The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, and the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate two fine gentleman of St. Bernard's – Jacques Fontaine who have devoted twenty and twenty-five years of their time to their local volunteer fire department. These men are Clayton Johnson and Gerard Hodder

I would like to thank the St. Bernard's – Jacques Fontaine volunteer fire department for the services they provide to their community and four other communities: Bay L'Argent, Little Bay East, Harbour Mille, and Little Harbour East.

Mr. Johnson was presented with the Firefighting Twenty-five-year Long-Term Service Bar and Medal and Mr. Hodder with the Firefighting Twenty-year Long-Term Service Bar and Medal.

It is our volunteer firefighters who are there when we are at our darkest time, during life-changing events, risking their lives to save our homes and properties. It is the men and women like these whom we the people of this Province depend on to keep our homes, businesses, and communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Clayton Johnson and Gerard Hodder and all the fire department volunteers throughout this Province for their devoted services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Chef Dereck Collier, originally from St. Alban's and now residing here in St. John's. Earlier this year, on January 14, Mr. Collier received the Chef of the Year award from the Newfoundland and Labrador Chef's Association.

This award is presented to a chef who participates in culinary events, competitions, assists the chef's association, and contributes their spare time to helping chefs across borders. Among his achievements and volunteer charitable contributions are provincial and national skills competitions, Hot Soup Cool Jazz Competitions, local collunarium competitions, Cupcakes for Breast Cancer, and the World Chefs Tour against Hunger in South Africa. Dereck has also served as acting vice-president of the Chef's Association and is an instructor for the College of the North Atlantic.

Very well respected, Mr. Collier is a tremendous individual, with tremendous talent and a genuine desire to help others.

On behalf of myself and my hometown, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the culinary skills and charitable generosity of Mr. Dereck Collier, Chef of the Year for 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of three high school graduates in my District of Baie Verte – Springdale.

Terri-Lynn Baggs of Baie Verte Collegiate, Danielle Locke of H.L. Strong Academy, and Lauren Robinson of MSB Regional Academy were the proud recipients of Electoral District Scholarships, valued at $1,000 each.

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

All three schools and the communities are to be commended for fostering a strong learning environment and a positive culture that contributed to the success of these aspiring students.

I conclude by respectfully asking my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Terri-Lynn, Danielle, and Lauren upon their outstanding accomplishments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize an organization that has been providing alternative education to youth in this area for twenty-five years.

The Murphy Centre was established in 1986 and first set up on Water Street. In 2006, its academic programming moved to Prince Philip Drive. The Centre also operates career and employment programs from Torbay Road and a thriving arts program from Harbourside Studios on Harbour Drive here in St. John's.

Just over 500 participants participate annually in the various programs, which range from high school credits and Adult Basic Education through career and lifestyle programs, including assessment, counselling, personal development, and job placement support.

The Murphy Centre celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary on February 3 of this year. In its quarter-century of service, more than 5,000 participants have benefited from its unique person-centred approach. A very dedicated volunteer board of directors governs the Murphy Centre and equally dedicated staff members make the experiences of the young participants worthwhile. Funding from several government departments allows the centre to keep on enriching lives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the Murphy Centre for twenty-five years of outstanding work to this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate three youths from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They are Grade 9 students, thirteen year old twins Kelsey and Courtney Roberts, and fourteen year old Sarah Fowler. They have spent the past year raising more than $11,000 for a new animal shelter for the local SPCA.

Mr. Speaker, they witnessed a stray dog that sparked a discussion on what they could do to make a difference. They young ladies organized bake sales, barbecues, grocery bagging at the local Co-Op, and they also went door to door fundraising. Their message is a simple one, they want people to know that it is very important to give back to your community and anyone can do this type of fundraising, no matter what their age. They want other youth to know that you can indeed have fun while doing something that supports a good cause.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Kelsey Roberts, Courtney Roberts and Sarah Fowler for their outstanding fundraising efforts in putting their community first, and raising an incredible amount of money for their local SPCA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the girls' volleyball teams at Greenwood Academy in Campbellton.

Greenwood Academy is a small K-9 school in rural Newfoundland with a usually successful volleyball program. They have four teams: Grade 5s, Grades 6 and 7, Grade 8, and Grade 9. They are coached by Ambrose Patterson and Jody Curlew. They hold practices twice a week and, Mr. Speaker, any girl who wishes to play gets the chance. There are no tryouts. Everybody is welcome. The girls started at a young age and they have learned to have fun, even when they lose. Their enthusiasm and skill level have made them consistent medal finishers at tournaments. In fact, in ten tournaments this year, Mr. Speaker, they have won eight medals, including six gold.

