MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the House of Assembly a former member of the House and former Member of Parliament, John Efford. Good to see you.

Welcome to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am pleased to see in the gallery as well, a good friend of mine and retired Judge, Gordon Seabright.

Welcome to the House as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the hon. the Member for Topsail, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, and the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend congratulations and thanks to eight-year-old Alana Drover from Badger, who made her own decision to have her hair cut and donated towards the making of wigs for cancer patients.

This little girl stepped into L'Oasis Hair and Body Spa and Alana's mother, Courtney who works as a hairstylist, had the honour of giving her daughter her new look. In the span of ten seconds, she looked like a different person. She cut her hair to donate it towards the making of wigs for cancer patients.

Mr. Speaker, this little girl said she saw the idea on TV and had been talking about cutting her hair for some time. She thought it would be nice to help people who get sick and lose their hair and her only concern was that her hair would make a good wig. As a result of Alana's kind gesture, her cousin recently had her hair cut to donate as well.

Penny Pardy, community resource coordinator at the Canadian Cancer Society's Grand Falls-Windsor district office, said that for a child of her age to care so much about other children, especially sick children, and to cut her hair for such a cause, is amazing. She was more concerned about kids helping kids.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending congratulations and thanks to eight-year-old Alana Drover on her kind gesture to donate her own hair toward the making of wigs for cancer patients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Conception Bay South Fire Department on their thirty-fourth year of community protection to the residents and visitors of our town. On April 28, I had the privilege of attending their Annual Ball that was attended by over 170 firefighters, family and friends.

We can never underestimate the contribution these members and their families make as they are always there when we are in need. When most of us are running away from fire these men and women are running towards it. In the Conception Bay South Fire Department, we have a paid and a volunteer core of firefighters. It is because of the leadership of Chief Richard Murphy, Deputy Chief Dennis Morgan and Assistant Chief Ralph Fagan, Captains, Lieutenants and the unwavering support of all firefighters that permits this department to work as one cohesive group.

Also, during the event Sean Nugent was awarded his thirty-year service pin and I had the privilege of presenting Mr. Kevin Whelan with his twenty-year service medal and certificate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in acknowledging the contribution the members of the Conception Bay South Fire Department have made for the past thirty-four years.

Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Alec D. Moores, a Harbour Grace businessman and eighty-seven-year-old fishing pioneer, who just marked seventy years in the workforce.

Mr. Moores was born in Blackhead, Conception Bay on December 30, 1919, and started work at age seventeen with the Bank of Nova Scotia in Fogo. He worked in branches at Twillingate, Grand Bank, Harbour Grace and St. John's before leaving the banking world in 1944 to work for importer/exporter Steers Ltd. in St. John's and Montreal.

In 1947, he started what would become six decades in the fishing industry when he returned to Newfoundland to work for Northeastern Fish Industries Ltd. where he served as vice-president and general manager.

These days, Mr. Moores makes the drive to Bay Roberts every morning, where he is still active in the operations of Harbour International and Alec D. Moores Ltd. Harbour International Ltd. operates a warehouse where frozen fish - mostly shrimp and turbot - is landed, stored and graded for transshipping all over the world. The firm also buys blueberries and ships them to the U.S. and Japanese markets.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Moores served two terms as president of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and was a director of the Fisheries Resource Council of Canada and a member of Memorial University's Board of Regents. He also served a s a politician in the capacity of former mayor and was elected to the House of Assembly in 1966 as the Liberal MHA for Harbour Grace. In 2002, he was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in recognizing Mr. Alec D. Moores, a Harbour Grace businessman and eighty-seven-year-old fishing pioneer who just marked seventy years in the workforce.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today to recognize an individual from my district who has devoted so much of his time to the Scouting Movement in the Conception Bay South area.

Mr. Bob Dunham has been the Conception Bay South Lions Club representative for the 1^st Topsail and the 1^st CBS Scout Groups since the year 2000. As the Lions Club sponsors both groups, it is his duty to act as liaison between the two groups. The support he has received in carrying out his duty for the past seven years has been outstanding to the Scouting Movement in this area.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Boy Scouts Movement celebrates its one-hundredth anniversary. On February 28, the Conception Bay South Lions Club hosted a dinner for the leaders of the scout groups and an appreciation certificate was presented to each leader from the Conception Bay South Lions Club.

At this event, Mr. Speaker, Lion Bob Dunham was presented with a Commemorative Centennial Medal from Scouts Canada. Mr. Speaker, this was the first time this medal was presented anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. Bob was very touched by this acknowledgment and expressed his thanks to Scouts Canada for bestowing upon him such an honour. Bob also received a ribbon and a certificate signed by the Governor General.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Bob Dunham for his outstanding contribution to Scouting in our area and on his receiving this very prestigious award from Scouts Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a constituent from my district, Sarah White of Deer Lake. She recently received three prestigious awards at the 55^th Annual Ceremonial Review and Inspection of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps # 73.

Sarah - a Level II student at Elwood Regional High and a fifth year cadet - received the Instructors Award, the Commanding Officer Award and the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence Award.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah's successes represent another example of the youth in our Province. She is a dedicated student and a committed member of her community. She was one of six youth from Elwood Regional High who were recently chosen to represent my district at a Leadership Conference in Ottawa which is scheduled for September.

She is a member of the school Enviro-thon team and will be among fifteen youth from her high school to travel to Kill Devil Camp this weekend to represent her school. She is involved in the student council, the Wellness Committee, the Students Against Drunk Drivers Committee and the Human Rights Group. In her spare time, she also works part-time at a local grocery store.

Sarah is the younger of two children of Dorman and Wanda White of Deer Lake. She hopes to further her education at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College upon graduation in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to Sarah White. This exceptional young lady is a great example of the talent we have in our Province's youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of attending the awards ceremony for the Newfoundland and Labrador finalists in the 2007 Canada Day Poster Challenge.

The poster challenge is an annual event where students, aged eighteen and under, are encouraged to design original posters, based on a given theme, that demonstrate their creativity and their pride in Canada. This year's theme is: A Portrait of Canada: Celebrating 140 years.

Mr. Speaker, the contest takes place in each province and territory where winners are selected in four age categories. An overall provincial winner is then selected to represent the Province at the national competition in Ottawa.

The winners in our Province this year included: six-year-old Julie Pink, ten-year-old Jane Qi, thirteen-year-old Stephanie Tucker, and seventeen-year-old Sonya Hass.

Sonya was also selected as the overall provincial winner and she, along with a guardian, will be given an all-expense paid trip to Ottawa to attend the Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of the artwork submitted from across this Province was outstanding, and we should all be very proud of our talented students.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the participants and in wishing our provincial finalist, Sonya Hass, the best of luck in Ottawa.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to advise this hon. House, and the people who live in the tiny Labrador communities of Norman Bay and Williams Harbour, that my department recognizes the challenge of isolation facing these communities. At this time of year, ice conditions are such that snowmobile travel is impossible. In many parts of Labrador, people depend on their snowmobile just as most of us rely on our automobiles.

At present, the bays where Williams Harbour and Norman Bay are located are relatively ice free. This means there is enough open water to operate a ferry; however, the ferry MV Challenge 1, which serves these communities, is not available until the scheduled start of the service in early June.

Mr. Speaker, so that the good people of Norman Bay and Williams Harbour can conduct business and ship freight, the Department of Transportation and Works has responded to their call for interim service. We are providing a weekly grant of $1,500 so that two local vessels can operate up to two times a week, weather and ice permitting, between these communities of Port Hope Simpson and Charlottetown.

This temporary service will remain in effect until the forces of Mother Nature allow the MV Challenge 1 to reach these ports.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a proactive approach to ferry service in this Province, as we are currently in the midst of a vessel replacement strategy. In addition to building new ferries, we are reducing costs to users.

In March, this government reduced passenger and vehicle-plus-driver fares on provincial ferries to bring them in line with road equivalency costs. We also cancelled the 5 per cent, across the board, rate increase for all fares that was scheduled to take effect April 1. This initiative is the first phase of our ferry rate review, and the annual cost to government will approach $1.5 million.

Phase II will focus on commercial vehicle and freight rates. Government will gather further data on commercial traffic and freight rates, further analyze the customer impact of changes and develop criteria for the design of a new commercial vehicle/freight rate schedule. Phase II will take place over the next year.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the people of Labrador and those who rely on ferry travel, and we will do whatever we can to provide services they need and deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I only want to say one thing on the ferry rates in that part of the region: It has taken the government four years to do an analysis and to come up with a new rate system. I think it is high time it was done, and that it happen, but I won't say any more about that.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing here is responding to a very legitimate transportation need in a part of our Province, in one of the ruralist, most remote communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Through probing my office and others in the district last week, we were asking for helicopter service to go in and out of those communities. Maybe the minister is not aware, but the ferry service he talks about today, and put in place for Norman Bay, has been hampered by ice in terms of being able to operate.

Minister, since Friday they have had no way to even run a vessel in and out of that community, so maybe today what you should have been announcing was a helicopter service to allow for the real movement and transport of people and services in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, the government here says they recognize the challenge of isolation faced by these communities but they certainly do not, Mr. Speaker, or are not concerned about it; because, if they were, they would be building a road into Williams Harbour today and not cancelling it as they did in the fall of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, the pleas of the people in Norman Bay -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has lapsed.

MS JONES: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: I clue up with this comment, because the pleas of the people in Norman Bay to this government for road access has fallen on deaf ears. The only thing that the government has produced in terms of a real transportation connection for these communities in the last four years was a report that says we will not build roads to communities where it is not economically viable.

Maybe, Minister, this is an indication that there is a need for a service in a rural isolated area of this Province and it is time that government address it seriously and build roads there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I certainly will not add to what my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has said. It is her purview to speak to the communities in her district, and I really appreciate what she has said.

I would like to point out that the minister has to have many concerns about travel in Labrador, and I am really interested in finding out whether or not the government and the minister have made any headway with the federal government on getting the cost-sharing for the Trans-Labrador Highway, because that is all still up in the air as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the shocking news that a radiologist on the Burin Peninsula was suspended on May 10 after other employees at the Burin Peninsula Health Centre questioned the decisions and interpretations of this radiologist. The CEO of Eastern Health said these concerns were raised in late February.

I ask the Minister of Health: What is the protocol for investigating situations like this, and did you ask Mr. Tilley why he waited almost three months before suspending the radiologist and acting on these concerns, and another two weeks before making the news public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member wanted to know the process here. Clearly, when this individual was hired back in November, that individual was credentialed through the Newfoundland College of Physicians. So it went through a very stringent credentialing process, and was then recruited by Eastern Health to work on the Burin Peninsula.

When those issues came forward back in February, the first thing they wanted to do was to get an understanding of the nature of the complaints. They have done that investigation. As a part of that review process, they had a sampling of this physician's tests that they had read, reviewed by another group of radiologists, who came to a conclusion that there were some problems in the reporting. The process clearly is, once there is some sense that there is a problem, has been brought forward by some of this physician's colleagues on the Burin Peninsula, they then proceeded to get a good understanding of the nature of the complaints and the degree to which there was some validity to them. They have been able to verify that and they have now moved forward and taken appropriate action by suspending the privileges of this particular physician.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has just said is absolutely incredible! That this individual, having been identified as doing something wrong, was allowed to stay and practice even after that was identified back in February. Six thousand reports would have to be every report that radiologist did while he was in the employ of the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said the mistakes by this radiologist were picked up through the health boards quality assurance initiative. Mr. Tilley said the concerns were raised by hospital staffers which prompted the board to act.

