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 McKenzie, both English professors at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

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 38th Annual Ceremonial Review of the 194th 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 41st Annual Ceremonial Review of the 708th Stephenville Royal Canadian Air Cadets under the direction of Commanding Officer Captain Valda Styles.

The 708th 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 inflation was not hardly even in the English language at the time. There was no 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 framework includes all the terms and conditions. I thought that was an agreement 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 debate immediately. If they want to know the terms and conditions, they will 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-Windsor and Gander - and I guess all points in between - and have agreed that an appropriate schedule can be arranged which would provide a high level of diagnostic services to patients in the area.

Speaking to those two clauses, first of all we will determine that medical imaging or MRI allows the creation of exact images of the body and its diseases, and this is the purpose for a more accurate diagnosis. Thanks to medical imaging equipment, it is possible to screen for a disease, diagnose it, determine its state of advancement, and treat it. This is in the best interest of the people that it serves.

The benefit of MRI is that they are lower cost to the health care system, avoidance of hospital in-patient admission, less invasive procedures, and shorter recovery time for patients. Money spent on medical imaging results in savings elsewhere in the health care system. Isn't that what we are talking about? Aren't we talking about saving money in the health care system, having the wisest use of our health care dollars? This is why we are looking for MRI, for the technology of MRI. An MRI can only be requested by referring physicians. A person cannot walk in off the street and have an MRI, and it is only for medically indicated purposes and purposes that have been indicated by qualified health care professionals.

When we do a comparison with other countries who have similar standards of living to Canada, they have, as a standard, six MRI units per million population. Canada has four MRI units per million population. To put this all in perspective, in 1999 Canada had fifty MRI units; Newfoundland had one. In 2001, Canada had 100 MRI units; Newfoundland still has one. The MRI unit at the Health Science Center is twelve years old. MRI machines need to be upgrade every five to seven years. The MRI machine at the Health Science Center has never been upgraded. The MRI at the Health Science Center is a .5-tesla. The acceptable standard is 1.5-tesla.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the people of our Province who have just one MRI unit and that MRI unit is servicing all of the people, when we should have three MRI units, and that unit is way, way below standard. Modern diagnostic imaging technology improves the quality of health care services and saves the health system considerable cost by avoiding unnecessary admission of patients to hospitals and reduced lengths of stay in hospitals.

Outdated equipment, on the other hand, involves a higher risk of failures and breakdowns. This may lead to considerable delays and increased costs while the equipment is out of service.

Once again, we are talking about being frugal, about the proper management of money, and about having equipment that would have increased cost to the system. More importantly, it can also endanger the health and safety of patients and the medical staff. This situation can be avoided through timely and regular maintenance. In any way, the operating costs of such equipment tends to be higher than up-to-date electro-medical equipment. Insufficient investment in the replacement of equipment will thus lead to higher costs. The age structure of radiology equipment is an important factor for the quality of medical services.

We certainly need the machine upgraded at the Health Science Centre, but what we are requesting now is an additional machine, a mobile machine, that can service the people of the Province who do not have access to MRI equipment.

Our one piece of equipment is in such bad shape and so outdated that there was a medical student from Corner Brook, who received his medical degree here and he went to the mainland applying for a residency in radiology, hoping to return to St. John's after completion. The minister, and some other of our colleagues here today, have addressed: Yes, we can get a machine, but what about people who operate it? Here we have one of own who wants to go into it. When he was questioned on his application about his experience with MRI machines, he stated that he had used the .5-tesla at the Health Science Centre. The questioners and the people he told that to are still talking about the outdated MRI machine, the only machine in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and how outdated it is.

The wait for an MRI in Newfoundland and Labrador is eight to twelve months. That is because that one outdated MRI machine services the entire population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. A wait of eight to twelve months. The maximum wait in the rest of Canada is five weeks. Doctors, in many instances, have said they are not even referring patients for an MRI because they know the wait is too long. Really, if somebody has to wait eight or twelve months, they look for another way to treat them and it is possibly not the best way to treat the patient.

