. Speaker, if someone from Labrador

West has to come to a hospital in St. John's and, upon being released, they

are confined to a stretcher, they do not have any way to get home because none

of the airlines that service Labrador West have the capability of taking a

stretcher on board their aircraft. So, the only option for them is to wait until

an air ambulance has to go into Labrador West to respond to a tragedy or to an

emergency and, if time permits, they will be taken on board the aircraft.

I have to say that I have raised that issue publicly since I have been

elected and at the present time we generally are able, after intervention from

myself, to get people transported back on a special flight by the air ambulance.

So that is an improvement over what used to be in place in the past.

Regarding the MRI issue again, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the more MRIs -

if we had two or three - it certainly would relieve the burden placed on the one

at the Health Science Center; because it is not uncommon for waiting lists of

six to eight months in order for people to get an MRI done. That is too long.

Many things can happen during that six or eight months, that could have been

tagged, that could have been identified earlier, and save the Health Corporation

more money in the long run and make the patient's life and their medical

condition much easier to diagnose, easier to treat, and hopefully a shorter

period of rehabilitation before they are back on their feet.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of reasons why there should be more than one

MRI in the Province. As I said, we contributed significantly to the one that is

here, and I hope the minister pays serious attention to this because it is a

serious issue. If we had them separated or spread out through the Province, then

there is no question that the wait time would be cut down to something that is

acceptable, Mr. Speaker, so that people do not have to wait long periods of time

to have their health care needs met.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are other speakers who want to speak. I just wanted

to add that to the debate and to let the minister know that, in Labrador West

and in Labrador in general, there is a need for such a machine. Wherever the

other one that should be allocated goes within the Province, it will certainly

help alleviate the long waiting lists and it is something that we look forward

to seeing happen in this Province sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today, I wish to speak to two important health issues, actually, that apply

to my district, because right now they are both high priorities and this gives

me an opportunity this afternoon, through this debate, to mention both of them.

Of course, one that many of you would realize as a priority in my district,

because I presented a petition last week of more than 4,000 names, actually the

week before last, and now I have another petition of more than 4,000 names.

Minister Lush also, from his area of Central Newfoundland, has a petition of

almost 1,000 names which speaks to the need for a renal dialysis service in the

area of Central Newfoundland East.

We all know that from a renal dialysis perspective right now, we have units

in St. John's, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Grand Falls-Windsor and

Clarenville. We have more than 240 people at this time receiving these

treatments, and we know there is still some capacity left in the Western region

of the Province and a little bit here in St. John's, but the unit in Grand

Falls-Windsor right now is at capacity with forty-two patients. Of these

forty-two, there are twelve to fifteen who are coming from the Central East area

of the Province, in Gander and area. A few of them, actually, from Central East,

have had to relocate to St. John's for this important service.

We know the incidence of kidney disease is expected to rise 9 per cent to 10

per cent annually in this Province, due to an aging population and a high

incidence of diabetes. Right now, I have held meetings with the Department of

Health and in my own district with the administration of James Paton Memorial

Hospital, and with a local committee that is in place working on this

initiative. Right now, all of us have to wait until the provincial renal

dialysis committee presents its report. This should be in place by the end of

May or early June, and then we look forward to the resolution of this issue. It

is an extremely important issue and just says how much need there is for

technology in this Province for the health of our citizens.

The issue that we talking about here today, I strongly support this motion,

as amended. It is a high priority in my district. I recently met with the

administration of the hospital and they tell me that it is number one on their

priority list. They have worked long and hard with Central West, with my

colleague, the Minister of Labour, from her district. They have worked long and

hard with Western Newfoundland to study this idea and they have presented this

information to government on this issue; but we know, as the Minister of Health

has said, we need more research done on this and more discussion with the three

hospital boards. That is why I strongly support the amendment, that we need to

make sure - this is very expensive equipment but it is also extremely expensive

to operate - so we need to make sure that we do this correctly.

We know that we have had an independent study done that recommends that, for

both the size and the population of our Province, we need two to three MRIs. I

would say that, with the population, and so much of our population on the Avalon

Peninsula, then because of the geography of the rest of our Province, that

certainly we are going to need, in the future, three MRI units. But, as the

Minister of Health has said, all of that we have to look at.