Minister, the inconsistencies in your account and that of Mr. Tilley only raise more questions and cause more concerns. How is it that 6,000 reports could be done by a radiologist before any action is taken?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that the member needs to be very careful of when she speaks publicly and asks questions in this House, when we look at our health system, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about electrical or mechanical systems, we are talking about people. We are talking about real people providing real services to real patients, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Anytime there is a concern raised around the quality of health services being provided, what has been brought into question is the credentials, the qualifications, the abilities of individual physicians, other practitioners who are providing services. Anytime that an issue gets raised by a health authority, or within a health authority, it brings into question the quality of care being provided. The immediate response is not just start firing people, you need to understand exactly what has taken place here. In this particular situation there was an issue that was brought to the attention of Eastern Health. They needed to understand what the extent of that was. They needed to have some of those tests rechecked to see the nature of the errors that were being made, and they followed the normal protocol and have done just that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the minister is coming from. Obviously, he has a new way of thinking because this is the same minister who understood that the board had to be concerned about the possibility of litigation, at the same time trying to balance the interests of the patients concerned. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous that we have a Minister of Health stand up and try and defend the board because of litigation, and here he talks from the other side of his mouth about the concerns of patients.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 6,000 reports and 3,500 patients. Mr. Tilley is on record as saying that the Department of Health was briefed at every step of the way with respect to the breast cancer issue that surfaced at Eastern Health recently; yet, we are led to believe by the minister that the first time he was made aware of this issue with the radiologist that impacts the lives of 3,500 people was this past Friday.

I ask the minister: Was anyone else in the department briefed on this issue prior to Friday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand from my officials, the first time anyone in the Department of Heath and Community Services became aware of this issue was on May 10. I became aware, as I shared with you yesterday, on Friday of last week. I got the details last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Now we are getting some information, Mr. Speaker. We will get a bit more as the time goes on. It tastes like pulling teeth, but we will get it out of them yet.

Mr. Speaker, there is yet more bad news for the people on the Burin Peninsula who depend on Eastern Health to deliver quality health care services. There is a delay in the opening in the dialyses unit because the board does not have the nurses to operate it. The people who were assured that this service would be available once the equipment was in place cannot believe that more planning did not go into this by either the board or by the department. After convincing the people on the Burin Peninsula to fund raise for their portion of the money required for the dialysis unit, now they are being told: Sorry, but we don't have the nurses to operate the unit.

I ask the minister: What is your department doing to correct this and when can we expect to see this turned around?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the member opposite asking the questions represents a district on the Burin Peninsula and all I have heard in the last two days is fearmongering about the health services in the district that she represents. I heard her this morning on Open Line talking about how deplorable this issue was and that this was a reflection of poor quality of care being provided. Now today she is talking about the absence of dialysis services.

What the member does not realize, and if she had been listening in this House would fully understand, the commitment was made to have the service from the date of the announcement, within eighteen or twenty-four months the service would be up and running. As it turns out, the service will be up and running within eighteen months. The staff who are going to work in that service have already been identified. They know they are going to work there.

The issue is, the person who is going to work in that area is moving from another location within Eastern Health on the Burin Peninsula and just needs a transition for the summer vacation. The person who is going to work there has been identified. They know they are going to work there. As it turns out, the service will be up and running consistent with the normal timelines that we committed to in the first place.

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services led the House of Assembly to believe that all hormone receptor testing for women affected by breast cancer was being done in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, Eastern Health confirmed today that the only testing now being completed is that for patients in the Eastern Health region. In fact, testing for Labrador, Western and Central continues to be done at Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario.

I ask the minister: He stated on May 17 that we have a Centre of Excellence at the Health Sciences Centre serving the women of this Province, so what is the reason these tests are being sent out of the Province and not done at this new Centre of Excellence in St. John's?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member uses words like, led to believe. What I had indicated in this House and publicly, with the lab, was now reopened in February 2007, pure and simple. I had indicated the lab was reopened in February, 2007.

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Pathologist at Eastern Health has indicated that he does not have the staffing complement to be able to complete all the hormone receptor testing for the various boards in the Province. Yesterday, the minister said that they have made a tremendous enhancement to the compensation package. However, clearly, this has not been successful.

I ask the minister: What other initiatives are you doing to put the necessary supports in place to allow this testing to take place for the entire Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated, clearly, yesterday that we have made some major improvements in the compensation package for pathologists. That has been a recent announcement. I indicated, clearly, that the Eastern Health were continuing with their recruitment initiatives to be able to recruit additional pathologists for the Province and that is an ongoing effort, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I had indicated to him yesterday in the House that there are some twenty-one approved positions with Eastern Health for pathology positions and we will continue to endeavour to have those continuously filled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, that will be another booth, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, the government reduced the number of health care boards in the Province from fourteen down to four in 2004.

I ask the minister: Has the decision to make the health care agencies so large, restricting the level of attention, that important issues like we hearing about today are not receiving the proper attention on a daily basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when this government made an announcement to merge health authorities in this Province, we now have four regional health authorities. We believe that they are appropriately staffed with good senior people who have the abilities and skills to manage the health system. We have been able to actually create some economies of scale. We have been able to pool resources to provide a better health care service for the system.

What is very critical about this, Mr. Speaker, is that when we made that move we made an integration. We now have a totally seamless health system. We span the institutional side. We span the community side. We have now provided integrated services, whether you are in the community or you are in the institution, whether patients are making a transition from the community into an institution or from an institution out into the community. We now have a seamless movement of patients and provision of services across the community and the institutional sector, I say, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a huge seam, I think, especially in hormone receptor tests, and I just identified that.

Mr. Speaker, with the problems that we have identified with the Eastern Health Authority with inaccurate hormone receptor testing of women affected by breast cancer, many people are questioning what has happened and the extent to which these problems exist across the Province.

I ask the minister: Have you, your department, or the health authorities across the Province, been made aware of any other problems or potential problems that may impact the health of individuals anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am confident that each of the four authorities, through their quality improvement initiatives, are evaluating the programs and services they provide on an ongoing basis.

They are always looking for opportunities to improve, to enhance and to build on what is now being provided, so I would assume that each authority out there, not only in this Province but throughout the country, would be continuously re-evaluating what they are doing, continuously looking at how they provide programs and services, and if at any time they identify a better way of doing it, then they do so. If at any time they find that there is a problem in the way in which they are delivering the service, or the quality of that service, they take an action and improve it. That is what the whole process of quality improvement is all about.

I am not going to stand here today and suggest to you that every single thing that has been done and every single nook and cranny today in this Province could not be improved upon. I say they could be, Mr. Speaker. That is the definition of continuous quality improvement, and that is a term that is continuously being used in the health sector, I say, Mr. Speaker, and something the member opposite should be very much aware of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we can see if we can get something of substance out of this minister. The false results of the breast cancer testing continues to raise concerns today, and I would like to continue to probe who knew what, when, because you are pretty good at hiding stuff.

At the briefing of Eastern Health care today, we were advised that this issue was first brought to the attention of the former Minister of Health in July 2005. Another Minister of Health, the current Minister of Justice, was given a briefing in November of 2006. Meanwhile, between that time period, July 2005 and November 2006, ongoing briefings were provided to the various Health Ministers on this issue. That was made known to us this morning, and confirmed by Eastern Avalon Health. At no time during this period was the public made aware of these problems.

I ask the Minister of Health: Why was the public of this Province left in the dark for sixteen months? That is the issue here. Why were they left in the dark, Minister? You all knew.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, he did not need to go to that briefing to find that out. All he had to do was listen to me a couple of days ago, because I gave him that answer a couple of days ago.

With respect to the whole issue of process here, I just want to bring the member back to a comment I made the other day in the House. This is important, I think, Mr. Speaker, to understand how this unfolded.

Back in May 2005 when the Eastern Health Authority recognized that they had an issue here, they started to evaluate the extent to which it existed. When they realized that they had some 900-and-some-odd tests that had been done, that had been tested negative, at that particular time they pulled together, Mr. Speaker, a subcommittee of their ethics committee which consists of people from the community - physicians and others who are experts in this field - to look at how they might do this, how they start to deal with the issue that they had before them.

One of the things, the advice that Eastern Health was given at that time, rather than create alarms among 900-and-some-odd people who may not have any change in their circumstance whatsoever, they decided at that time, and the advice that they received at that time from that group, was to do the tests first rather than to alarm 900-and-some-odd people, to do the tests first. When the test results were done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the co-operation of all members in keeping their questions and their answers roughly to a minute.

The Chair will pass it back to the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind the minister taking all of the time in the world if he is going to give the people of this Province an answer, but I have no time, and they have no time, to listen to a bunch of guff, and that is what we are getting out of this minister.

I say to the minister: We know where you stood in The Telegram when you put the cost of litigation ahead of lives in this Province. That is what you did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is pretty simple and straightforward. Never mind what Eastern Health did. Why did you, as the Minister of Health, not inform the public of this Province of this issue? Why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Let me continue, Mr. Speaker, because this is important. It is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand this.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2005 Eastern Health sought advice, sought advice from an expert group of people, as to how to handle the 900-and-some-odd test results that they had to deal with. The advice that they were given at that time, rather than create undue anxiety for 900-and-some-odd people, let's do all the tests first and then we will decide how we are going to manage it then.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when the test results started to come back in October 2005, the people whose tested were impacted were contacted. As we indicated earlier, there were 117 people who had their tests come back different. They needed a change in their treatment regime, and that happened.

The remaining people who were impacted - and this is important, something has been lost on the members opposite - those other 200 people whose test results had changed were contacted either directly by Eastern Health or through their family physicians. Those individuals whose tests were impacted by those results had contact made to them and appropriate action taken with respect to their treatment, I say, Mr. Speaker.

For the members opposite, what is very important in this, those people who were impacted by this had knowledge. Those people who were impacted were informed. The mass media of Newfoundland and Labrador may not have known -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that you ultimately have to cut this minister off, because he says absolutely nothing.

Mr. Minister, I will ask the question again, a different tact, because you obviously do not want to discuss this issue: Did you, as the Minister of Health - a pretty straightforward question - at any time, as the Minister of Health, when this matter was brought to your attention - you knew it was very serious - did you discuss this issue or seek any legal advice from anyone in government or the Department of Justice?

That is pretty straightforward.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, what is really important here is an understanding of the facts. What is really important is an understanding of the facts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, when these test results started to come back in October of 2005, the people who were impacted, contact was made with them. As those results came back in October 2005, and February 2006, those individuals who had their test results changed were contacted. So those individuals who knew had contact made with them.

The issue here, in terms of legal opinion, Eastern Health have their own solicitors. Eastern Health sought their own legal advice, from their own law firm who provides advice to them. They, in turn, got their legal advice directly from their own solicitors. Any reference I have ever made to legal counsel has always been referenced to what legal advice Eastern Health received. Eastern Health received their own independent legal advice from their own law firm and any legal advice on this issue has been provided by their firm.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province, I say to the minister, will not be fooled. You are not ducking this issue. I will ask you again. Never mind a BS answer. I asked you a straightforward question. The people of this Province deserve an answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am the last one in this House to get up during Question Period on a point of order, but I am not going to allow the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, or anybody on the other side to take this House on their back. I do not care if we run through every minute of Question Period, BS - everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows what BS is. BS is out of out of order, Your Honour, and I would ask that the hon. member be directed to withdraw it forthwith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Wishing to speak to the point of order -

MR. PARSONS: No, I withdraw the comment, BS, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it, not a problem. It is unparliamentary. I said it and I withdraw it. That does not detract from the seriousness of this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the co-operation of the hon. member.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Like I said, I did withdraw it and I will withdraw the remark. This is an important issue and this minister cannot duck the issue.

Now my question, again, to this minister - never mind what legal advice Eastern Health had. My question to you, the Minister of Health, have you at any time, in your capacity as Minister of Health, sought any legal advice or discussed this matter with anyone once it was brought to your attention in the Department of Justice of this Province or anyone else to seek legal advice? Now that is pretty straightforward, minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If members opposite are going to ask questions they need to listen to the answers. I had said - just reflect on what I said a moment ago. I said any legal opinion provided on this issue has been provided by Eastern Health's own private legal counsel. Any legal opinion provided on this issue has been provided by Eastern Health's legal counsel, their own independent legal counsel. Their lawyers are the only individuals who have been asked for or provided a legal opinion on this issue. How much clearer do you want to have the answer?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I put to the minister, we know now the results of the briefing this morning that the legal counsel involved here, the law firm of Stewart McKelvey are the legal counsel to the insurance company which insures Eastern Health. That is who gave advice to Eastern Health. They are not the legal counsel to the government and to the minister. It has also been confirmed by Mr. Tilley, because I asked the question of him this morning, when you brought this attention to the minister, do you know if any of the ministers that you talked to this about went to Justice? He said: I do not know, we have our own lawyers. So, they do not advise you, minister.