The Grade 9 team, who have been together since Grade 5, consist of the following members: Tanisha Harris, Catlin Steele, Lacey Lewis, Caley Thoms, Keesha Cooper, Jenny Yeomans, Jenna Burt, Amber Mills, Samantha Budgell, Kayla Hoddinott, and one Grade 8 student, Cara Thoms.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing the success of these students and also in thanking the teachers involved for their interest in their students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to observe Purple Day for Epilepsy in Newfoundland and Labrador, a worldwide event that began in Eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our government received a letter from Luke Noftall, requesting our recognition of March 26 as Purple Day for Epilepsy. I am pleased that Luke and his mother, Elizabeth Noftall, have joined us today. Gail Dempsey and Pamela Anstey from Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador are also present today in the gallery.

I commend the work of Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador. For nearly thirty years this organization has provided support and information to individuals and their families throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as part of their Paint the Province Purple campaign, Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador has organized community activities that will take place throughout the Province this week to help raise awareness and understanding of epilepsy.

Nine-year-old Cassidy Megan from Nova Scotia organized the first Purple Day at her elementary school after being diagnosed with epilepsy in 2008. Cassidy reflected in a letter to her supporters that her diagnosis had made her feel "afraid and embarrassed of what other people would think." By encouraging people to wear purple, the internationally recognized colour for epilepsy, she hoped that people who experienced seizures would feel less alone.

Mr. Speaker, one little girl's idea has grown into a global event in just three short years. March 26 is now celebrated as Purple Day for Epilepsy in dozens of countries and has done a great deal to further understanding, reduce stigma, and improve the quality of life for people with epilepsy.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects over 10,000 people in our Province. I invite the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in Purple Day activities and support those who live with epilepsy each day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I, too, want to welcome Luke, his mother Elizabeth, Gail Dempsey and Pamela Anstey in the gallery today. As was mentioned, epilepsy is indeed a very prevalent disease amongst Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; as a matter of fact, it is second only to migraine. As was mentioned we have 10,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians dealing with epilepsy. It is great to have a day like Purple Day as we bring public awareness to epilepsy. What this does of course is educate the general population, not only about epilepsy but how to intervene in case of emergency.

We all heard, in recent days, stories about how dogs are used now, dogs that will actually sense the seizure in advance of them happening. It is important that we do acknowledge days like Purple Day and epilepsy, it gives us all an opportunity to learn more about this prevalent condition, and another opportunity to thank all the volunteers and the associations across Newfoundland for the great work that they do on behalf of the people with epilepsy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and join with her and the Leader of the Official Opposition in welcoming our special guests here today. I congratulate all the children and parents affected by epilepsy who are involved in making the public more aware of this condition and dispelling the myths and stigma that have existed for too long a time.

Wearing purple ribbons and purple in any way we can is one important thing to do, but the 10,000 people in this Province with epilepsy deserve every effort we can make to make their lives easier. Government should support education and awareness sessions in every school in the Province on a yearly basis, beginning at the elementary school level and on through high school. Regular on the ground education in our schools will make a difference in the attitudes of the next generation and it will paint the Province purple all year-round.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Don McKay, local poet, teacher, and editor. He has been named the winner of this year's BMO Winterset Award for his collection of literary essays The Shell of the Tortoise.

In addition to this recent honour, Mr. McKay won the Governor General's Award for Night Field in 1991 and Another Gravity in 2000. In June 2007, he won the Griffin Poetry award for Strike/Slip.

Mr. McKay's fellow nominees for the BMO Winterset Award were Edward Riche for Easy to Like and Mark Callanan for Gift Horse. Mr. Riche is the award-winning author of Rare Birds, which was adapted into a major motion picture in 2001. Fellow poet Mark Callanan is the author of Scarecrow and Sea Legend, which was short-listed for the bpNichol Chapbook Poetry Award in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the BMO Winterset Award was established by Richard Gwyn to encourage and promote excellence in writing by Newfoundland and Labrador authors. Mr. Gwyn created the award in memory of his late wife, the prize-winning author and local historian, Sandra Fraser Gwyn.

The provincial government remains committed to the growth of our literary sector. In Budget 2011, more than $338,000 in funding was committed through the Publisher's Assistance Program and the Cultural Economic Development Program to support a variety of events and activities, including professional development opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. McKay as well as all of the Province's remarkable writers and publishers for their dedication to the growth and promotion of the literary sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the advanced copy and I would like to join with him in congratulating Mr. McKay on receiving this very prestigious award.