I know that in New Brunswick they are utilizing, very successfully, a mobile

MRI unit. The staffing that the minister mentioned could be a difficulty. It is

very important that we be able to have the highly specialized staff that we

would need to accommodate this unit. You would have to consider: Do we have

people in these specialities who would be willing to be part of a mobile unit?

I would contend that we have offered very specialized services in this

Province for years now. Even starting back years ago when we went around to all

the remote and isolated outports with the TB Christmas Seal campaign by boat;

but in these modern times we still have a very successful blood donation unit

that goes about this Province and we have never had difficulty staffing it with

the professionals that are needed. So, I think that is a problem that certainly

can be overcome. In think in this Province, if you train people, we have many

young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are only too pleased to stay in this

Province to accept jobs of this high calibre.

Just last week, actually, I was at a function in my district and several

orthopedic surgeons brought up to me the need for an MRI service. One of the

reasons that they outlined to me was because of the long, long waiting lists

that we have at our tertiary care centre here in St. John's. Actually, it is

so long that, in some instances, companies, like big paper companies - one of

the examples that was given was Abitibi Price - that they said to me that

Abitibi Price actually arrange MRIs out of the Province so that people cannot be

off work as long, they can go and have the MRI, and then they can get the

surgery or the other treatments that they might need. They also outlined the

importance of savings to the health care system and to other public services in

this Province, or just to the private sector, that if you have someone who has

to wait six and eight months to get a routine MRI done, in many instances they

have to be off work until they can have the MRI done so it can be decided

whether they need surgery or an alternative treatment.

It is extremely important that we have these services in our Province so that

our workforce can be productive, so that our people can be healthy, and I am so

pleased that in the Department of Health right now we are working together in

the Western region, in both areas of the Central region, to support this

initiative because it is important that all people have services in our Province

as close as possible to the area that they live.

I would like to close by saying that this government puts an enormous amount

of money into health care and that I know in my own district, for instance, over

the last few years the new wing of the hospital, the new expansion, will be open

this year. Between the expansion and the redevelopment of the old part, we now

will have spent $69 million on James Paton Memorial Hospital.

We are putting the money in, especially as much as we can afford, but we have

to make sure, when we put in important new pieces of technology, that we meet

the needs of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as much as we possibly can to

provide the service as close to home as we can, but we must make sure that the

services that we are offering are the best services that we can offer.

We need to explore this staffing situation. We need to make sure that we are

making the wisest decision if we do go with a mobile MRI, and I look forward to

that discussion within government in the upcoming weeks and months.

Thank you very much.

Before I sit down, I should look at this note that I have just been passed,

to see if there is any new information on this. No, it has nothing to do with

this discussion.

I thank you very much for your attention and, Madam Speaker, I would like to

close by saying how much I support this resolution, as amended, on behalf of the

constituents of my district in Gander District.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support my colleague from Trinity North on his

private member's resolution. I have to say that I am certainly not in support

of the amendment. I will have to speak on the intent of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, the intent of this resolution was presented to us from the

people of Central Newfoundland and, in that intent, it states that the mobile

unit is what is needed. The people of Central and Western Newfoundland need a

mobile unit, not a fixed unit, stationary unit, in one particular location. It

is a hardship on people in rural Newfoundland to get to facilities, to get

services such as MRIs, and this resolution shows that over 200,000 people in 153

communities plus, recommend that a mobile MRI be used in this Province for the

areas of Western and Central Newfoundland, particularly around the Grand

Falls-Gander area and the Corner Brook area. The intent of this piece of

equipment is to save dollars and lives. It reduces severity and duration of

illnesses. It reduces health cares costs through early detection, diagnosis, and

treatment of major health problems.

Madam Speaker, I would say that we have listened to the people by presenting

this resolution. We are concerned that six or eight months is not good enough,

when people in this country and our neighbouring country can get MRIs in two or

three days. I have a doctor friend who practices in Wisconsin. He has an MRI in

his own clinic. His father-in-law had to leave this Province last year, go to

Wisconsin and get an MRI because he could not wait the time that he was told he

had to wait here, about eight months. Madam Speaker, this is one of the reasons

why we had to present this resolution and that I have to support it as presented

by my colleague from Trinity North.

If we are going to be serious about presenting and delivering health care in

rural Newfoundland, we must take into account the needs of the people who are

not close to the services, and that is the cost of these people getting to St.