My question again to you, minister - Stewart McKelvey is not your law firm because you distanced yourself, by the way. You people only took moral responsibility for this, at this point. You do not want any legal responsibility. But my question is the same and it is very straightforward. Have you, knowing about this serious issue, once it was brought to your attention, did you ever think that it might be important, it might be necessary, it might be an obvious step that you should consult with somebody in Justice? I am asking you, did you do that, and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will make it a little clearer for the member opposite because obviously, when I said the only legal advice was legal advice provided to Eastern Health. He did not understand or did not conclude that that was the only legal advice provided on this opinion. The Department of Justice has not been asked for a legal opinion on this issue by the Department of Health and Community Services.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I, at least, now know that this minister did not take it upon himself to get any advice. That is fine, thank you, finally. Pulling teeth again.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: When he was the Minister of Health and it was brought to his attention back in 2005, did he, at any time, discuss this matter with anyone in the Department of Justice and seek a legal opinion regarding this issue when it was brought to his attention on his watch as early as July, 2005? That is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member opposite asks a lot of questions but he is not really listening to the answers. I do not know how much clearer I can make it again, but let me repeat it. Let me repeat it, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members of the House know that it is the responsibility of the Opposition and other private members to ask questions. The government will decide who answers.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me repeat it again. I ask the member opposite to pay attention this time. I had said clearly that the Department of Health and Community Services, as a department, has not asked the Department of Justice, as a department, for a legal opinion on this issue. Period. That is crystal clear. It identifies that the department has not sought legal advice. Hopefully, that satisfies the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My question, too, is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, when the MHAs had their briefings over the past two days with Eastern Health Authority, we learned that in order to maintain proficiency and quality control in the laboratory that does estrogen and progesterone receptor testing, Eastern Health must have a stable team of specialists devoted to breast cancer treatment. Pathologists form an essential component of this team. I understand from the head of pathology that there has been a 100 per cent turnover of staff over the past number of years which is affecting the stability of the team. The head of pathology has indicated that poor retention of pathologists is an ongoing issue that has been brought up to government over the past three years.

My question for the minister is: Is this government ready to offer remuneration to pathologists competitive to that in other parts of Canada in the same way that it already offers stipends to oncologists in order to attract and keep the specialists we need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the member opposite in her question. She made a reference to the last three years, but I want to extend that. Since 1997, long before we formed government, until 2006-2007, I told you yesterday that there are twenty-one positions at Eastern Health. They have been occupied by some thirty-seven people. That is a turnover of one point seven, and that has occurred since 1997 up to now, so it is not a new issue, I say, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday in the House.

The whole issue of supply of pathologists in this entire country, we are not generating enough as a country to satisfy the supply we have in this country, so it is not just unique to this Province. In fact, it is not just the last three years; it has been a long-standing issue.

To the second part of your question, it is a very specific question in terms of what exactly are we going to pay the pathologists. The question you have asked, we are, in fact, doing that. That is exactly what we are doing. We are, in fact, providing for them a stipend consistent with that of the oncologists in the Province.

I made that comment here yesterday in the House, that we have now enhanced the compensation, and that is the manner in which we have enhanced it, I say to the member opposite.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then I need the minister to tell me when that happened, because I have been told, as of this morning, by the head of pathology, that is not the case. I had a pathologist sitting in my office two hours ago telling me the same thing. So, if it has happened, when has it happened? When was the announcement made? Because the pathologists do not know they are getting the stipend.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is an arrangement that was negotiated between government and their association. That information has been communicated directly to the Medical Association, who in turn will communicate it directly to the pathologists involved; because we have, in fact, communicated directly to Eastern Health as well, who are the employer here in this case.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, time for one brief supplementary.

MS MICHAEL: I still did not hear when, Mr. Speaker. It was the head of the Association of Pathologists this morning who said that the stipend has not been approved yet, so when is the head of the association and the head of this department at the Health Sciences going to find out?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The decision was made, I think, last week. It has been communicated directly to the Medical Association.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, we will have to recess the House if members do not co-operate.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

The Chair understands that there is a private member's motion that was presented to the House yesterday and is standing in the name of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The Chair will not read the WHEREASes but we will read the THEREFORE, quoting as follows:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is: independent, has broad terms of reference established with input from all parties in the House of Assembly, and has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet Ministers and Department of Health officials into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this private member's motion in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is being presented, I guess, at a time where we feel that there is a very serious issue that has developed with regard to testing for breast cancer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, the treatments that thus followed those particular tests.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution, initially presented by myself a week ago, was calling upon the government to do a judicial inquiry into this very issue.

Just to give you some background, for the record, the issue that I refer to is a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which ER and PR testing - that is Estrogen and Progesterone testing - in the Province for women who had been impacted by breast cancer, to determine what further therapies they would require to be able to deal with their disease, it was discovered, Mr. Speaker, in 2005 that there were probably some samples that had been reported in the lab in Eastern Health care in St. John's that may have been misread or had errors.

It was determined at that time that over 939 individual samples that were reported as negative would be sent out for retesting at another hospital, the Mount Sinai Hospital in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, 736 of these cases were reviewed. The reason the remaining 176 cases were not reviewed was because those patients had since been deceased. As a result of those retesting, the Eastern Health Corporation had decided that 117 individuals, in total, would need recommended treatment changes.

Mr. Speaker, those statistics and this information, while it has been in the possession of government since July 2005 and has been an ongoing issue within the Eastern Health Care Corporation, the full magnitude and scope of this particular issue has only surfaced in the broader perspective of the public within the last ten days.

During that ten day period we, as an Opposition, were totally alarmed, as I am sure many people in the Province were, to be notified that there was a 42 per cent error rate in the over 2,000 tests that had been conducted through this laboratory since 1997 and, in fact, had affected the lives of so many victims of breast cancer in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we attempted to do was to hold Eastern Health accountable in terms of finding the answers and the information, as well as holding the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador accountable through the Department of Health and Community Services.

Last week, as an Opposition, we spent our time probing the government for answers, and I was absolutely alarmed and astounded at the minister's initial response to this issue as it broke on May 15 in the media.

Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that not only have we already ascertained information that indicated that 176 of these women have since been deceased, but we have also been told that thirty-six of these women in particular would have received the alternative treatment, had they been still alive to do so.

That kind of information, no doubt, provides one to want to probe deeper into an issue and find out the real result of all of this.

Mr. Speaker, when we begin to question the government and the minister in the House of Assembly, the minister in a scrum outside made this comment to the media - and I think this is probably a comment that made all of us stand up and take notice a little bit more about what was happening around this issue. The minister said this: I understand and appreciate the dilemma they found themselves in, trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed a change in treatment and their responsibility to protecting the interests of the organization in the event of litigation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, any government that wanted to take a moral high ground would not be making a statement like that. Any government or minister who wanted to ensure there was accountability and confidence in the health care system would be probing into this particular issue and looking for as much information and as many answers as possibly they could obtain. So, it was because of those statements that we knew we had to move immediately to call upon the government to do a judicial review into this particular incident and what was happening here.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken lots of questions. It has taken lots of probing and it has taken a lot of media coverage in order for the government to finally, this week, decide that they would, in fact, proceed with a judicial review. Then, Mr. Speaker, we had to call upon the government to have the ministers who were involved and had knowledge of this issue, going back some as early as 2005, to remove themselves from the Terms of Reference that would be the basis of this entire judicial review.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is basically the history of what has transpired in the last few days since this particular information has come to light. The ministers have agreed to remove themselves from the involvement in the Terms of Reference simply because of conflict, which was very evident for anyone who was looking at this with a public interest. How could you have a judicial inquiry into an issue that affected the very Department of Health and Community Services, along with the Eastern Health Care Corporation, and have the very people who are involved in those departments be the people that determines the Terms of Reference for a judicial review?

Mr. Speaker, it was only a very sensible and logical move that the ministers would not be a part of this but, instead, it had to take consistent pressing and probing on behalf of the Opposition in order to get them to see what a conflict this would be, and, in fact, that the only logical, right thing and moral thing to do would be to remove themselves from that particular process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact still remains: How much involvement has the Cabinet had in this particular issue? Has the Cabinet been engaged in this issue since 2005? Have they had knowledge of it and, as well, had decided to keep this information in the privacy of the government domain and not allow it to be leaked out to the public? We do not know the answer to that question. We do not know that yet. I am sure we will get to it in the days ahead, but my concern is this, that if this was a Cabinet discussion, and having been in Cabinet and knowing how Cabinet works - if I was a minister in a department and I had received information like this, it would definitely have reached the Cabinet Table and it would have done so in very short order, in terms of raising the issue, not only with the Leader of the government, the Premier, but also with the rest of the ministerial Cabinet that makes the decisions to govern in this Province, because it would have been an utmost concern and priority, and therefore it would have definitely been a discussion of Cabinet.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and one would think that it may be the case, then we have to be careful that government is not, indeed, designing a Terms of Reference for a judicial inquiry that is going to probe into their very own affairs. We need to be very careful of that. That is why this resolution is here today, because we have finally dragged the government to the point where they are prepared to take a moral high ground on this issue and do a judicial inquiry. Now we have to ensure that an inquiry is going to be open, it is going to be transparent, it is going to be independent and it is going to be done so under Terms of Reference that will allow it to examine the full scope of this particular issue and get all the information that will be required.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, in order to ensure there is independence here and that there is full openness here, we feel that as an Opposition Party here - and I do not know if the NDP shares this sentiment. I guess we will find out today - we should, indeed, have some input into those Terms of Reference. We feel that whoever the person is, who is to be appointed as a judiciary to do this inquiry, that they, too, have input into those Terms of Reference; that they be permitted to develop and have input into a Terms of Reference that will allow them to do the job in which they are being appointed to do.

Furthermore to that, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that the individual who is appointed to do this is, indeed, a person who is independent of government and of the Eastern Health Care Corporation. Only a few weeks ago in this Legislature we had another person appointed to an independent office by government, and that was the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for government members, for House of Assembly members. The Commissioner of Members Interests, a person who was supposed to be very independent, non-bias and supposed to carry out his responsibilities in just that manner, but the individual that government chose to appoint to that position was not an independent individual. In fact, on the day of their appointment they were members of a PC executive association right here in the City of St. John's and had been an active participant in the Progressive Conservative Party of this Province up until the day of their appointment. I do not know if they still are or not, Mr. Speaker, but I know they were up until the day of their appointment. So, that was not, in my view, an independent appointment to a position in which a person is supposed to be non-bias, non-connected and completely independent of government and of the Legislature.

We want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the person who is being appointed to do this judiciary review is an individual who is independent of government, first of all. Secondly, independent of the Eastern Health Care Corporation in order for them to carry out their responsibilities, not just in a manner that is seen to be open and transparent and non-bias, but, in fact, in a way that actually is. We want to ensure that this is the case. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we bring this motion to the House of Assembly today.

I will have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is probably, in the time that I have been in this Legislature, one of the events that has shaken me the most in terms of all the issues that I have seen arise throughout the Province. I think the fact that the information that was provided, the numbers of women who were impacted, the number of these tests that resulted in errors, the number of women with breast cancer who had to go back and seek alternative treatments, the number of women who have since deceased since this whole thing has transpired, that kind of information around this issue has to be probably the most detrimental issue that I have dealt with in the time that I have ever been in this Legislature. What really upset me was the nonchalant attitude towards dealing with this initially by the Minister of Health and by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite are not going to put a lot of value in the comment that I am going to make now, but I make it with great sincerity. That is: When you deal with issues like this, political parties are irrelevant, the places that we hold in this Legislature are irrelevant. The real relevance here is the many women and families who have been impacted by something that has erred in our system.

I do not care if it was in 1997 or in 2007. I do not care who was in government and who was not in government. When these events occur in our history that affect the lives of women, of families, no government should ever be hauled kicking and screaming to deal with an issue like this. It should be the top priority. It should be the number one concern, because governments are elected to protect the interests of the public and the people, not to hide information from them, not to renege on their responsibility and not hold accountable the proper authorities to deal with these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, I will make no joke about it, it upset me, the minister's comments; the minister whom I have dealt with, in his time in the Department of Health, and who seemed to be doing a proficient job up until this issue arose. I was never so disappointed in my life than I was to read what his comments were in the paper. I had to read it two or three times because I could not believe that these were the words coming from this minister. I have to be honest with you in saving that. I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I will get a chance to speak when we close the motion on this particular issue. It is a serious issue.