I would also like to add that over the last dozen or so years our Province has come a long way in literary functions and events. We have the Writer's Festival in Woody Point, which has been ongoing for eight, nine or ten years. The town literally jams full. Then, all summer long we have Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador and they produce home-written productions at Cow Head in Gros Morne National Park. These are locally written and also locally performed and is a great sense of entertainment for tourists from May until September.

One of my favourite Newfoundland and Labrador writers is Earl Pilgrim. Earl would never be classified as a literary writer such as Mr. McKay; however, he is a fabulous storyteller and this former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, former prizefighter, and wildlife officer is getting on for almost twenty books right now and they are all very entertaining. So, congratulations to Mr. McKay and I would like to see all of our writers encouraged.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Don McKay, Mark Callanan, Edward Riche – we are rich indeed. Congratulations to the late Sandra Fraser Gwyn, Richard Gwyn, and BMO for your vision, commitment, and investment. Art and artists are vital to our community, they inspire us to dare to dream, hope, and see what could be. Don, bravo, and in Don's words, "You are the crystal that picks up its many deaths. You are the monetary mind of rock."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, The Fifth Estate documentary on Burton Winters has rocked the Province by revealing some very shocking information around protocol and DND guidelines. It is unfortunate that it took The Fifth Estate to uncover those disturbing facts.

My question is to the Premier: Did your investigation following this incident identify any of those shocking revelations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our investigation was around our own protocols, and a review of those protocols to see if we need to be doing something else provincially. Mr. Speaker, I, like others, accepted that weather was an issue. The Fifth Estate has made it quite clear that weather was not an issue. There is a letter leaving the minister's office today to the Minister of Defence asking the question: If weather was not an issue, why weren't the Cormorants deployed? The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, will dictate further actions by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: A follow-up to that, I'd like you to add one little sentence to your letter and let us know, let the people in the Province know, if equipment is not available would they let the Province know.

Mr. Speaker, The Fifth Estate has revealed contradicting information around weather conditions, call back protocol and the unavailability of aircraft.

I ask the question of the Premier: Surely, we have heard enough by now to initiate a full independent investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy. Premier, will you do it now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I had the authority to do it I certainly would do it. I do not have access to federal government information. I can ask for same, but I do not have the authority to begin an investigation into protocols, procedures, and actions of the federal government. I can ask that they be reviewed, Mr. Speaker; I am doing that. I am asking for explanations that the people of this Province are demanding, Mr. Speaker, certainly in light of The Fifth Estate report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, I watched, along with the people of Makkovik, in disbelief and shock Friday night as The Fifth Estate reported the true facts and shortcomings of DND's mishandling of the terrible tragedy.

If DND is not prepared to do a full investigation, my question is to the Premier: Will your government step up, do what is right, and get the real information for the families and friends of Burton Winters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Member for Torngat Mountains' concern. This young man, whose tragic end we all feel, was from his own community. He participated in the search and rescue activities, Mr. Speaker. I understand that. I understand the outrage that is being felt, not only in Labrador, but right throughout this Province, because the explanations that are being provided are not satisfactory, and appear now to be contradictory, Mr. Speaker.

If I had the power to begin an inquiry into the actions of the federal government, and have access to the pertinent information, Mr. Speaker, I would call one today. I do not; only the federal government can do that. I am demanding explanations from the Minister of Defence, Mr. Speaker, and once I get them, I will make that information available to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, young Burton's family and the people of Labrador are really struggling with the Rear Admiral's decision not to send a Cormorant helicopter from Gander because they may have needed it for a maritime emergency.

My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Province: Do you agree that this is totally unacceptable, and what requests have you made to ensure that Cormorant helicopters are available to respond in all emergency situations in our Province – not just in marine emergencies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disconnect between the members on this side of the House and the Member for Torngat Mountains, nor is there a disconnect from the people of the Province in the island part of the Province – in Newfoundland – and Labrador. A life is a life, whether that life to be saved is on the sea or on the land. We all believe that, Mr. Speaker. The information that we were initially given by DND, according to The Fifth Estate, appears to be wrong. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are owed an explanation. I am demanding that explanation from the minister responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if The Fifth Estate and journalists in this country can shine more light on what happened with the Burton Winters case than our own government, and the Government of Canada, have been able to do for the people, will the Premier now recognize that it is important to take the next steps?