John's. It is great for anybody living near the Avalon or near St. John's,

who can get in here almost any day.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Not only the financial costs, but the costs to their

families, the emotional costs.

MR. HUNTER: I say to my hon. colleague, that is absolutely right. Today

we see in families a lot of stress which also adds to our health care in this

Province. The stress on the families because of the extra costs and distance to

go to get services creates mental stress. I see a lot of people in Central

Newfoundland stressed out over the fact that they have to come to St. John's

to get services like MRIs and then, having gotten here, having to turn around

and go back again because their appointment was rescheduled. Madam Speaker, that

costs a lot of money. It takes a lot for families to accompany the patients to

come in here - they probably have to give up a day's work - and the cost of

getting here. It is stressful to the families. So, there are more costs involved

than just getting here. There are costs to the families and costs to the health

care system.

I know one case where a woman was under so much stress that she ended up in

the hospital because of that stress and it costs thousands of dollars a day to

deal with her problem, because her husband was sick. He needed care. He needed

the care that could only be provided here on the Avalon, and that was so

stressful for that family that she ended up in the hospital, too, costing

taxpayers a lot of dollars. So, we can save money in the health care system by

delivering health care services in places of this Province where they are

needed, Madam Speaker.

The MRI is a very important piece of diagnostic equipment. It gives a service

to people that can certainly lessen the amount of time in health care. If they

are going to be admitted to a hospital, it lessens the cost and time that it

takes to recover.

Madam Speaker, thirty or forty years ago, if we had taken a stand and said

that we would only provide a service in one location, then we would have had big

problems back in the days in the 1950s and 1960s when we had a polio and

tuberculosis epidemic. At the time, we had to get out to every place in the

Province to make sure these people were tested and cared for, diagnosed. This is

another case today where MRIs are needed all over the Province, and we need to

bring that service to the people because the people cannot afford to come to the

service and wait a long time to get that particular testing done.

Madam Speaker, I just spoke about some of the problems of sickness and

illness caused by stress and so on. There are a lot of sicknesses that are

caused by our social problems today. Our seniors are not capable of getting from

rural parts of this Province to St. John's to get an MRI. If it was made

available closer to these people, our seniors in Western and Central

Newfoundland, it would be a lot easier to take them out of that environment so

they could get that testing done.

If we accept this amendment to the resolution, then the total intent of this

resolution presented by the hon. Member for Trinity North is gone. The intent is

to have a mobile unit so that it could provide the necessary medical diagnostic

services to people on the West Coast, in Central Newfoundland. That would

certainly be a lot easier for these people, these people who do not have the

money, these people who are not well enough to travel: seniors particularly.

Madam Speaker, we must support the intent of this original resolution. I

cannot support this amendment with an intent of just consulting with the health

care boards to see if they can finalize a decision whether we should have

another MRI or not. Our intent is to have another MRI, but a mobile one. Having

said that, I would certainly be speaking out against this resolution, Madam

Speaker.

Last week in Grand Falls-Windsor - and I have to give congratulations to the

organizers, participants and contributors to a radiothon that the South and

Central Health Foundation had, with host George MacLaren. I have to thank the

people who were involved. They raised $50,000 for a colonoscope, a very

important piece of equipment that we need in Grand Falls-Windsor, the Central

Newfoundland hospital serving the people of all that area in the region of

Central Newfoundland. I congratulate Mr. MacLaren for coming in and doing this

on an annual basis. I think this is his seventh time in there doing a radiothon.

I congratulate VOCM, Jim Coady, who spent the best part of the day there

working, organizing, making sure things ran smoothly. I would like to

congratulate Barry Oake from the heath foundation, who participated on behalf of

the South and Central Health Foundation, who did an excellent job. The people of

Central Newfoundland delivered more than they were anticipating, over $50,000,

for this essential, necessary, very important piece of equipment for the people

of Central Newfoundland. Having said that, Madam Speaker, it is important that

we also have an MRI that is mobile, to get into areas in Central Newfoundland

and Western Newfoundland.

Madam Speaker, detection and prevention are very important in our health

care. If we do not recognize the importance of detection and prevention, then

our health care costs are going to escalate, get bigger and larger with an aging

population, then we may not be able to control the cost of delivering health

care in our Province. We need tools. We need an MRI, a mobile MRI, to give our

patients a reasonable chance of being early diagnosed, early detected, so that

they do not have to wait six and eight months, Madam Speaker, to find out that

if they only had the test done six or eight months ago, serious diseases and

illnesses could have been prevented.