I invite my colleagues in the House of Assembly to participate in this debate. I am sure there are many people here who have remarks they would like to add.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on this particular motion before the House today as leadoff for the government side.

I have to say that it was kind of sobering to sit back here and listen to the introductory remarks of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in proposing this resolution. I say that because this is a very serious piece of business.

I know that, from time to time, in the forum that we are in, things get laced politically and politics bubbles to the surface, and I suppose that is inevitable. Our system is inherently adversarial; that is the way it is built. That is the way our democracy works; but, conveniently, the hon. member says we should rise above that - and we should, I believe - but then falls back into the trap, if you want to call it that, of proceeding to make remarks that can only be attributed as political.

For example, her remarks related to the lack of independence of a judicial inquiry. Mr. Speaker, the very words, judicial inquiry, encompass within the meaning - plain, simple language meaning, everyday meaning - judicial inquiry encompasses within that phrase the very epitome of independence.

What judge or retired judge worth his or her salt is going to take on responsibility under the Public Inquiries Act, to carry out a judicial inquiry under the Public Inquires Act, and be subject to somebody? Be anything less than independent? Be subject to the political whims of the government? - which was the insinuation. Not the insinuation - clearly what the hon. member was trying to say - that somehow or another, depending on who this person is, unless there is clear direction under which the Opposition participates, that somehow or another this person, this party, this judge or retired judge, is going to be somehow or another coloured by partisan politics.

I mean, that is an affront to the person who eventually will be appointed to head this commission, to head this inquiry. I do not know who the person is going to be yet; Cabinet has not decided.

By the way, under the law, it is the prerogative of the executive branch of government, the prerogative of Cabinet, not this Legislature. The law has designated the executive branch of government, the Cabinet, the power to empower, under the law, under the Public Inquiries Act, a commissioner, and we shall. We shall take our responsibility seriously and we shall find the best person in this Province or outside. If we have to go outside to find the best person to do this job, Mr. Speaker, we will do it, but that person will be appointed under the law, under the Public Inquiries Act, and that person will be totally independent.

We will give that person - the Cabinet, the executive branch of government, will give that person - a suggested Terms of Reference. We have already spelled those Terms of Reference out publicly. How much more open can you be? But, again, under the terms of the Public Inquiries Act, that commissioner is not bound solely by the Terms of Reference given to him or her by Cabinet. As a matter of fact, that commissioner, like Commissioner Lamer in the Lamer Commission, can come back and ask for an expanded mandate or he can tell the Cabinet or the government to go shove it, I am going to do this anyway, I have independence under the Public Inquiries Act and I am going to do it. You can give me permission to do it, or I will do it anyway.

Whether or not that person - because I do not know who the person is going to be yet - has any partisan politics to park will depend on where they came from. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, they are going to come from the judiciary. It may well be the Chief Justice, I do not know, who is a former partisan, a former Premier of this Province. It may well be, I do not know, Judge Barry, who was a Tory and a Liberal, but he had partisan connections at some point. It may be somebody from the mainland who has never had partisan connections, I do not know. The point, though, Mr. Speaker, is that the person will be totally independent. The person will have total independence under the law, not subject to the whims of this Legislature or the whims of this government, but subject to the law, and will be totally, absolutely independent and will be able to act independently, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, then, trying to slough that aside goes on to accuse the government of being hauled kicking and screaming and wanting to hide something and only doing this because we have to. Mr. Speaker, this became a public issue, in the context of which we are debating it now, last Thursday. It was raised in this House, and in the public, last Thursday. Monday happened to be a public holiday. On Tuesday we announced a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry. Well, I say, some kicking and some screaming.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not utter one word of interference when the hon. member was speaking. I never even whispered -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I only have a very short time, so I do not want to deal - because this issue is so important, I do not want to be dealing with interruptions.

I say, again, Mr. Speaker, that this government was not hauled kicking and screaming to appoint a judicial inquiry. The matter was raised in the House on a Thursday, it was a weekend, Monday was a holiday, and on Tuesday government announced its decision to appoint a public inquiry. We are, as we speak, looking for the best person to carry out that mandate, to carry out that work, and we shall find that person. Whether we find that person here in the Province or outside of the Province, we shall find that person and we shall appoint them, and we shall give them the tools and the Terms of Reference and the resources to do an independent broad based inquiry. Call who you will, call ministers, call officials, call members of the House if they have something to add, subpoena who you will because you have the authority under the Public Inquiries Act to do it, but you are not going to do it, and we do not expect you to do it, for political partisan reasons, which was the tone and tenor of the hon. member's comments, and more particularly, is the tone and tenor of her resolution.

Now, there are a lot of good things in this resolution and we want to support it. I am going to propose, seconded by my colleague, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, I am going to propose a couple of amendments that will hopefully take the politics out of the resolution and make this resolution acceptable to all of us, because the issue is too important for it not to be acceptable to all of us.

The first piece of the amendment I am going to propose, Your Honour, is that we delete all of the words in the second whereas. Let read the second whereas for anybody out there who wants to know what it says. It says, "AND WHEREAS Cabinet Ministers were made aware of the problems being experienced with these tests at Eastern Health and may be in a potential conflict of interest in establishing terms of reference for any inquiry..." Well that is redundant, that is moot. The ministers who held that portfolio and who hold it today are not going to be involved in determining the Terms of Reference, and they are subject to being called to the inquiry. They will testify under oath, just like anybody else. So there is no need of having that little political twist to it. So, I am proposing, Your Honour, if you rule the amendment in order, to delete that particular whereas.

Now, the Be it Therefore Resolved section of the resolution, I am proposing, Your Honour, again, that we delete the following words in the Be it Therefore Resolved, "...established with input from all political parties in the House of Assembly and has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet Ministers and Department of Health officials into" and we substitute the following words for the words that I am proposing that we take out. I quote again, "...and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals...". That is Cabinet Ministers, that is officials, that is - God forgive me, I hope I am not being anti-anything here - the Lord himself if he has something to offer and can appear, can be called. So, all individuals "...into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

So, therefore, Your Honour, the Be it Resolved will read as follows, "Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

That, Your Honour, I believe takes out the political phrases, makes this a resolution that is non-political in context and in words. Makes it more acceptable, I believe, to a larger number of people in this House, which is what an amendment is supposed to do if it is to be in order but, at the same time, does not detract or take away from the pit and substance of the resolution because the pit and substance of the resolution is that there be an independent judicial inquiry with broad powers appointed to look into the failure here and to report upon those matters.

I believe, Your Honour, that the resolution is in order. I move it, seconded by my colleague, as I indicated. I have a copy here, if Your Honour would like to have a look at it, and then let me know whether or not it is in order. If I have any time left, I would be happy to speak to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a brief recess while the Chair consults with the Table Officers to deem whether this particular resolution is in order.

This House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with the Table Officers. The amendment, as put forward by the Government House Leader, reads: "delete all of the words contained in the second whereas; delete the following words in the "Be it Resolved" "...established with input from all political parties in the House of Assembly and has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet Ministers and the Department of Health officials into" and substitute the following, "... and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information".

So that the "Be it Resolved..." will now read: "Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

The Chair deems that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have any time left.

I will be guided by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader has three minutes left.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will clue up pretty quickly. I am not going to seek leave, because I know there are many people on both sides of the House who want to speak to the resolution that is before us today.

All I want to say in summary, Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I have said in making the case for the amendment, is simply this: There are none of us, on either side of this House, none of us, who have not been touch in some way or another by the essence of this resolution and the scourge of cancer. None of us have been left out of that equation, so none of us have any monopoly on feelings. None of us have any monopoly on wanting to see anything covered up, least of all those of us who are part of the government or part of the House at all.

The word coverup should never be part of this. What should be part of this and what we all should be able to wrap our arms around here is finding some appropriate independent person to lead a judicial inquiry under the law, under the Public Inquiries Act, which is set up for that purpose, appointed by the executive responsible to the House, because that is how our parliamentary system works, and have that person have the broad authority of the Public Inquiries Act to be able to call witnesses, no matter who they are, to be able to subpoena witnesses, no matter who they are, and to be able to force those witnesses, ministers, or laypersons, on high or below, whatever the appropriate language is - anybody, in other words, who has anything to offer, that they may think have anything to offer - can be called before this independent judicial committee and be forced, by law and the power of subpoena, to tell what they know. That is what this is all about, and that is why we support it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the private member's motion.

This is a serious issue. I think no one would question how important this is, not just to the women who have been impacted by this, but to their families, to everyone in this Province, in fact, who has been touched by cancer.

I have great difficulty with the Government House Leader suggesting that, in amending the motion, that somehow they are not playing politics with this; great difficulty in having him stand and point a finger at my colleague and suggest that her remarks are, in fact, political and his are not.

What we have asked for in the motion that we put forward is to have a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference established with input from all parties in the House of Assembly. Now, what is wrong with that? I have great difficulty understanding what is wrong with that, since none of us have all of the answers. This is a serious issue. It is a serious disease. Yes, it has impacted, I would say, most of us in our Province.

This is an opportunity for the government to do what is right here. To suggest that it is the executive that makes the decision and has the authority here to go down the path of where they will decide the Terms of Reference, he is absolutely right. The Government House Leader is absolutely right, no one questions that, but what we are saying - and in sticking to the Government House Leader's own words - since we have all been impacted by this, then why not draw on those of us who are in a position to share information with you and those of us who are in a position to have some input into this?

Of course, I do not question that whoever is going to head up this will be independent. That is not the issue for those of us here in this House, and those of us particularly in Opposition. That is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that we have something to add. We can make a contribution. All we are asking is for a chance to make a contribution, to make sure that the Terms of Reference will be all-encompassing, that maybe something that the executive, thereby the government, did not think about will be something that we in the Opposition will think about and want to add to the Terms of Reference.

Of course we agree with the judicial inquiry; and, contrary to what the Government House Leader has said, that this is something that was raised May 15 in the House of Assembly, and they acted on it as soon as they could have, I disagree. I do agree with my colleague who said they were brought to this conclusion kicking and screaming.

Why didn't the government reach this conclusion on its own, that a judicial inquiry was warranted? Why did it have to come from those of us in Opposition who had to raise the question, who had to ask for this to happen? Why, when the ministers were made aware of what was happening here, when they apprised the Premier of the seriousness of this situation, why wasn't an automatic response from the government that this warrants a judicial inquiry?

No, we had to ask and ask and ask that this happen, and we are doing it on behalf of the hundreds - hundreds - of women and their families in this Province who have been touched by cancer, those whose results came back to be something other than what they were initially told, the women who were diagnosed wrong. These are serious, serious issues.

For the Government House Leader to suggest that by amending this motion it is within keeping with the intent of the motion, then nothing can be further from the truth. My question is why? Is there something being hidden? A simple question. Is there something being hidden here? I cannot understand why the government would object to having all parties in this House of Assembly included in this initiative; why you would object to having input from those of us who feel that we have something to offer, and we do. We have been there. We have been touched by this and we do have something to offer. Just to brush us off as if our input does not matter, is sad.

It is a sad day when I look across the floor at members of government - and I assume they all concur with this amendment. It is a sad day when I look across the floor and have to accept that you cannot see what is wrong with what you are proposing. This judicial inquiry is meant to answer any and all questions. There is no one who has all the answers, but at least by putting our heads together - and it is not unusual, by the way. It is not unusual. We have had all-party committees in this House before. We worked on issues - all-party committees worked on FPI, brought it back to the House of Assembly and acted on it. So, we are not asking for something that has never been done. The seriousness of this issue is such that I will never understand how the government can look at this and say: Sorry, this is determined by the executive. We have the authority and we are going to say that this is the way it is going to be.

Well, in doing that you are playing politics with a very, very serious issue here because we all know that the majority today are Progressive Conservatives in the House of Assembly. Those of us who sit in Opposition want to make an input. We want to be part of the process, and people need to feel confident. People in our Province today need to feel confident that this judicial inquiry will get to the bottom of what has gone on here. Right away, by the actions of the government today, you are raising a red flag. Whether you believe it or understand it, by your actions today you have raised a red flag. All of a sudden the questions are going to be asked: Why not include everybody? If this is non-political, why not include everybody?