I will certainly be supporting the resolution put forward by my colleague the Member for Trinity North. I will not be supporting the amendment. The amendment says, "...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."

The resolution put forth by my hon. colleague, and the one that I will support, is, "...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."

Why are we going to consult with this group of health care corporations who already have said that they recommend the purchase of MRI scanners, and that of a mobile MRI scanner, and have said they have agreed that an appropriate schedule can be arranged. Why would we be saying that we would consult with them? We have already spoken enough about the delivery of diagnostic equipment here in the Province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to infringe on the hon. member's time but I do think that I should point out here, is she suggesting that there is an agreement among the three health care corporations to go with the mobile? Then if there is such an agreement, that is news to the minister. My understanding is that we have been consulting with them, but we do not have an agreement from all three corporations as to what is the best way to deliver the service. I just wanted to point that out to the hon. member.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: If the people in the three separate health care corporations can agree on a mobile one, it would obviously better serve and it certainly - I am not going to tell them what they need, but I feel quite confident that today if this government were to agree to purchase a mobile MRI scanner to provide the necessary diagnostic services to the people of Central East, Central West and Western Newfoundland that they would certainly come up with a schedule and be in agreement very, very quickly. It is for that reason that I am not going to agree to the amendment. I am not going to vote on the amendment. I think that we have consulted long enough. We have -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can vote on it.

MS S. OSBORNE: I will vote against it, I remind my member, and my constituent.

I think we have already consulted long enough. The need for an MRI machine certainly has been demonstrated. I am quite sure that if we agree today to provide the funding for a mobile MRI machine to be used by those three health care corporations that they would only jump at the chance and come up with a schedule really, really quickly. We have consulted long enough.

Some things are priceless and the things that are priceless are the lives of the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The cost of this MRI machine is certainly justified because it saves lives and because it has been demonstrated by studies that early diagnosis certainly leads to cost savings in the health care system. So, why don't we stop consulting, stop talking about it and let's just do it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand and speak to the resolution put forward by the Member for Trinity North addressing the MRI needs of Central and Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I received a letter from a constituent of mine in Grand Falls-Windsor and that constituent was an elderly person who was then travelling back and forth to St. John's for a very serious disease and needed, of course, an MRI scan. At the very same time, the Central West Health Care Board, the Central East Health Care Board and the Western Health Care Board were making arrangements, they had gotten together, and it was my understanding that, by their own creativity and their own initiative, they had found a resolution to the problem of no MRI in both Central and Western Newfoundland. I think at the time they were under the impression that a mobile unit would be a good expenditure. My understanding is that there are a couple of mobile units in New Brunswick and that technology has been proven out to work quite well. I think the intention would be that the MRI would spend possibly a week in Gander, a week in Grand Falls-Windsor, a week in Corner Brook and then back to Grand Falls-Windsor to start the cycle over again.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is clear to me today is that we have held health forums around the Province and it is very interesting and it is also very encouraging when you hear boards coming together by their own initiative and finding solutions to problems. All of us out there today know that health care issues are the number one issue not only in this Province but right around the world. All of us have to stop when there is a health care issue that comes to the forefront and think about it because every health care issue is an important one, and how you rate the importance of that particular issue is key.

As my colleague the Member for Windsor-Springdale mentioned today, one of my constituents is in the gallery, Lorne Woolridge. I am delighted to see Lorne Woolridge here today. I cannot see him from the location I am in but I know he is here and I am pleased to see that he is into almost a full recovery of a very, very serious operation recently. I am glad that he is making full progress.

Mr. Speaker, when I first was elected to this House in 1996 and had a look at the budget, at that particular time our health care budget was $900 million. To me that sounded like a great deal of money but when I look at 2002, today we are looking at $1.42 billion, an increase of $500 million in our health care budget. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? That increase is still not enough. There is never enough money to address the health care issues that we have today.