I ask the Premier today: Will she instigate a judicial inquiry which would allow the access to information that we need to know to see what happened in this particular incident on search and rescue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue, a very sensitive issue, particularly for the people of Makkovik and the family of Burton Winters. Mr. Speaker, the House Leader well recognizes that I have no authority to institute an inquiry into the federal government's activities to have access to the kind of information that we would need. I can call on the federal government for such an inquiry. That may very well happen, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I am demanding an explanation from the Minister of Defence with regard to the information that was in The Fifth Estate program. Once I receive the response to that inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I will make it available to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I beg to differ with the Premier in terms of being able to launch a judicial inquiry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the countdown is on for the closure of the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-centre in St. John's. We have just heard the questions from my colleagues in the House with regard to the Burton Winters tragedy.

I now ask the Premier: Are you prepared to launch a full-court press and force the federal government to uphold their responsibilities for search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has had a full-court press ongoing with the federal government since the decision was announced. I was accused in the media by one of our MPs of trying to drag the MPs into this issue. Yes, I am – yes, I am, Mr. Speaker – screaming and bawling, but I am trying to drag them in to this issue to make their positions known in Ottawa and to do their jobs in Ottawa. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are doing their jobs, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have anything other than the force of my arguments to compel the Prime Minister to do the right thing and to reverse that decision. I am going to keep making them, Mr. Speaker, day in and day out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the letter-writing campaign is just not enough. We were told by the Minister of Municipal Affairs weeks ago that there were letters sent to Ottawa, which we have not seen any response to yet on this. His response is like the response that I got from Stephen Harper's office; there is not much odds about it, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, what we are hearing is of Griffon helicopters that are broken down, Hercules aircrafts that are out of service, Cormorants that are not available; to top it all off, now the federal government wants to close the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-centre in St. John's.

I ask you today, Premier: Are you prepared to go to Ottawa - because we are prepared to go with you, stand with you shoulder to shoulder - and fight the federal government? If you are not prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to go and rally on Parliament Hill without you. Which way would you like to have it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Ottawa several times on this issue and it is high time you went. I encourage you to go. Mr. Speaker, I encourage them to make a meeting with the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, standing outside a building screaming or standing on the dock screaming, it does not always hold people accountable. My view is that it often lets them off the hook, Mr. Speaker.

My responsibility is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prime Minister Harper has a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to hold him accountable. I step up, and I step up every day. I encourage the Opposition to do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, in the media last week the Minister of Natural Resources avoided a question about new timelines and targets for the Muskrat Falls Project. He lashed out at the Opposition, as he has all of his critics throughout all of the questions that have been asked.

I will ask the minister: Let's keep it very simple, if you have all the information on this project, can you start telling us what the new timeline is for this project sanction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize I have to keep it simple. Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the PUB report. We are also waiting, Mr. Speaker, for the final Decision Gate 3 numbers from Nalcor. We are in the process of finalizing the loan guarantee in the deal and the negotiations with Emera.

Mr. Speaker, once all of that information is in, as a government - and as I said last week, I was hoping for more fruitful debate in the House of Assembly to inform the decision. As we move ahead, Mr. Speaker, we will look at all the information and we will make a decision on sanction. That is what we were elected to do and that is what we will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about discussions he has had about natural gas with natural gas companies, and he has admitted that no detailed studies were completed on those alternatives.

I ask the minister, they must have been detailed enough, your conversations with those companies at least detailed enough that you could actually dismiss natural gas as an option. What was the price per kilowatt hour for using natural gas as an energy source?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to natural gas; there is the importation of natural gas because of the low prices in the United States. The price paid in the United States at approximately $2.50 per million BTU does not translate into delivered cost to Holyrood. Wade Locke has indicated that it would cost at a minimum – the minimum or maximum would have to be $5.75. What we are told, Mr. Speaker, is that we are looking at $10 to $12 for delivered costs, it is not economically feasible. The building of a pipeline, Mr. Speaker, from the Grand Banks is anywhere from 350 to 650 kilometres. We have production licences to the oil companies and what we are looking at there, Mr. Speaker, they are saying natural gas would have to be at $10 to $12 to develop, it is not economically feasible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: So here we go, Mr. Speaker, we do not know the price but it is no good, it cannot work. It is obvious that the minister wants a more informed debate on Muskrat Falls; yet, he is refusing a full debate on the project in the House of Assembly. He is refusing to provide information that has been requested. He is also refusing to allow the PUB the mandate and the time it needs to complete a full and intense study.