Madam Speaker, I would say if dead people could come back from the grave

today, they would be astounded. They would be in support of our resolution. A

lot of these people that died over the years would say they would certainly love

to have an opportunity to have a diagnostic test from an MRI, to have early

detection, so that the problem that put them where they are could have been

prevented.

Madam Speaker, we must do more in detection and prevention in the different

diseases and illness that we have, and do more promotion in healthier living in

this Province. You haven't got to look very far to see that healthy living is

not a priority in this Province. So, we have to make sure that programs,

policies and consultation is done with our public to promote healthy living, to

let the people understand, in the Province, that it is not easy delivering these

health care services. But we cannot deliver them in one place, we cannot be

stationary on the Avalon Peninsula with one MRI to service all this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, when clinics in other parts of Canada and the United

States have MRIs right in their clinics.

How can we not support a resolution giving services to our people spread out

all over this Province; a vast area, even though a small population? Madam

Speaker, the small population we have does not have the dollars to get to the

services. So, I have to support the availability of the state-of-the-art

diagnostic technology in Western and Central Newfoundland, which it states right

here in the resolution will help in recruiting and retaining physicians in our

medical facilities, in our hospitals. This mobile MRI is certainly going to make

it a lot easier for physicians to decide whether they will practice in remote

areas, in rural areas of this Province. It is just another drawing card to

entice young or new physicians to come into rural Newfoundland.

Madam Speaker, I just spoke about prevention and detection, but we have even

a bigger problem, that goes deeper than just the diagnostic equipment. It is a

problem of having doctors in rural Newfoundland.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Just a minute to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted to clue up.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just mentioned, Madam Speaker, doctors not being available in the Province,

and it is all over the Province. We cannot have prevention and detection if

people go to see a doctor and are turned away, and I know because I have had it

happen to myself, I have had it happen to my mother, and I have had it happen to

a lot of friends who went to doctors and they said: We are sorry, we cannot see

you, we are not taking any new patients. If we are going to have a better system

of prevention, intervention and detection, Madam Speaker, then we have to make

sure that the patients can get to the doctor so that they could be referred to

have these tests done.

Madam Speaker, this is why I am supporting this resolution by my colleague

from Trinity North, 100 per cent, and having to say that the people who

presented their cases to us, the people who we listened to - one gentleman now,

Madam Speaker, sitting in our gallery, Mr. Lorne Woolridge, has certainly had a

big role to play in having us present this resolution, a man who is very

concerned about this problem in our Province, a man who could have needed that

service a short while ago, Madam Speaker. I respect this man for having what it

takes to come to us and have us present this resolution based on the needs of

the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for having the opportunity to

just support this, and having to say I am certainly against the amendment to

this resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER(Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few moments to speak to the Private Member's

Resolution, a motion, Mr. Speaker, that I have every intention of supporting.

Just to give you a little bit of background on the MRI, the Magnetic

Resonance Imaging machinery, that is required. Last year, I was approached by

several surgeons from the Western Memorial Hospital who at that time were

advocating the need for an MRI. They were looking at the cost of same and they

were looking at the probability of getting the several millions of dollars

needed to have an in situ, in place type of an MRI. They had informed me of

their discussions with other health care boards in Central Newfoundland, and

that the concept of a mobile MRI unit was discussed. It was at that time that I

was advocating, on their behalf, for such a unit for Western Newfoundland and

for Central Newfoundland.

This whole business, Mr. Speaker, of the MRI is very much new technology. It

is a great aid to our physicians in doing diagnostic work. As I recall, Mr.

Speaker, it was only a few years back, it seems like - and it probably was

longer than my recollection, but it seems to me it was only a few years ago -

that the St. John's Health Care Corporation was in the process of doing a

fund-raising campaign to secure sufficient funding for an MRI. As I recall at

the time, the patron for that particular project was the Newfoundland artist,

Mrs Mary Pratt. Obviously, that was a very successful venture and the MRI was

eventually purchased and located at the Health Sciences Complex in St. John's.

Only recently, Mr. Speaker, I was talking with the Chief of Diagnostic

Imagery at Western Memorial and he was telling me that the MRI purchased for and

installed here in St. John's just a few years ago is now woefully out of date.