So, not only have you done yourself a disservice in amending this motion, but you have done everybody who has been touched by cancer a disservice. It is done, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot believe that you can sit idly by and not take exception to what has happened here this afternoon. Yes, you agreed to a judicial inquiry, but it did not come easily. It did not come easily. You came around to that but what a thing to do this afternoon, to limit who can have input into this judicial inquiry; to take away the opportunity for anyone, other than the government and the Commissioner to determine the Terms of Reference. I know that whoever heads up this inquiry would welcome input from all of us in this House of Assembly. Unfortunately, your actions today are precluding that from happening and I think you are constraining. I think by what you have done today you are constraining the Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the government will have to live with this. It will become an issue. It will become a very public issue, the fact that, for whatever reason, the government has decided not to allow all parties to have input in this very critical process when we are trying to get to the bottom of what happened here.

Thank you.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to stand and speak today for a few moments about this particular private member's resolution, and I just want to make a couple of comments.

I just want to read - because I think it is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand what we are now debating, what the motion now reflects with the amendment. One of things, as you listen to the member opposite talk about, you would believe that this amendment, and this resolution rather - in this resolution today we are going to, in fact, define the Terms of Reference of the Commission. We are going to define the Terms of Reference for the judicial review. We are going to - in this resolution we, today, somehow or other, have an ability to define what a judge might do. We are going to have an ability, through this resolution today, to handcuff a judge and be able to basically hijack a commissioned process. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth, but I think it is important to realize what we now have before us.

Here is the resolution that we are going to be voting on, with the amendment as proposed, sometime before this day is over. We are going to be talking about, where it says - it starts off with: WHEREAS it has been revealed that there were error rates of 42 per cent in receptor testing of breast cancer patients conducted by Eastern Health. Very basic, straightforward. Everybody has acknowledged that. We are not debating that. That is a statement of fact. We have been talking about it in this House for the last week.

The next one will be: Therefore Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the whole issue of the receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information.

Now, what is restricting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: What has been restricted here? That sounds pretty straightforward. Then at the end, I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

There is a very serious debate taking place here this afternoon and members, up until now, have been very quiet, listening to speeches as they have been put forward. I ask members if they could continue in that vein, and I ask for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then, at the end, here is what the Be It Resolved will read. The motion will conclude by saying, "Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent...." - anyone question that? It seems pretty straightforward - "....has broad terms of reference..." - again, pretty straightforward - "...and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances..." surrounding this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that anybody in this Province would object to anything that I just read. No one in this Province would object to the appointment of a commission, the appointment of a judicial review process. No one would object to ensuring that person is impartial. No one would object to the notion that this person will have a free rein to delve into this issue, ask questions, subpoena witnesses, subpoena documents. This person will have a tremendous amount of power, the power vested in them with the legislation that currently is in the books of Newfoundland and Labrador providing for a commission of inquiry. They will have that full power to be able to compel people to give evidence, to compel people to present documentation, to compel me, to compel anyone on this side of the House, to compel the Premier, the Cabinet, any Members of the House of Assembly, members opposite, members of the public; this person will have the ability to compel any of us to come in, under oath, and tell our story, to tell him or her exactly what we know. So the commissioner, at the end of the day, will know exactly what I did, what other people had done, what information we had, what we did not have, and our contribution to this whole process. They will have that information, I say, Mr. Speaker. They will have that.

What is ironic about this, Mr. Speaker, what is very ironic about this, this process of appointing a commission has been the way of doing things forever and a day in this Province. Mr. Speaker, a speaker earlier today acknowledged a former MHA in the gallery. People would recall that many years ago that former member was the subject of an inquiry, the Steele inquiry. Who appointed that inquiry? I say the government of the day, the very government that member was a part of at that time, appointed a commissioner to do a review. They did not, at that time, if I recall - I was not here, but my memory of the news coverage of it at the time - I believe they did that independently. They did not get in a room and say to the Opposition and all other parties in the House: Why don't you come in and help us define the Terms of Reference? That did not happen, I say.

What about the Lamer Inquiry? The Opposition House Leader today talks about his role and their role, and I am certain he will stand and speak later today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - about wanting to participate in this process, but I am certain, Mr. Speaker, when he was the Attorney General, when he was a part of the former government, when that government appointed the Lamer Inquiry, did they say: Hey, listen, the Minister of Justice should not be involved in that process.

They did not remove themselves. They did not do that. I cannot recall at all the government of that day saying to the rest of the parties in this House: Why don't you come and join us and help us determine the Terms of Reference?

That did not happen. That has never been the case. The Hughes Inquiry, the same thing. It was not an all-party decision and discussion around the Terms of Reference. The same thing with the Warren Commission that looked at education in this Province. The former government, the people who are out there today talking about what we should be doing, selected a former colleague of theirs, a former minister of their Cabinet. They selected someone like that to be a commissioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: They did not stand here and ask anybody else.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple points that I think are very important. The resolution that we are going to be voting on as amended later today very clearly lays out a process where we, at the end of the day, will have a commissioner appointed, and that commissioner will have the full authority under the act, the authority to call witnesses and to get every single bit of information that commissioner needs to do the job; that commissioner will have access to that, with the resolution that we put here today.

The only thing the Opposition is objecting to is that they are not a part of government. They want to be part of the government today so they can help frame the Terms of Reference. The reality of it is, Mr. Speaker, they are not a part of the current government and they are not going to be part of the next government. Because they are not a part of a government today, they want to play the role that you would normally play while you are in government, which is to make decisions, which is to make policy decisions, which is to make decisions such as this, I say, Mr. Speaker. This government has made a fundamental decision here. This government has made a decision to do the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition, as I said, is jealous today because he is not a part of government. He wants to be a part of the decision-making process but he knows he cannot. He is asking us to do something today that, when he sat in Cabinet, he knew full well that the government of the day would never, ever do, never did do, and now he is trying to play cheap political politics with a significant issue affecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. All I have heard from the member opposite is a lot of tripe and very cheap political politics around something that is very serious, impacting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to sit here this afternoon and listen to the Minister of Health talk about playing politics with this issue when all he has talked about since he stood here ten minutes ago was where we stand in the polls, or who is going to get elected this time, and who is going to get elected the next time.

Mr. Speaker, if the man was serious about the issue, he would do as his Government House Leader suggested when he stood earlier this afternoon and said: Let's leave the politics out of this.

We are all seriously concerned about this issue, and this individual, the Minister of Health, I might add, who refused to give the information - knew about this, refused to give the information to those individuals who were affected - is now lecturing us on how he is the government and how they are going to continue to be the government after the next election. He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is pretty sensitive today, considering that we are in this House debating a very significant issue today, a very significant issue representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, impacting many women in Newfoundland and Labrador, and many families in Newfoundland and Labrador. Rather than sitting in his chair, listening and participating in this debate attentively, he sits in his chair heckling the people who speak on this side of the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, if he genuinely was serious about this issue he would pay attention and listen to what is taking place.

The issue that we are going to vote on here today, I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: I think it bears repeating, because here is the substance of the resolution, I say, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be asking this House to support the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is independent, has broad terms of reference and has the power to investigate.

What more do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want? What more would they ask for? At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when this commissioner finishes their work, they will have the answers, they will an understanding of what happened with ER/PR testing in the Eastern Health Corporation between the period of 1997 and 2005.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: That is fundamentally at the crux of this issue, Mr. Speaker, and continuing the debate, continuing to talk about this issue, I think I have contributed what is important in this discussion today, which is fundamentally creating clarity around the motion that we have before us, creating clarity around what this government is proposing to do, and creating a clear understanding of the benefits that will come from having a clearly independently appointed judicial inquiry, having that person having the power and authority to do this independent.

This resolution - and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador really do not care about who participated in drafting the Terms of Reference, whether we had a crowd of people get together, whether we had five people get together, or ten people get together. The critical issue here is that the person who is appointed as commissioner will have the power to do this independently, will have broad Terms of Reference, will be independent, will be capable and very competent and very qualified to do the job. So, at the end of the day, when the commissioner produces the report that we, as a government, will want to embrace it and we will want to move and action the recommendations that are laid out in that commissioner's report, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I ask members of this House to join with me in supporting the resolution, as amended, because it provides for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the type of commission, the type of inquiry that is critical, that is important, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador rightfully deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For me, I guess, being relatively new to the House of Assembly and having somewhat limited knowledge of private member's motions and amendments and judicial inquiries and such, I find it a little bit disturbing today when we hear some of the comments that we make on this being somewhat political versus - and how we make our decisions. I know I have a fair amount of experience, I guess, on the whole health care issue in my previous life.

I can remember last week when we were preparing for Question Period, I can remember as I was putting the question together in the room and walking down - and I know when we walked into the House that day the House was very up tempo, upbeat House that day for the first four or five questions. I can remember standing on my feet and when I asked the first question on this issue, there seemed to be - the mood of the House changed significantly. I think that is kind of indicative of the way we feel about our health care system.

In subsequent days following that, we heard comments about how this is shaking the foundation of our health care system and so on. When I heard comments like that, my mind went back to a few years ago when I had the privilege to attend a health care conference in Vancouver at the time. There was a Newfoundlander there that we all know, and I will not say who the person was right now. The person happened to be a keynote speaker, and as he was talking about health care issues - and he was not a health care professional at all. As a matter of fact, I did not realize, when I saw him introduced, that he had much of an understanding of health care at all, but he really shocked me in some of the words that he used and how we identify ourselves as a society.

He spoke at great length about Newfoundlanders and how we identify Newfoundlanders. He talked about Newfoundlanders being hospitable, being kind and being friendly. All words that we have heard before, and how we are very able and we like to be inclusive. So we use words like - that is how we identify Newfoundlanders. That is like an icon for us. He went on to say, to take it to the next level on how we identify ourselves at the national level, being Canadian. He went on about a number of things. He talked about the flag. He talked about maple syrup, and you name it, hockey, sports. There was a whole bunch of things that the gentleman talked about. He made some comments about what was a real, true identifier for us as Canadians. What he said was, we identify ourselves or people identify with us based on our health care system. That is what we do different.

So, it is today, as I listened to some of the comments in the debate, I see health care as a different level. I have been through the debates that we have had and the Question Periods that we have had over recent weeks on other issues but I really see health care as being different. I really see the way we treat health care as being somewhat different. So, if it is somewhat different and we need to include everybody, I see no reason in the motion here that we would exclude all members from this House of Assembly. I think we all, all of us, can have some degree of input, and why not? Why would we not want to include as many people as we could? The Terms of Reference says that, so why not include us as well?

This important issue, Mr. Speaker, of the hormone receptor testing, when you look at it in the specific issue that we deal with today, we talked about - we heard this week about Doctor Lang. She made comments about diamonds and women and then she made comments about a pathologist is like that to an oncologist. That kind of resinated with me and it really showed the importance of what this meant to her. So, that brought it back to me, I guess, of how important that would be for all of us.

Then, when I thought about the politics of all of this, we have heard comments back and forth in Question Period: Are we making this political? As a matter of fact, the minister, on the first question that I asked, accused me of making it political. As I thought about that in the last few days, I guess - because, to be quite honest with you, I have no interest in making this political. The difference for me would be, where do we draw the line between the politics of the issue and the responsibility of the issue? Because, do you know what? I feel somewhat responsible because, given the opportunity to make a difference, as an elected official, I think I should do it and I think I am responsible to do it. I do not see the need to be excluded from the process if there is any way at all that we can contribute. Is it political or is it responsible? To me, it is about the responsibility; it is not about the politics. As I looked back at it, and I thought about the questions that have happened outside the House, the various news releases and everything else that has happened, the communications piece of it, really, it is not about who scores the political points on this.

It was on the weekend, when I was actually home on Saturday, when I got a call from one of the ladies who was affected by this. I think that really brought it home to me, because what she did is really put the human face to it. She told me the story of her grandkids, and she told me the story of her daughter. To be quite honest with you, not only is it the person I spoke to who has had to deal with breast cancer but, guess what? Her daughter as well. She was one of the people who was retested. She was one of the people who actually was not notified.