My colleague, the Member for Gander district, just addressed the need for renal dialysis in Gander. Just three years ago a constituent of mine, who is now deceased, Mr. Brian Quigley, came into my office and he stressed at that time the need for renal dialysis. We worked together and the result was that there is now a unit in Grand Falls-Windsor to his memory, Brian Quigley dialysis unit. It has served the people of Central Newfoundland very well. It was originally designed for forty-two patients but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that unit now is running to capacity. I know of several people who have actually moved to Grand Falls-Windsor just so that they could be by that unit and they would not have to travel from around Central Newfoundland. I know how important that unit is to residents of Central Newfoundland.

Where are we going to be in a few years time when 10 per cent of our population needs renal dialysis? Recently, I received a request from the Central West Hospital, the health care board, that they are looking at a cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor. I know that is a huge priority for Grand Falls-Windsor and Central West Health Care Board. I have walked through the current cancer treatment unit and it is not ideal. It was never designed for, I guess, the usage it now has today. It is pretty traumatic when you have to go through cancer treatment. I think it makes a great deal of difference if you can be in pleasant surroundings, and surroundings that are conducive, bright and cheerful. I know that is a huge priority for Central West Health Care Board, a cancer clinic. It is one that I am in full support of and I will be working hard to make that become a reality.

I know that there are so many needs out there, and everyone of us can stand up in the House today and tell the Speaker and the general population about the needs in our own particular districts. So it is very difficult, as a government, to make decisions and decide which need is the greatest. That is a very hard job when we know that there are so many needs out there.

In addition to the Central West Health Care Board, the South and Central Health Foundation do a tremendous job, under the leadership of Barry Oake, raising extra money for new equipment. It is wonderful when people come to the rescue, George MacLaren and VOCM. This is their eighth year running that they have come to Grand Falls-Windsor, and people in Central Newfoundland look forward to that event every year; The Mother's Day Radiothon. When you think about that, we have a record in this Province as being the greatest givers in all of Canada. When you think that over $50,000 can be raised in four hours because there was a need and the need was addressed through a radiothon. So, I commend George MacLaren and VOCM and, of course, volunteers and the people of Central Newfoundland who have opened their hearts and opened their pocketbooks to what they knew was a terrific need and came forward.

We have a great board in the Central West Health Care. They operate within budget and they work with the other boards. What we are looking for, Mr. Speaker, is accessibility, not duplication. I know it is difficult when you look at the fact that you have a provincial health care unit here in St. John's that is designed to serve the whole Province. When you think that you are in an area probably five or six or seven or eight hours away, and even further when you look at Labrador, it is easy to say: Well, you know, I think we should all of this in our own particular district, in our own particular town.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have big decisions to make. We need to look at where the greatest need is. Are we spending our money wisely? We need to look at innovative, affordable solutions.

There are many things that have happened throughout our Province that give reason to us to make the decisions that we do make. When is there enough money for health care? I would like to ask that question. When is there enough money for health care? All of us are getting older every day. We all realize that, with aging, you are looking at needs that you never thought existed in your twenties and thirties. When you are having to look after a population that has these needs, and many of them are living outside of the urban areas, it puts a great deal of pressure on precious health care funds.

You know, just recently I learned that, in Grand Falls-Windsor, the Central West Health Care Board had designed a program in its mental health services unit, in conjunction with the RCMP, to deal with high risk, violent or emergency situations. I know that this is an excellent program. I am talking about being innovative, and this particular program is now being looked at by RNC for usages throughout St. John's and other locations where the RNC are, like Corner Brook and Labrador City.

I want to say, in conclusion, the resolution that has been put forward by the Member of Trinity North is a good one, but I agree strongly with my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services. What he is saying to this House today is, the homework is not complete. We do not have all the information that we need. We want to make sure, before we make that decision where an MRI will be located, whether it be stationary or mobile. We need to have our facts and make the best decision based on the amount of money that we can put forward to that initiative.