Now that you stated you want a more informed debate, are you now going to publicly share all the information that you have on this project and allow the Public Utilities Board the opportunity to look at all other options and alternatives, just as they are going to do in Nova Scotia, or are you going to refuse that as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: If I were the Leader of the Opposition I would be looking over my shoulder. Their saviour, Dean MacDonald, supports Muskrat Falls; perhaps he should talk to Dean.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at here, we brought in eight boxes of documents. There is all of the information that was filed with the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board will provide their report this week, Mr. Speaker. They have been asked to look at two options. Other options, Mr. Speaker, have been analyzed and have been looked at. The Manitoba Hydro International report is, Mr. Speaker, an independent report. It concludes, one that we need the power, and two, Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister announced a new generic drug pricing model today. It is likely that prescription fees will go up for everyone in the Province and we know seniors and those who do not have a private insurance are at high risk of paying more under your new model.

I ask the minister today: What assurances can you give our most vulnerable in society that they will not have to pay more for their drugs or for prescription fees in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can give every assurance that we are concerned about seeing that seniors in this Province do not pay more for their generic prescription drugs. In fact, we will ensure that through policies that we will implement as a result of this. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, what we intend to do around generic drug pricing modelling is that we will reinvest in rural pharmacies throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be savings. We will have money to invest, and we will see those investments benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Official Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are five days from seeing this particular bill and the new generic drug pricing program come into play in the Province.

I ask you today, Minister: Why are you not tabling the regulations and the policies around this, why are you not telling us what program you are going to put in place to ensure that seniors in our Province and the people of this Province do not have to pay more for medication and prescription drug fees? Lay it out, give us the information.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will be laying it all out, and it will be laid out at the negotiation table. That is what we are doing. We are negotiating with PANL around how it is we can mutually agree to reinvest in Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural pharmacies, and in terms of what we are doing with our seniors. So there will be ample discussions; she is just not at those tables, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that she is prepared to reinvest into independent pharmacies in this Province, and into seniors, with regard to the new generic drug program.

I ask you, Minister: How are you proposing to that, what will be the cost of those investments, and when are you going to be prepared to tell us about it – or, do you not have any program at this stage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they must be running out of time over there, she is asking five questions in one, and I really do not know which one she wants answered first; but, let me tell you what I am going to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: We are very concerned about seeing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the lowest cost for their prescription drugs as we can possibly arrange for them. Seven other provinces, Mr. Speaker, are going down the same road – six have already implemented it – we have heard from New Brunswick just in this last little bit of time. We will do the same thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will protect them and ensure that we have the lowest cost for generic drugs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no secret, and the minister knows that this program will have major implications for independent pharmacies in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we know, from the Wade Locke report that was done in September of 2008 that this could have such a drastic impact that we could see some of these independent pharmacies go out of business in the Province.

I ask you, Minister: What follow-up have you done with regard to the findings of Dr. Locke? Although he asked you and made the proposal to government to do more work on that, you did not take him up on that offer, and I ask you why that is.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: What we are trying to do in this Province is ensure that the beneficiaries of our programs receive the lowest drug-price cost that we can give them. That is what we are working toward.

We are also, though, concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are also concerned about those pharmacies and we will invest in those pharmacies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the Opposition House Leader propose that all three political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador join together to ask Ottawa to fix the search and rescue problems in this Province. I believe and my caucus believes that the state of search and rescue in this Province transcends political boundaries.

So, Mr. Speaker, I now ask the Premier if she would please agree to be part of a united front in Ottawa, not screaming and yelling as she suggested was meant, but sitting together with federal ministers to discuss this serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues across the floor to make whatever representations they can make in Ottawa that they consider might be effective. That is what we have done since day one. Mr. Speaker, I encourage them to encourage the MPs who are part of their political alliance to do their jobs in Ottawa and to make this case as forcefully as they can.

Mr. Speaker, we were disturbed by what we heard on The Fifth Estate program. As I said earlier in Question Period, we are writing to the Minister of National Defence demanding explanations, Mr. Speaker. We will make that information public when it arrives and it will dictate next steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I say to the Premier, and she knows as well, that the two NDP MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have been speaking out on this issue and will continue to do so.