It is important that we get this out, in my mind, that there are some gaps, and we need to include ourselves to try and fix this problem. Because, for quite some time now we have been led to believe that, especially on health care issues, we need to take ownership. All of us, as individuals, need to do what we can to take care of our personal health. If there is anything that happens in the system that excludes us from the ability to take part and to take responsibility for our personal health, then we need to fix it. There is no question, in this particular case here, that happened. There are quite a few people who should have had the opportunity to take part and to help in their own health care decisions that were excluded from the process.

As a matter of fact, I was reading something there just a few days ago and it said that today it is more important than ever that you take more responsibility for understanding your care and the communication with your health care professional. Taking ownership, for all of us who take ownership, that is our responsibility as well. So, getting control of our information is important to all of us as individuals.

With this particular private member's motion, the fact that is it independent and has broad terms of reference, I support all of that, but the fact that this House of Assembly, all Members of the House of Assembly, need to be excluded from developing those terms of reference, I do have some problem with that. For a minister or a member to say that you are just upset with this because you are not part of government, well, guess what? I have never been part of government. It is not just simply because I am not part of government because, guess what? I don't know what it is like to sit over there. I am not part of government, but I do know that I think I could have some input into how those terms of reference could be developed. I think, if I was in that minister's chair today, I would have no problem going across this House and saying: You have experience on this issue. Do you want to have some input?

Why not? What would be the problem? What is the problem with including all members? The Leader of the NDP, I have spent some time with her over the last few weeks and listened to her yesterday as we went through the briefing sessions at Eastern Health Authority. I listened to her comments that she was making at those meetings, and I could feel the compassion and I could feel the desire that she had to make a difference. So, why not include the Leader of the NDP?

When you look at somebody and say the only reason why you want to be included is because you are politically motivated, that does not speak for me. I can honestly say right now that I would love to have the opportunity to be involved in the development of the terms of reference. I would certainly support that all Members of the House of Assembly, no matter what political party they are affiliated with, should be included in this.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks today by saying that we put forth what I think is a good private member's motion. This issue has impacted all of the Province. We are elected to represent the people in the Province, so why would you exclude thirteen representatives who represent the entire Province when you include the members opposite. I don't really see the need to exclude anybody from this development of the Terms of Reference. I would say today that I will not support the amendment based on the development of the Terms of Reference, Mr. Speaker, and I would really ask the members opposite to support me and others on this side in not supporting those changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to have this opportunity to speak to the matter regarding the faulty testing of the breast cancer patients. I am sure everybody in this House, on both sides, have had relatives or friends who have battled breast cancer in the past. I have had two relatives, one who survived breast cancer and lived to be very old, and one relative who did not survive breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, we have all been touched by breast cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the events of the past week with a great deal of interest. I have been listening to the media reporting, listening to what the minister said, reading the press releases, and, yes, I have even been listening to the Opposition, trying to piece together myself what happened that would lead us to this.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health, in an effort to provide some disclosure and some transparency, did meet with the MHAs of the House of Assembly from both sides of the House, and it was very much appreciated by all MHAs. The CEO attended the briefing as did three physicians. They gave us an overview of testing procedures and provided us with an opportunity for questions. The briefing itself, Mr. Speaker, was quite technical, so they were quite agreeable to having a second session today and, of course, that went ahead this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members from both sides of the House, and I am struck by some of the things the Opposition say. One of the points I would like to make is that I have respect for the opinions of all Members of the House of Assembly regards of what side they sit on, but I would like to make it quite clear that the Opposition does not have a monopoly on having concern where this matter is concerned. We all want to know, Mr. Speaker, what went wrong, who knew what and when did they know it. We do know some issues around the problem. We know that some information has been publicly disclosed. I am sure probably once the commission, the public inquiry, gets underway there will be more information provided. We have been told that some tests were wrong. We have been told that tests back to 1997 were reviewed; almost 3,000 tests.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I spent the weekend going over a lot of the material. I took the newspaper articles, I was reading information from the government side of the House, things the Opposition had said, trying to piece together even the numbers involving the tests, and quite frankly, I found the information to be quite confusing. I do say, that there is a need to go back and systematically review the problem and that is what the public inquiry will do. It will do a number of things, Mr. Speaker. It will review the problem, it will look at the action that was taken in the past, and it will determine whether further action is required.

One of the things, I am sure, that a lot of people will be very interested in seeing, Mr. Speaker, is a chronological sequences of events, and we also need to know that the present system as it exists now can withstand some scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other areas I would like to raise is the issue of communication, and I know this was reference in a press release by the minister. I did find that communication was confusing to people. It left a number of questions unanswered. So, there is a need to reestablish confidence and we do need a inquiry to look at the problem. Of course, I wholeheartedly support an independent inquiry. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is partially because of my background. I was a public servant for many years, since 1979, but the last ten years of my career were spent as Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. My primary responsibility was to go back and do independent reviews. I would be the first one to stand up and say: Independent assessments of problems is something that we all need.

We do have to acknowledge that the department, and of course the board, even though they have gone back to look at their role in this incident, that they are not independent of what has transpired over the last number of years. So, of course, we needed somebody to go back and look at it independently.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on all organizations to go back, review what they are doing and come to their own conclusions and make the changes that are necessary. Again, it does not replace the independent review. Whether you call it an audit or a public inquiry, an independent review is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Reference have not been determined yet for a public inquiry, but there are a number of areas that have already been identified, and I would like to just briefly go through these so people can have an idea of the area that is going to be reviewed.

The first point, Mr. Speaker, is: What went wrong with the tests? The second question is: Why was the problem with the tests not detected until 2005? The third question is: Once detected, did the responsible authorities respond in an appropriate and timely manner? Once detected, did the responsible authorities communicate in an appropriate and timely manner? Are the testing systems and processes currently in place reflective of best practices? And: Does Eastern Health currently employ an effective quality assurance system? Those are questions, Mr. Speaker, that will be answered by the public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about commissions of inquiry. Now there is legislation that governs commissions of inquiry and it was legislation that was passed in the House of Assembly. That outlines exactly how a commission of inquiry is put together and how it operates, and it is quite clear. I would like to make the point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: I have been in government for quite a lengthy period of time. There have been a number of inquiries which have taken place during my time with the Public Service. The Minister of Health and Community Services referenced a former minister who visited here today and said there was an inquiry at that time whereby that minister was called to testify. I remember that inquiry. It was called the Steele Inquiry and, in fact, I was invited to testify at that inquiry. Of course, when you are invited you do appear and you testify. Of course, when I was Deputy Minister of Social Services the Youth Inquiry was ongoing. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of inquiries over the years, and the commission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: The Public Inquiries Act clearly outlines -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, for the member across the way who keeps interrupting me, each time this member stands to speak I sit in my seat and listen to what he has to say. I would appreciate it very much if he would provide me with the same courtesy that I extend to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Inquiries Act is on the government's website and it very clearly outlines how a public inquiry is put together, what their responsibilities are, and who lays out the Terms of Reference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: It says: 3.(1) "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order establish a commission of inquiry...." and that is what has been done. It says: (2) "Where a commission is established under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order, (a) appoint the members of the commission in accordance with section 21; (b) establish the jurisdiction of the commission by setting out terms of reference for the inquiry..."

It is quite clear who lays out the terms of reference before the inquiry, Mr. Speaker, and it is laid out in legislation that was approved by the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the main motion that was put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The second paragraph where it states, and whereas Cabinet Ministers were made aware of the problems being experienced in these tests at Eastern Health, I agree with the Government House Leader that the politics should be taken out of the motion. I do agree that this should be removed, so I will be supporting the amended motion. I think that the involvement of Cabinet Ministers, or really any member of the government, or any member of the department, any official of the department, any official of the health care corporation - we should leave that issue to the commission and let them identify what the areas of concern are, who was involved and their areas of responsibility. This should be leave to the commissioner of inquiry. I do not think that we should be passing motions in this House of Assembly that identify certain people as having done wrong. I think that should be left up to the inquiry.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have been through my share of inquiries and court cases. I think that we should leave it up to the commission of inquiry. We should not second guess because I have found in the past that every commission of inquiry, every court case, will yield its share of surprises to us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will not be supporting the main motion. I will be supported the amended motion for the appointment of a judicial enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the incorrect testing of the breast cancer patients.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I was going to be happy to stand and speak to the motion, the original motion that came to the floor, and I am quite saddened actually that the amendment that was proposed is now on the floor; not all of it, some of it I could have lived with. For me, the heart of the original motion was the statement that the judicial enquiry, which I absolutely want, which I personally asked for as well last week and have publicly said I want, that the judicial enquiry would have Terms of Reference established with input from all parties of the House of Assembly. To me, that was actually the heart of the resolution. I bowed to the judgement of the Chair, but that is what I was voting for. I was voting for that because I totally believe in the fact that the more people who have input into decision making the better the decisions.

Now, my colleague, MHA from Topsail, has just read from legislation, the rules and regulations regarding the setting up of a commission. It is true what she said, but that is the letter of the law. There is nothing stopping government from seeking consultation in putting the Terms of Reference together. There is nothing stopping government from saying - government, yes, will finally make the statement, these are the Terms of Reference, but having done it in consultation.

I consider myself to be in a strange position with what I am going to say next, but I am going to say it. In my career up to now, I have been used to making decisions in a consensus way. Everything I have done, even when I was a principal with my staff I did it, but all the way through, all the work I have done, I have always been part of collectives, staffs that were flat, collectives that made decisions in a consensus way. Even in organizations where we had a Board of Directors who ran the not-for-profit organization, because I worked with not-for-profit for so long, the staff and the Board of Directors would work together. I am very, very used to working in that model of participation, a participatory process and in consensus decision making.

You would almost be forced then to ask the question: Well, my dear, why did you go to the House of Assembly? Because it has to be the complete opposite of everything that I have been used to. But, maybe I also believe that every time we do something different and put ourselves in new situations, hopefully the experience that one brings can maybe affect the new place that you are going into. Maybe, for me, I was dreaming in technicolour or maybe I was, you know, pie in the sky, but I really did believe that we could pass this motion. I really did believe we could do that, especially when I heard the amendments that the government wanted. I could see why the government wanted two of the amendments but I really believed that government could agree that we could work together on this issue.

I have to join with my colleague from Humber Valley in saying that I do not know what it is to sit over there, and I can honestly say that in supporting this motion it is not a political action. It is not a partisan political action. We are all involved in politics, obviously, but it is not a partisan political action. I am not doing it to better the government or to show up the government. I really do believe there are issues that we should be showing the people who elect us, that we are working on together.

There are models for doing this you know. One of the models is the federal environmental assessment process, that I do have a lot of experience with. When an appointed panel, they do not do many panels anymore, but when an appointed panel is put in place - and I was on the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel, which was a joint panel, so the provincial government was involved in that panel. When a panel is put in place, one of the first things a panel has to do is come up with a Terms of Reference. What the panel does before putting the Terms of Reference together, the panel holds scoping sessions with people who have concerns in the issue that the panel is studying.

I remember when I was on the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel, we spent two whole, probably six to seven weeks going all over Labrador and also coming here to St. John's and sitting and listening to people to make sure that when we put the Terms of Reference together, the Terms of Reference would include and encompass all the concerns of all the parties who were going to be affected by the Voisey's Bay project, by the building of the mine. So, that consultative process is not an unusual process and it is a process that government is part of. Government was part of that process when we put the Terms of Reference together for Voisey's Bay. Some of the presentations that were made to the panel were by government agencies who were stakeholders. Government was a stakeholder in Voisey's Bay. Government agencies made presentations to us.

After the panel put the Terms of Reference together - and this is not unusual. It was not only the Voisey's Bay panel that did this. This goes on with all federal environmental assessment panels, joint or otherwise. After we put the Terms of Reference together, then the Terms of Reference was sent out for feedback. The stakeholders, those who had come to the scoping sessions and had presented at the scoping sessions, then had the opportunity to come back to us with response to the Terms of Reference to confirm that the Terms of Reference did cover all the concerns that they had.