In conclusion, I would support the resolution as amended by my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know there is not a lot of time left but I certainly want to take a few minutes today to rise to support the resolution put forward by my colleague from Trinity North, as it was, Mr. Speaker, the way he presented it, not the amendment.

I just want to make a few comments, certainly on comments made on the opposite side. First of all, health care. Of all issues in this House, for any member in here, there is nothing more important than health care. We talk about it probably more than any other issue. As a matter of fact, what motivated me to a political life was the whole issue of health care and the access to it by people in my particular district. We have to make some reference to - as the Member for Humber East made reference to earlier - about rural and urban parts of Newfoundland. We certainly have to make reference to rural Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to access to health care.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I make reference to a part of the motion of the WHEREAS, when the minister talked about this, we have to study it further and review it further, maybe a lot of the review has already been done. Maybe it should be completed. I guess that debate can go on for quite some time; but, as far as a cost or an investment, that is sometimes where we miss the point. In the third WHEREAS: WHEREAS diagnostic imaging with an MRI scanner saves lives, reduces the severity and duration of illness, and - Mr. Speaker, this is the point - reduces health care costs through early detection, diagnosis and treatment of major health problems.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that over time - and I am sure they are seeing that in their review now, and I am sure at the end of their review they will repeat it again - this, in fact, is a saving in health care; that, although an investment - and a lot of times in anything, even in business, sometimes it takes an investment in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, so that it pays off in the end. Well, that is exactly what would happen with this particular piece of equipment. The point being, in this Province, there is only one on the Avalon Peninsula, in St. John's, right now, and that some 202,000 people who depend on this in Western and Central Newfoundland should have access to this.

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier, and I will not go on too long and repeat every point made here today but we cannot lose sight of, when we talk about costs and how expensive things should be. We cannot lose site of the stress that this imposes on families around this Province. I can stand up here today and give testimony to my own family, to people I know, and the stress they have gone through as families; because we all know that, whether it is your mother or your father, or your brother or your sister, your children, whomever, who need health care, we want it to be accessible to our family and our friends and our loved ones when necessary. That is the point. As far as rural or urban, the fact being and the fact is that, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, with the vast geography that we have in this Province, there are problems, some drastic problems, and the cutbacks in health care over the last decade can attest to the problems that we have, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I saw it in my very own district, Mr. Speaker, when people have to drive for hours to get to see a specialist, especially if they have to come to St. John's. That is a six-hour drive from my district, a five-, six-, or seven-hour drive from some places. From a place like La Scie, the furthest away, it is probably a seven-hour drive. I can even add, on top of that, as the minister alluded to today, if you have to go over the road in La Scie it is probably an eight-hour drive because you have to drive so slow.

Mr. Speaker, those are all points that have to be considered when you talk about access to health care in this Province. It is something that has to be considered with the geography and the milage in between there, the road conditions and so on.

I also have to make reference to a point raised today by the Member for Gander when she talks about the renal dialysis machine. Just to push another point, my district was also looking forward to one of those machines being in the Central region or in the Baie Verte-White Bay-Green Bay District. Also, Mr. Speaker, I understand that St. Anthony, if you look at the geography again, if you look at St. Anthony on the tip of the Northern Peninsula - right now there are renal dialysis machines in St. John's, Clarenville, Grand Falls, Stephenville, Corner Brook. I think I have them all right. I could be corrected, but I think that is where they are located right now, if we looked at the geography.

I understand the need for it, Mr. Speaker, and I understand it first-hand. I will give one example - and it is always better to give an example - of a gentleman in my district. It was the saddest case of a man who had to use this machine, who lived in La Scie. Mr. Speaker, as I said, with the road conditions and, of course, winter driving as it is anyway in this Province, he had to drive from La Scie to Grand Falls. I am glad that Grand Falls got this. I understand Mr. Quigley and what he went through, and I am glad that it was named in his memory. As a matter of fact, I did speak with him some years ago. I am glad it was in Grand Falls but, as the minister said today, and pointed out correctly, I might add, the capacity in Grand Falls now is topped out. That is as high as it can go.