I would like a better explanation from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as to why she is refusing to visibly show us united together by physically going to Ottawa together. Could we have explanation for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in this House day after day and am told, especially by the Opposition Party, that we are weak, that we are ineffective, that we are directionless, that we do not know what we are doing, and that we are not taking a positive stand on behalf of the people of the Province. Therefore, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with everything they say, why they are so insistent on joining with us? If you are that strong, if you are that effective, if you have all the answers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – then you should be making those arguments in Ottawa. Why would you want to hook yourself to a sinking ship, Mr. Speaker? So I am not interested in playing those kinds of politics, Mr. Speaker, that is the bottom line, because that request is nothing – only pure politics. I work on behalf of the people of the Province and I will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It is very, very sad that we cannot show that. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has acknowledged the Leader of Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has publicly dismissed the expertise of the people who sat on the only truly independent study of Muskrat Falls, the Joint Review Panel. Mr. Speaker, the provincial government agreed when this panel was formed that these people were qualified to do the work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is she now dismissing the expertise of the people her government approved to conduct the independent study?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the only group I have heard refer to this environmental assessment panel as truly independent is the Leader of the NDP. Manitoba Hydro International is an international consulting company that was hired by the PUB independent of government, Mr. Speaker, and independent of Nalcor. They looked at all of the issues that have been put forward in terms of determining the least-cost option. They determined, Mr. Speaker, that wind is not an option to replace Holyrood. They looked, Mr. Speaker, at Muskrat Falls versus Holyrood and concluded that Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost option.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB will speak later this week and we will then take into account what they have to say. The environmental assessment panel looked at the environment, Mr. Speaker; they made certain comments which we have made clear we do not agree with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister knows as well as I do that the groups that he has referred to had restrictions put on their research, because all they could do was look at what was being proposed by Nalcor. He knows and I know that an environmental assessment panel has broad powers. They look at everything that is socioeconomic-related to the project that is being proposed. He is totally dismissing their research, having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this panel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is she allowing her Minister of Natural Resources to dismiss the qualifications and expertise of the very people they appointed to the panel without any restrictions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What I find interesting here is that the groups with whom the NDP are so closely aligned, these environmental groups, are the very ones who are questioning the panel's expertise. They filed a lawsuit, Mr. Speaker, in federal court indicating that the environmental assessment panel did not do their job; they did not look at other alternatives. So, which way is it? Are the independent? Are they competent, or does the NDP agree with these environmental groups that they did not do their job properly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario recently announced that it would continue its all-day Kindergarten programming despite its multi-billion-dollar budget deficit.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why does his government not have a similarly high value for all-day Kindergarten?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We investigate and explore all options to ensure that the students of our Province get the best-quality education that they can. One of the areas, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned the other day, is $4.8 million over three years to invest in that zero to six years. We have, based on research – Memorial being a part of it, the academic community all a part of it, Mr. Speaker; anyone who follows education knows that the zero to three years where we invested first is critical, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to explore options, and I will keep the member informed, I guess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education keeps repeating himself over and over again on this issue. I do not know who he is trying to convince, himself or me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the research clearly shows that investments in all-day Kindergarten over the long term result in higher productivity and higher tax revenues.

I ask the minister: Are you unaware of this research or are you simply just ignoring it? Which is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if he was not smitten by the leadership bug in Toronto this weekend, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering.

Mr. Speaker, he keeps asking the question. Unfortunately, he seems not to like the answer that I give him. I cannot help it if it is not sinking in. Mr. Speaker, research from Memorial, academics, people who have been in education for years are talking about where you make the investment. We have invested in the zero to three years of age. We are laying out a framework up to, from four to six, Mr. Speaker. Our work is ongoing and, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I can keep the member informed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess if we are talking about leaders listening, we have a new leader now and believe you me he is listening, so stay tuned.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation who recently announced a frightening decline in the moose population on the Island. On the Great Northern Peninsula outfitters and residents have been saying publicly for some time that there are very few moose to be found in the area. Mr. Speaker, many people in the area depend on the outfitter and tourism industry for their work in this regard. The moose population decline could lead to their jobs being in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he doing to get a handle on this resource which he is charged with managing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To analyze the moose population, it is certainly a significant one. You have the social carrying capacity, Mr. Speaker, which is certainly not lost on this government and you also have the people like the outfitters who contribute $40 million to the economy of this Province. Obviously, it is very, very important that we come up with a plan. We have said that we were; if you reference our Blue Book, a five-year moose management strategy, Mr. Speaker, it is in the works. It is important I think that we consult and have a look at other countries throughout the world, including Scandinavian countries that deal with significant moose populations and deal with the socio issues, as well as the economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, we are working through that. We will have a plan in place hopefully for the next hunting season.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some time we have heard from groups deploring the fact that there were too many moose causing too many accidents on our highways. Mr. Speaker, recently the minister made the startling comment that there are too few moose on the Island, and he called the population frighteningly low.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Can he explain the apparent anomaly between the fact that there are too many moose on one hand and I guess in this regard not enough moose in other areas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be against the moose population and then in favour of it at the same time. I do not mind a fellow speaking out of both sides of his mouth a scattered time but this fellow is actually changing his clothes on this one, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the member opposite, this is a very serious issue. It is a unique balancing act that we have to take into consideration. That is why we are having a five-year moose management plan. In the late 1990s, Mr. Speaker, there were 147,000 moose estimated here in the Province. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are down to 110,000, and another few thousand in our national parks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move, seconded by the Member for Humber West:

WHEREAS the current government, in its 2011 policy Blue Book, promised to deliver wait time strategies for emergency departments and hip and knee joint replacement surgeries; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Health and Community Services fulfilled these election commitments by announcing strategies to reduce wait times in both of these vital areas of our health care system; and

WHEREAS we have made significant progress in improving wait times for the benchmark areas outlined in the 2004 Accord; and

WHEREAS 83 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians received access to care in the five priority areas within their respective benchmarks according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information annual report on wait times, the second highest of all the provinces; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has directed resources to other areas outside the 2004 Accord where access has been a challenge, such as emergency departments and diagnostic imaging; and

WHEREAS the current government has invested over $140 million over the past eight years to improve wait times throughout the Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the significant actions this government has taken and is continuing to take to enhance the access and reduce wait times throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The private member's motion we will be discussing on Wednesday will be the motion just read into the record by the Member for Terra Nova.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27; and further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2012.

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

Petitions.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I will read the petition:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from their family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013 Budget.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise and present this petition. Many people from the Bay of Islands have expressed the concern of this over a number of years. They are very concerned, especially in rural Newfoundland, and I know all members come across this, when they cannot find people to give the home care services that they need and they need to call upon the family members.

I know the PC Blue Book in 2011, Mr. Speaker, committed to have this done. The minister herself stood up and said it will be done, but we were just wondering when and if it was going to be in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker.

This is something that people have been asking for. This has been committed by the government on several occasions. It is a necessity, especially for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people who, in many cases, find it hard to find a caregiver for their loved ones, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, and I know we all go through it at certain times with our family, a lot of times when there are personal needs to be taken care of by a caregiver, and it is kind of private, they would love a family member because the dignity steps in.

This is a very important issue for all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very important issue. It has come across my desk on many occasions, Mr. Speaker. So, I present this petition again on behalf of the undersigned and I call upon government to have it done in this year's Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I again arise in this House with a petition regarding cellphones in communities in Gros Morne National Park.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Pauls, Cow Head, Sally's Cove, or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities within Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous travellers, hikers, and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, imagine all of the advertising that is done for Gros Morne National Park. Imagine all of the beautiful pictures, all of the wilderness, all the small towns. People come from far and wide. They come from North America. They come from Europe. They come from Asia. They come to Gros Morne National Park and the simplest instrument that they can use in Bombay, India, or they can use in Tokyo or they can use anywhere in Europe, a cellphone, they cannot use in Gros Morne National Park. There are only two or three places in Gros Morne National Park where it is possible to receive cellphone service.

Besides being a gross inconvenience for the people who reside within the park, the black eye that it gives to tourism in the Province that we appear to be so backward technologically, yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars for fibre optic cables and we do not have a simple cellphone service. The geography of Gros Morne National Park is such that only two or three additional towers strategically located would easily provide cellphone service throughout the entire park. Situated on headlands, on Cow Head, near Trout River, back on the mountains, this would provide cellphone service for everybody who visits the park and for all of the residents who live and like to carry on business within the park.

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

Again, thank you.

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

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

I rise today to read this petition. To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for their ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom or waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels or wait inside out of the elements and harsh weather conditions, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately construct and operate a waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, such that all users of the provincial ferry service may be able to utilize such waiting area/washroom facilities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, certainly from the comments I am hearing from across the hall, this is not the first time that the members here have heard this petition. Certainly, the member before me read this petition in – which is unfortunate that we have had to wait this long to get facilities that are considered basic. These are the most basic facilities.

I have to travel down to Rose Blanche – and again, these people have to travel every day for just about anything; for health care, for medical, for work, they have to go up and down. Now, it is bad enough that they do not have cellphone service coming in and out of here, but when they get back, if they have to wait for the ferry, they have to wait in their cars or wait out in the elements. They do not even have a simple restroom; they do not even have a porta-potty there to use. This comes down to basic human necessities.

Now, I guess the member for Mount Pearl would know, when he deals with occupational health and safety, this is pretty basic health and safety stuff right here. I do not think that the people of La Poile, and certainly, the travelling public, are asking for much here. When we talk about tourism in this Province, that is certainly something that is not included in our tourism brochures, that you better hope that the ferry does not make you wait too when you are waiting to get on, or else.

Again, it is basic, basic stuff that the people are asking for. I will continue to rise and enter this petition, and hopefully, between the Department of Tourism, or the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Service NL, maybe we will get this basic human need taken care of, and hopefully in a short period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: I rise today to present a petition for the removal of the Englee fish plant public safety hazard and environmental concern.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the provincial government has not acknowledged that they have a role to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and

WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven years, lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay of new infrastructure, and has become a concern of public safety, as large debris has fallen into a major shipping route.