The request that I see myself making to the members of the government side of the House is to please take in good faith the honesty of those of us who are standing and saying that we want to have input into the Terms of Reference, for no other reason, but we want to make sure that as broad a discussion as possible happens, because all of us are voted by people in this Province to be sitting in this House. All of us have a responsibility to the people who elected us. Just as my colleagues on the government side of the House probably have had many phone calls and e-mails and visits from people over the last few days since this issue has come up, because it is a very serious issues, so have all the members on this side of the House. I do not think the government side should assume that there is not something different to hear from somebody else, because no matter how many people are involved in discussing something, there is always a different way of looking at it; sometimes even a change in the way a word is said.

For example, when I seen the press release on the judicial inquiry, when it talks about the inquiry is going to deal with all those in authority or those in authority who have responsibility for the issue, well the first thing that came to me when I read it was: Well, does that or does it not include government, the ministry? I will read it exactly, I do have it here. The responsible authorities. Once detected, did the responsible authorities respond in an appropriate and timely manner? My thing is, well, they really need to define responsible authorities. If this were a formal process, like an environmental assessment, for example, the term: responsible authorities, would be defined. So we would know for sure that responsible authorities included both responsible authorities inside of Eastern Health and responsible authorities inside of the ministry of health, and maybe responsible authorities inside of Cabinet, I do not know. You would define responsible authorities, not leave people guessing: How broad is responsible authorities?

So everybody - if we could have ten people defining one word in a Terms of Reference, you might get twelve definitions of what that word meant. The Terms of Reference are crucial to the inquiry. How good the inquiry is going to be, is going to be determined by the Terms of Reference. I agree with my colleagues from the Official Opposition, that the judicial commissioner should also have input into the Terms of Reference.

This is too big an issue, this is too important an issue for us to bring it down to party politics. I feel that if we had been able to discuss, maybe all three parties - again, maybe I am dreaming in technicolour - and heard why - I believe, for example, that yes, two pieces of the amendment could have been left out, but why the third piece about all parties being involved should have been left in, because that is really what I was voting for, maybe it would have gotten left in, I do not know.

I really am asking my colleagues on the government side of the House to think about what I am saying and to think about what my colleague said. I think we are all being honest - I know I am being honest when I say that I am not asking this for political reasons. I am asking it because I believe in the process, because I believe that the more people, the more heads that are involved in thinking through something, the better the decision is that one comes up with. This is the role of everybody in the House - and I know government has a special role, I am not naive. I mean you are the ones who have been given the responsibility to run the departments. You are the ones given the responsibility to make sure that things inside of government are going for the good of the people. You have a special responsibility, but you also have a responsibility to do that in partnership with those of us who have been elected in Opposition. You have a responsibility to do that, showing the people of the Province that you also respect why we have been elected, that you understand why we have been elected.

You know, when you think about it, even in the districts that you come from, while you may have gotten a majority in your district, there is a large number of people who maybe voted for my party or voted for the party of the Official Opposition, so you are representing everybody. Because you are representing everybody, I think openness to working with the parties on this side of the House would be shown if you said yes in this instance, just as in the instance two years ago or three years ago when you put the all-party committee together to look at the whole FPI issue, that in this instance you see the necessity for us to work together.

I am not sure that there is anything else for me to say, more than I have said what I have just said. I feel that the judicial inquiry is extremely important, and is extremely important because I think it is what is absolutely essential to put people's minds at rest in this Province.

Over the last two days, the briefing sessions that were held by the MHAs with the authorities from the Eastern Health Authority were extremely beneficial. We asked a lot of questions. We got a lot of answers, and it struck me that the information that we got in those briefing sessions is information that the whole public need to have, because we learned a whole lot more in those briefing sessions. I realized, especially this morning, when we got to the end, that the only way for all of that information to get out to the public is through the inquiry, and that is why the inquiry is so important.

It is not so important so that people's hands get slapped, or that kind of thing. It is important so that we know that as we move into the future that we are going to not repeat mistakes that happened, because obviously there were mistakes. We all know that. There were mistakes. We had errors made, and we need to find out why.

When people find out what those mistakes were - and I hope we do, and that is what the inquiry is going to have to try to find out - when they also find out everything that Eastern Health is now doing to try to make sure that those mistakes do not happen again, because I really do feel confident that they really are trying to put things in place to make sure it does not happen again, that as people see that whole picture, people in the Province are going to have more peace of mind. The inquiry, in and of itself, will raise more questions, but those questions will also get dealt with by the inquiry, and I have no doubt that as the inquiry proceeds -

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS MICHAEL: By leave, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is okay with us.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just to say that I do believe that as the inquiry proceeds and holds its hearings, that people are going to come out and they are going to make representation and they are going to ask questions. So, everything that this inquiry can do to make sure that all concerns get heard and get met, everything that it can do should be done. I do believe that one of those steps is having Terms of Reference set up by as broad a group as possible, and in this case at least by all parties within the House.

I am very sorry that it looks like we probably will not get to vote on the motion the way I would like to vote on it. I do wish my colleagues on the other side of the House would see the wisdom of what some of us are saying over here. I absolutely think that some of you may agree with some of what I am saying, and some of what my colleagues have said, but I have to rest with the majority when the vote comes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education, who I notice was standing in her place, this afternoon we would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery eight librarians visiting our Legislative Library from Legislatures across Canada, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nunavut, Nova Scotia and the Library of Parliament in Ottawa.

Specifically, I would like to welcome Ms Melissa Bennett from Saskatchewan, Ms Sandra Perry from Alberta, Ms Heather Close from Alberta, Ms Chantal Poliquin from the Library of Parliament, Ms Kathleen Chance from the Library of Parliament, Ms Kate Whitridge from the Library of Parliament, Ms Sandy Cook from Nova Scotia, and Ms Yvonne Earle from Nunavut.

As a matter of interest, three of the head legislative librarians in Canada are from Newfoundland and Labrador, namely: Ms Hammond, Ms Perry and Ms Earle.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Education and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this most serious issue today because of the concern, and the serious concerns, about these issues in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the whole health care system, everything we do within the area of health care is important to everyone; because, as long as we are in good health, Mr. Speaker, we don't understand the importance of what is there until something goes wrong. If you or a loved one or a family member needs to seek any type of assistance from a health care institution, you realize very quickly the importance and the value of this whole system, the people who work in that system and the role they play in the day to day lives of many, many people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we do with our health care system is we place our trust in that system. When we go there and we require testing and we are looking for results and we are looking for curative measures, we trust the information that we get and we make sure that we base our lives and our decisions on the information that we are given from our health care providers.

Mr. Speaker, health care is not about a doctor, it is not about a nurse, it is about a group of people who work together, whether it is people who do diagnostic testing, people who read the results of the tests or people who make recommendations on any type of treatment; people who run the whole facilities. Health care is about a system, it is about the equipment and it is about the people, and it is how well things come together and how things work. That is what we put our trust in, Mr. Speaker, this entire system, when we visit a doctor or we visit any type of health care facility.

I am quite concerned that these issues we are addressing today go back to 1997. That is a lot of time, Mr. Speaker. We are talking 1997, 1998, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 - there are years of testing and results coming back that are not accurate. It is something very serious. Mr. Speaker, to think they have been able to address that and be able to go back is something I think is commendable, that we can address it. It just begs the question of what really went wrong and why did we go so long without realizing that these tests were not giving us accurate information, or certainly not at the same rate that they should be.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly need answers, but the question is, why do we need answers. We need answers for two reasons. Because when we go to a health care facility we need quality treatment. We need to be assured that the results we are given and the treatment that is being recommended will address the issues that a person presents with. We certainly need to make sure that there is quality in the health care system. If there is no quality in the health care system, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing; there is absolutely nothing there. If we are not going to depend on the diagnosis we get - we can get a diagnosis from just about anyone. When we go and visit our health care facilities, we need quality results.

In fairness to the people who work in the health care facilities, despite some of the issues that we are addressing just this week in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are some very dedicated professionals who spend their lives working in Newfoundland and Labrador who have cared about people, who have upgraded their skills, who have done the research that needs to be done and are providing a great service.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that at some point this whole process is shaking confidence in probably some of our best physicians and other health care professionals we have in the Province. The point is, we do need quality care when we do go into the health care system. Mr. Speaker, if there is a part of this system or parts of the system that are broken, it needs to be fixed. We need to understand what went wrong, why it went wrong and what is going to be different in the future, because if any part of the system breaks down, it certainly needs to be fixed.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just that we need quality health care, because many times we do have quality health care in Newfoundland and Labrador despite some of the issues we are dealing with now, but what we also need to do is restore confidence. People need to be confident when they walk in through our health care facilities that they are getting the quality results and the work that they need done.

Mr. Speaker, there is probably nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador who cannot talk about a time when they had to either be a patient in the health care facility or deal with family members when they were dealing with life and death situations. It is at those very moments that the confidence you have in the health care providers is so important.

I know I do not have a long time to speak, but, Mr. Speaker, I can go back to an incident that did not happen here in Newfoundland and Labrador but certainly one that I lived through when I lived in Toronto, and I was twenty-six years old. At the time, I had a friend who was at the Princess Margaret Hospital undergoing cancer treatment. I guess, being twenty-six and my friend being twenty-five we never thought really for a minute that death would be the end result of what we were going through at the time. My friend did pass away when he was thirty years old.

I remember one night having to make a decision. It was late at night and the doctor came in. Based on the treatment that was going on, it was not working as it should have been, and they had to take my friend out of isolation and transfer him to another hospital and he would have to go on life support. Mr. Speaker, at that point in time I had to make the decision as being the next of kin, and I had to place my full trust in what I was being told at that time. I had to put all my trust into what that physician was telling me and the fact that when we did this transfer out of isolation there would be a quality of treatment attached to what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, I understand, as everyone does - and everyone probably has had a very similar experience with a family member or with their own health - that when you go into a health care facility, you certainly need confidence in what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk more at length about this whole issue because I think it is very serious and something very important. What I do want to say is, as a member of this government, as an MHA and as a Cabinet Minister, I want to make sure that this inquiry is done, it is done to the broadest extent that it can be done and we get the answers that we need, because if changes are necessary they have to be made. What we are very concerned about right now is restoring confidence in a system that will provides good quality to the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under Standing Order 63 subsection 6, I do understand that we would revert back to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I do understand there has been an arrangement made - the Chair wishes to consult - whereby the Opposition House Leader will have shared time with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in making some concluding comments.

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke to the Government House Leader earlier and he agreed that I could have five minutes or so of the time allotted for the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I will not take a lot of time here.

I basically want to propose a sub-amendment to the amendment that has been put forward by the Government House Leader. The amendment would read:

I (the Member for Burgeo-LaPoile) move, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the following sub-amendment to the amendment by the Member for Lewisporte.

That the following be added to the end of the amendment;

"Be it further resolved that government allow the public to have input into the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry."

I laid this before the Table Officers and the Speaker and it has been determined, as I understand it, to be in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would wish to receive a copy of the proposed sub-amendment.

In order to have some final consultations with the Table Officers and to be sure that members have copies of the sub-amendment, the Chair will call a brief recess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will we stop the clock?

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been asked, will we stop the clock, if necessary, at 5:00 p.m. I do believe that we could discuss that at that time.

The Chair calls a recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has examined the proposed sub-amendment and rules the sub-amendment to be in order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose, of course, of proposing the sub-amendment is that this resolution today is all about involvement, and who determines the Terms of Reference. We know now we have, and should have, and will have, a judicial inquiry.

I was listening while the Government House Leader talked about his amendment and, quite frankly, I had no issue whatsoever with the amendment with respect to deleting the whereas clause about the ministers, because I agree: this thing should be absolutely impartial and non-political.

I would have agreed with your amendment in that regard. I disagree with your amendment when it came to the piece about excluding involvement of Members of the House of Assembly. That is why I proposed this sub-amendment; because, again, if there is nothing to fear here - this is not about hiding anything, or it should not be. In fact, there should be absolute openness, transparency, in who decides these Terms of Reference. That is what this is all about.