Look at the geography. Look at the map of Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, specifically, we are taking about the Island portion. So, we have a dialysis machine in Grand Falls. There is hope by the Member for Gander, and power to her, that there be one in Gander, and with the numbers that she talked about today, fair enough. Then, Mr. Speaker, look at the map and start to drive out the highway. You leave Grand Falls and you pass by Robert's Arm, all of Springdale, King's Point, Little Bay Islands, all of that area, pass by all of the Baie Verte Peninsula, we keep on going and we end up in Corner Brook before we hit another one. Is that right? That is the question today.

Then, from the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, turn up the Northern Peninsula and drive another five hours. As a matter of fact, he always makes reference to the fact that when he drives home, which he does quite often, when he leaves St. John's and gets to the Baie Verte turnoff, he is halfway to St. Anthony; halfway

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that geography and road conditions should certainly play a part in where we strategically locate this type of equipment. That is certainly a point that has to be made here today because this man in La Scie - and I started to give the example earlier today - used to drive from La Scie over the road that is unbelievable and treacherous; even the Premier alluded to it again today. As a matter of fact, I understand he just drove down a little while ago and they had to put pylons in front of the holes so he would not go down in the holes. That is how bad it was.

Mr. Speaker, there are many conditions around like that, but the point we are speaking to today is the access to health care. That man would leave La Scie and drive to Grand Falls for the dialysis machine. He got so tired of doing it - with his wife, back and forth, beating over that road, they had to leave their home, in the wintertime they would leave their home and camp out in a cabin in Badger Lake. That is what they did. This man would call me on his cellphone - one of the saddest cases I have ever dealt with - to tell me that was what they were doing. I do not know if they borrowed a cabin or if they bought a cabin, but they stayed because they could not afford anything else. They certainly could not afford to be driving back and forth anyway. They used to end up in a cabin in Badger Lake during the winter months because the weather was so bad and the road conditions were so bad. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. That is not good enough for people in our Province, and these elderly people to have to beat over that road for this particular service. That is not fair access to health care in this Province. It is sort of disgusting, in a lot of ways, to hear other cases around this Province similar.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to stand today and put my point forward on the MRI scanner that is so desperately needed and also dialysis machines throughout this Province. We have to keep in mind and look at the map every now and then. Look at the map of Newfoundland and Labrador when those decisions are made. That is a simple thing to do. You do not have to be a geography expert, but when you look at that map and put a star down where all those dialysis machines are around this Province you should remember there is a big gap in this Province when it comes to those machines. The Northern Peninsula, the Baie Verte Peninsula, the Green Bay-Springdale area are all left out. (Inaudible) Central Newfoundland and the West Coast, that is fine, I am glad for them. I know of people in those areas too who want access to those. I am just saying that it has to be fair. All those points I raise today must be kept in mind when decisions are made.

Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution as put forward by my colleague. As far as changing the amendment, I do not have it in front of me to read out again today, but basically, instead of allocating the money, they say to keep on encouraging the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the time for encouraging is quickly passing. People are desperate for this type of health care in this Province. It is something that should be supported, and we talk about spending money wisely. I commend the people of Grand Falls, just a week or so ago, with George MacLaren and VOCM and the good job they do with fundraising every year. God help us if we did not have those people to help out because I do not know where we would get.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I support the original resolution as presented.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank all the hon. members who today stood in this House and spoke in support of the motion. I have to say, I find it extremely disappointing that we have an amendment put forward on this resolution and the amendment does not necessarily disagree with having an MRI scanner somewhere off the Avalon. In fact, the amendment does not necessarily disagree with having it somewhere in Grand Falls, Gander, Corner Brook, or somewhere on the West Coast. What the amendment says, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the minister and his government are not prepared to make the commitment to do it. What it says is it wants to recommend - in fact, it does not even say recommend. It says it wants to encourage the provincial government to do it in accordance with a study and after consultation with the boards.