While I don't recall the precise units of measurement that the gentleman was

talking about, he was telling me that the strength of magnets used in the new

MRI were sevenfold greater than what was possible back just a few years ago. So

even the MRI which we have here in the capital city at the Health Sciences

Complex is not state-of-the-art as we know it today in the year, 2002.

So, Mr. Speaker, the whole business of MRI is evolving, the whole technology

is evolving, and as the minister as already indicated, the cost of new Magnetic

Resonance Imaging Technology is very expensive, costing somewhere in the order,

perhaps, of $3 million per unit.

That there is a need for additional MRIs in this Province, Mr. Speaker, I

think is being well demonstrated. It was well demonstrated by the report which

was commissioned for the Department of Health, I presume, and the Health Care

Corporation, who have come back and now done an independent study suggesting and

recommending that we should have two, possibly three, scanners within the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, just speaking again from Western Newfoundland's perspective, I

read rather startling statistics recently which stated that in Western

Newfoundland we have some 30 per cent of all cancer patients in this Province,

and that in the Province west of Grand Falls-Windsor, we have some 50 per cent

of all cancer patients in the Province. Mr. Speaker, that in and of itself

speaks to the need to have MRI type diagnostic procedures available elsewhere

outside the St. John's metropolitan area. There is a tremendous need in

Central-Western Newfoundland for this type of diagnostic work, and, Mr. Speaker,

whether that be in the form of a mobile unit or whether it be in the form of a

fixed in place MRI located in one of the institutions in Central or Western

Newfoundland, I can do nothing but agree wholeheartedly.

I really want to give great credit to the member opposite for bringing this

particular resolution forward. It would seem that, on the basis of the study

which was done for the Department of Health and the Health Care Boards, a

specific decision as to whether it should be a mobile unit servicing Western and

Central Newfoundland or whether it should be a fixed in place type of a

facility, that decision has not yet been made. I believe the thought process is

still evolving. I think we should allow the boards and the minister's

department to arrive at a conclusive decision after they have had the

opportunity to review the report and to discuss the matter with the various

health care boards.

Mr. Speaker, rather than tying the ends of government and saying that we only

should deal with a mobile MRI, I wholeheartedly support the resolution which

encourages "...the provincial government in accordance with its independent

study regarding the provision of MRI scanners to consult with the Health

Corporations of Western, Central West and Central East to finalize a decision

with regards to the provision of an additional MRI scanner."

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I wholeheartedly support that resolution and I

wholeheartedly support the notion that diagnostic services must be provided to

our citizenry and they must be provided in areas where they are in the greatest

need and the greatest numbers.

As I have indicated, in the case of only one field, that of oncology and

cancer, there is a need in Western Newfoundland and Central Newfoundland to have

this type of a service.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and talk about the need for other types of

service. I could suggest that, in light of the statistic which I just raised,

about 50 per cent of all cancer patients in Newfoundland being west of Grand

Falls-Windsor, right now, today, as we sit, there is no medical oncologist west

of Grand Falls-Windsor and, to my knowledge, there is no medical oncologist

other than in the City of St. John's.

There is another demand for this type of service outside of the metropolitan

area. I wish no one to construe that this is a rural Newfoundland-St. John's

type of a discussion/debate. It is not. I am simply advocating, as all members

have advocated, that there is a need for this type of technology. There is a

need for it in other parts of Newfoundland to service the greater numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say again in conclusion that I wholeheartedly

support the resolution, the resolution as amended, mainly and primarily because,

at this point in time, we need to evaluate the report which has been made and

allow the departments and the health officials to make the appropriate decision.

But, at the end of the day, it is my firm conviction that we need to have an MRI

facility located somewhere in Central, Western Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to stand and support the resolution put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Trinity North.

I will speak to the first clauses of the resolution initially.

WHEREAS there is only one MRI scanner in the Province, located at the Health

Science Centre in St. John's, and an independent study on the future direction

of health care recommends the Province should have at least two, and possibly

three, MRI scanners; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation, the Central West Health Care

Corporation, and Central East Health Corporation, which provide health care

services to 202,000 people in 153 communities, recommend the purchase of a

mobile MRI scanner that can be shared between Corner Brook, Grand Falls-W