The public - and when I say the public now in this sub-amendment, I do not care if it is a Member of the House of Assembly, I do not care if it is the medical community, I do not care if it is government. It should include, for example, representatives of the families involved. That is why I am pleased, in fact, to now have the sub-amendment, because it goes even beyond the politicization of it, of saying the House of Assembly should decide the Terms of Reference. What we are saying here is that the public - and, as broad as you can make this judicial inquiry, that is what we need to do.

That is why I disagree with what the Government House Leader has done with this amendment, because he has taken the House of Assembly out of it. That is fine, take them out, I have no problem with that, but the public must, if we are ever going to instill again confidence in the health care system of this Province, it should be absolutely open to scrutiny from anyone. In order to do that properly, that is why I believe firmly, sincerely, that the public needs to have input into these Terms of Reference. It should not be left to a Minister of Health. It should not be left to a Minister of Justice. It should not be left to a Premier. The people of this Province want, must and need to know that everybody's interest was represented in determining the Terms of Reference of this inquiry.

I am not going to politicize this, but the point needs to be made. We had a resolution in this House before on the fibre optics, back in November, when the government amended it at the last moment, deleted it to say that it would not be a public inquiry, we are going to have an Auditor General inquiry. The Minister of Innovation and Trade moved it, and what happened after that? You talk about openness and transparency. Within twenty-four hours the Minister of Finance was out saying: Well, he is not getting Cabinet documents.

Within the next two or three months we heard cases of roadblocks. There were roadblocks, all right, special vetting processes put in place so that certain documents had to be vetted before they could be released to the Auditor General. All I am saying here is, you might do that on fibre optics but you cannot, should not, and it must not be done when it comes to the health care system of this Province, no more than it was done in the Lamer Inquiry. No more than in the Lamer, and I think the right move was done there. In fact, if you check the records, the Terms of Reference that I, as the Minister of Justice, gave to Lamer were even expanded after. It was expanded beyond what I had set out to do.

The whole point of the exercise was by appointing someone who was above reproach, such as a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to investigate our judicial system, we need the same type of approach here on this health care issue. We should not fearmonger. We should be doing absolutely everything we can to make sure that the people of this Province, at the end of the day, have absolute confidence in what is being done in this inquiry and they are going to be pleased with the results at the end of the day. That is why, too, I take some exception, if I read correctly in the media this morning, that the minister commented that it might be a member of our sitting judiciary, I do believe, who might be the commissioner here.

My personal thoughts on that is that it should not be. I believe again, this is so important to everybody in this Province that it should be so independent, not that they are not capable. We have very capable people in this Province, but for the absolute, unquestionable confidence that this is going to be needed in the system at the end of the day, we need to get the best person, he or she, to do this. That is why - again, we might be doing this under the Public Inquiries Act but we do not need any roadblocks. The people of this Province need to know that we are doing this right. If we are going to do it, if we are going to expend our resources and take the time and do it, we need to do it right.

That is the purpose of my proposing this amendment. The public must be involved. If I were government, which I am not, I would want to instill, absolutely, make it clear that this is arm's length. I would not want to take it upon myself that I might, in some way, limit the terms. I would be inviting people to tell me, help me, what to do. That is why I think the public involvement should be here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I defer now to my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly agree to stop the clock. I will be sat down by the House in a second, I am sure, but I would like to have thirty-five, forty seconds or whatever to make a brief response to this sub-amendment which we just saw a few minutes ago. If the House will give me leave to do so, if it does not, well that is all I can do. I can only ask.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House?

Leave has been granted.

The Chair will recognize the hon. the Government House Leader next in order, if that is agreeable? We will stop the clock at 5:00 p.m. and allow the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to have four to five minutes, if it is agreeable, to make any concluding comments.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very, very brief. I do not need a lot of time for this. We just saw and heard the amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader - the sub-amendment as proposed by the Opposition House Leader.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair can have whatever time she wants. We will stop the clock. I understand there was an agree that she would give five minutes of her time to her colleague and then she can have the balance. Whatever the House wants to do, we will not impede whatever the consensus is.

All I want to say is this, Mr. Speaker. The law provides for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a judicial inquiry, or an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. That is what we undertake to do, that is what we said we will do, and that is what we will do.

The Public Inquiries Act allows the commissioner, whoever that person is at the end of the day, to hear from whom they wish. It clearly spells out that anybody in the public who wants to appear before that commission and make a presentation or have something to say, they do not have to be called. All they have to do is ask. If the commissioner so decides that he or she wishes to hear them, they can be heard. So, there is no restriction. There is no avenue here to cover up. I heard the word used again just now, to cover up. This is wide open. The Public Inquiries Act makes it wide open. The commissioner is independent and it will be wide open. Therefore, there is nothing to fear.

As in any other public inquiry that was ever set up in the history of this Province that I know of, there has never been any evidence or suggestion of coverup, or hoodwinking, or stifling, or creating anything other than a coherent, independent so that the commissioner can do what they wish. That is where we are on it, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, in our view, this sub-amendment adds nothing to the resolution and we therefore can't be and won't be supporting it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, making some concluding comments.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank my hon. colleagues of the Legislature today for their contribution and their debate as it relates to this particular motion. I know in listening to many of the speakers today who have contributed here that this is indeed an issue of grave concern to all members. Certainly, many of us have had personal experiences prior to this day, which gives us a great deal of knowledge and passion to draw upon in debating a motion of this particular magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond only to a few of the comments that have been raised in the debate and then I would like an opportunity just to go through some closing comments. When the Member for Topsail was speaking today, the member quoted, and I think used an example of the Steele Inquiry. That inquiry - if the member is so intimately knowledgeable of that inquiry, she will remember as well that the ministers involved at that time were asked to be removed from Cabinet and stepped aside, I might add, from Cabinet until that inquiry was completed. I do not know if her raising that issue today is maybe indicating to us that the ministers involved here should be stepping aside until this inquiry is completed. Maybe at some point she will clarify that particular statement and that particular case that she chose to use as an example here in a judiciary review for us. That is one of the things that I intimately remember about the Steele Inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus a little bit about what we already know here as it relates to this particular issue with regard to the hormone receptor testing of women who have been impacted by breast cancer in our Province.

What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that those tests were the result of a 42 per cent error. That we do know. We know that there were 939 individual samples reported as negative that were sent to Mount Sinai for retesting. That, Mr. Speaker, we do know. We know that 763 of those retested were reviewed. We know that 433 of that 763 saw no change, but we also know that 317 of those cases did, indeed, see a change. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the difference of 176 of those cases were of women who had already died. We know, from the lawyer who is representing these women today in court, that they have indicated to us that 36 of these women who have died of the 176 should have received a treatment called tamoxifen and did not. We also know that number could increase to as high as sixty women before this particular investigation is completed. We know, Mr. Speaker, that 117 of those women in total had recommended treatment changes because of the information that was provided in this retesting.

We know that the Eastern Health Corporation had this information in their possession for up to two years. We know that there were three ministers of this House of Assembly who were previous Ministers of Health, who were briefed on this issue dating back as early as July of 2005. We know from the Eastern Health Corporation that these ministers were kept informed throughout that process of two years. We know, Mr. Speaker, through media comments by the current Minister of Health and Community Services, that he understood the actions of the health authority, that they found themselves trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed a change in treatment and their responsibility to protecting the interests of the organization in the event of litigation. That is a quote.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that it was through questioning and requests in this House of Assembly by the Opposition parties, calling for a judicial inquiry since May 15, that government made the decision, just yesterday, eight days later, to agree to this judicial inquiry.

We also, Mr. Speaker, know that we have a motion on the floor of the House of Assembly today that is not asking for a judicial inquiry. We have already achieved and accomplished that. What we are asking for is to have input, as Members of the House of Assembly, into the Terms of Reference of this judicial inquiry.

I have heard a number of speakers here today get up and quote that this particular process is one that is already outlined in law and legislation as to how it should proceed, and therefore that is the practice that government is choosing to follow.

I also heard the Minister of Health stand here today and boast that they are the government, and that they will be the government for some time. Well, if you are going to be the government, and you are going to boast about that fact, you also need to be in a position to take action when actions are warranted.

What we are requesting today, Mr. Speaker, is a very legitimate request in a private member's motion in this Legislature: that we, as an Opposition and as Members of the House of Assembly, want to contribute. We feel we have something to contribute. We feel that we can add to this process by having some input.

Is that a wrong thing to be asking? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very legitimate, and whether that form of participation or input into a Terms of Reference would come through meeting with the judiciary individual once they are appointed by government, whether it should come in the form of a written correspondence from us, as members, suggesting or requesting certain things that we would like to have added to a Terms of Reference, it could be any number of formats or means. It is not a request that is totally outside of the realm of what would normally be expected in society when you are dealing with an issue of this magnitude.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I have no problem with amending this motion to take out the part of the preamble. In my opinion, preambles are not the relevancy of the motion. It is the actual motion itself that carries and bears weight in terms of what action will be taken. I have no problem with striking any of that preamble.

Mr. Speaker, I take great exception today to listening to the Minister for the Status of Women who stood in her place on this issue for the first time since it surfaced, that I have heard her speak in the last nine days, and not once did I hear her reference the fact that there should be full openness and accountability for the women in this Province who have been impacted by this. I am absolutely appalled that the Minister for the Status of Women today could stand and support an amendment that would exclude the voices of the Opposition of this House of Assembly, or exclude the voices of the public, of the many women and families that are impacted by this, from having input into a Terms of Reference.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to stand and make that statement today, but that statement is a glaring one when, after nine days, you hear the Minister for the Status of Women speak on this issue and will vote on this issue, and vote to exclude the voices of many women, including those that are her colleagues right here on this side of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I can only do as one member can do in presenting a private member's motion in this House: present my case in the best way that I know how, and to make my arguments in the best way that I know how.

My argument today is a very simple one: Leave it open, leave it transparent, let the people have input if they wish, let the members of this Legislature have input if they wish. There is nothing to be lost by doing that on behalf of the government. It just shows in the true spirit of the magnitude of the issue that we are dealing with that there is real co-operation, that there is real openness, and that there is real opportunity for all of us to have our voices heard and be able to have input.

I can only appeal today to the colleagues of this Legislature, that they would vote, in the very least, for the sub-amendment that has been proposed by my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and that all of us can work collectively, on a non-partisan basis, to ensure that this inquiry moves forward and does so in the best interest of the public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will call the question on the sub-amendment, followed by the amendment, and then followed by the main motion.

The sub-amendment, as moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, seconded by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, reads as follows, "Be it further resolved that government allow the public to have input into the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the sub-amendment, say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In the Chair's opinion, the amendment has been lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that Division has been called.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

The Chair acknowledges that the Whips have indicated they are ready for the standing vote.

All those in favour of the sub-amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Ball, Mr. Joyce, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the sub-amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. French, Mr. Denine, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes twelve, the nays twenty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the sub-amendment has been lost.

On motion, sub-amendment lost.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will now call the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The amendment would: "delete all of the words contained in the second whereas; delete the following words in the "Be It Resolved" "...established with input from all political parties in the House of Assembly and has the power to investigate the actions of Cabinet Ministers and Department of Health officials into" and substitute the following, "...and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around faulty Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information."

All those in favour of the amendment put forward by the Government House Leader, say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the amendment has been put forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been Division called.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ready, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been told that the Whips are ready.

All those in favour of the amendment put forward by the Government House Leader, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Ms Whelan, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. French, Mr. Denine, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment please rise stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Ball, Mr. Joyce and Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, the ‘ayes' twenty-six; the ‘nays' twelve.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that the amendment has been carried.

The Chair will now call the main motion. It reads as follows - the Chair will not read the first WHEREAS and read only the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED section, and that would then now read as follows:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the appointment of a judicial inquiry that is: independent, has broad terms of reference, and has the power to investigate the actions of any and all individuals into circumstances around the faulty Estrogen and Progesterone receptor testing for breast cancer patients and the release of this information.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

The Chair has been told the Whips are ready.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Rideout, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Harding, Mr. Oram, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hickey, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. French, Mr. Denine, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Baker, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Collins, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the amended resolution, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Reid, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Ball, Mr. Joyce, Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, the ‘ayes' twenty-six, the ‘nays' twelve.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The decision of the House is that the amended resolution has been adopted.

Motion adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday the Chair rules that this House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 24, at 1:30 of the clock.

This House is now adjourned.