Mr. Speaker, I guess fundamentally, we, too, on this side of the House would not necessarily disagree with the notion that we need to have a look at it and a study should be done. In fact, I understand the study has already been done, and the study recommends having another MRI scanner. In fact, we would not disagree with the part of the amendment that says it should be done in consultation with the three boards because the three boards obviously have been together talking about this for some year now. It was over a year ago they made the proposal.

So we do not disagree with (a) having an independent study make a recommendation; or (b) having the three boards agree among themselves because we already have those two things done. What we take some exception to and express some surprise over is that there are nine members on that side of the House, from the Premier, four cabinet ministers - eleven members on that side of the House, who by virtue of the wording of this agreement, are saying to their constituents: We do not want to make a commitment to put an MRI machine in your part of the Province. That is the implication of the amendment.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit in my place and listen to the hon. Member for Trinity North do his spin doctoring again in terms of trying to interpret what this member and other members from that area have said. He knows what he is saying is misleading. He is misleading. It is misleading in what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member, we have said here, and I have said when I spoke in debate today, that the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, nobody standing here today had any problem with the issue that the hon. member brought forward. What he is suggesting in his resolution and what the amendment that has been put forward is seeking to do is to allow the process to proceed. I suggest to him, it is pretty fair. What he is wanting to do is preempt the process that we presently have in place. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this minister and these members opposite are not prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would not want, ever, for anybody in this House to think that I was trying to preempt the process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minister an opportunity to, in fact, leave the process portion in his amendment. All he needs to do is take the first four or five words and change them. Instead of having the minister say, "that this House of Assembly encourage the provincial government..." I will allow the minister to take those few words out and leave the process in place. All he needs to do is take those few words out and keep ours in, because what we have said is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should allocate the funding. That is all. That does not change the process. The process stays in place. We would never pre-empt the process. We would never say take it away from the boards. We would say, leave that there. Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister an opportunity to change six or seven words and all it will do is reflect those eleven members' commitment to their constituents and it will reflect a commitment to rural Newfoundland and health care in rural Newfoundland, and will not undermine the process; will not undermine three health boards; will not undermine a consultant report; and will not undermine any kind of consultative process that we encourage. So, Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister leave, if he would like, to withdraw those six words from his amendment and it will be fine.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here is we agree with the process. I express disappointment, though, that the eleven members opposite would want to weaken this resolution by suggesting that they are only going to encourage. Now, how strong a word is encourage. What we are saying is we want them to allocate it. We do not want them to encourage their buddies, we do not want them to encourage their colleagues, and we do not want to change the process. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what we express some concern about and some surprise, that all eleven of them, from the Premier to Cabinet to backbenchers, would now want to weaken a motion that we put forward that would enhance health services in Western Newfoundland and in Central Newfoundland.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would have to acknowledge that the Member for Humber East came the closest today in supporting the motion that we have put forward, because I think he said I agree with the motion. He said it categorically. So, it appears that on that side of the House there maybe some difference of opinion on the amendment that has been put forward by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, in conclusion, if the minister is not prepared to withdraw those five or six words and make this motion unanimous in this House, that we endorse the process and we strengthen the commitment, I do not know what else we can suggest.

MR. SMITH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have been patient and let the hon. member speak without interruption, but in all fairness, I do not like the tone that he is trying to present here this evening in trying to portray this minister and hon. members opposite, in that somehow we are not speaking out for the people who we represent. Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. Member for Trinity North, speaking for myself, the people for Port au Port definitely do not need him speaking for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: I can tell you I am quite prepared to stand at any time and represent the people who sent me here. I certainly will not take any direction, and I certainly will not look to him if I am looking for a model to follow in how to represent the people who sent me here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have heard the final message from the minister.

I do not know what else I can add to this debate today, other than to thank everybody who supported the motion, and wish everybody in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland well in their efforts to try to ensure that health services are enhanced in their areas and they are successful in getting an MRI sometime in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the house ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution as amended, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.