We, the undersigned, petition the House to urge government to immediately order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned property, a former fish plant, in order to restore public confidence in the system, and settle land issues to permit new wharf development, providing residents of Englee with a mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized economy.

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

Now this petition has been circulated and has thousands and thousands of signatures on it. This is something that is not new; it has been a matter since 2004. Ever since this government has been in power this has been an issue – for the past eight years – and it really is a major environmental concern. The roof has collapsed in part of the facility; there has been debris, shingles, large parts that have flown around in the town. The residents are gravely concerned. It has been a huge economic loss. Because an environmental assessment has been done, the plant has been shut down. They are not looking for a new plant to be put in; they are just looking for the property to be removed and remediated and they are asking for government to step up, step up to the plate, to really protect the safety and health of the residents that are there. Not only is the lack of action by this government impacting economic development, because the federal government has looked at putting in wharfing infrastructure in this facility in the multimillion dollar range. This is having a big impact in looking at where we move forward. It is an area of prime real estate and it is an ability to really advance.

The message is quite clear, for other fish plants and other operators that are pulling out like in Port Union: Be aware; be very, very careful as to what is going to happen. They had put in a fisheries compensation package to do retraining, but it certainly was not enough, because this town is on the mere survival of the Community Employment Enhancement fund. We need to do more like has been done in Grand Falls – Windsor and Stephenville, where we have seen provincial government offices go into play.

I really ask Service NL, the Department of Municipal Affairs, Environment and Conservation, and Fisheries and Aquaculture, in partnership with Justice, to really step up to the plate and remove this facility.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

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

WHEREAS search and rescue assets were not adequately deployed during the Burton Winters search; and

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

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon members of the House of Assembly to urge government to do a full investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy and search and rescue in Labrador and lobby the federal government to establish permanent search and rescue capability at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the facts presented by The Fifth Estate, there is a level of neglect to the lives in our Province. Mr. Speaker, search and rescue assets were not adequately deployed because they were not adequate. In our Province we have had two recent tragedies where search and rescue did not respond. One was because DND would not supply an aircraft, and the other was due to absence of aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, the need for search and rescue in Labrador, as well as co-ordination with Maritime Sub-Centre is the only way that the lives in our Province are to be protected. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make a living from the land and from the sea, and as long as we live in this harsh environment, Mr. Speaker, we will be calling on search and rescue for service because accidents and mistakes do happen.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I call upon all members of this hon. House to urge the government to lobby for search and rescue in Labrador, as well as fight to keep the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's open.

Thank you.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill 8.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister -

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we are into third readings. I call now Order 3, third reading of Bill 8.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, be now read a third time.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be adopted as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 4, third reading of Bill 10.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be now read the third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 10 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill now is read a third time and it is ordered that the bill be passed and the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

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

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

Order 2, third reading of Bill 7.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read the third time.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Order 12, second reading of Bill 12.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Official –

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

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

MR. BALL: Clarification.

The point I want to raise is that I think many members of this House realize that I am an active pharmacist and still actively registered with the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board, and I have written the Commissioner of Legislative Standards and asked him, obviously, where I stand on this position.

There is no question, I think, in response, and as I personally feel there is a conflict of interest under section 21 of the House of Assembly Act and in principle 7, the members' Code of Conduct, the decision would be that I would not participate in the debate; nor would I vote on Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

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

Thank you very much.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point, I want to make it clear that I did not raise this matter with the Opposition Leader. I felt that his own integrity would allow him to make the decision that needed to be made, so I welcome the decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member raised it as a point of clarification or a point of order. There is really no point of order, and you provided clarity in your statement, so I am assuming you are presenting the information for the House's benefit and not needing a response from the Chair.

MR. BALL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act". (Bill 12)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before this hon. House today to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. This bill, which will amend the Pharmaceutical Services Act, will enable the provincial government to introduce a new, generic drug-pricing model for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The bill also includes other changes and edits of a non-substantive nature. For example, we modernized the names of the components of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program several years ago so the act now needs to be modified to reflect those changes.

We also added a new component to the program since the current act was introduced, and that is the Assurance Plan. This plan provides coverage for individuals and families whose prescription drug costs are high relative to their net income.

The appeals process for drug coverage requested under special authorization was amended to reflect the Department of Health and Community Services' updated organizational structure, removing the specific title of medical consultant and allowing a delegation of a medical practitioner within the department to assess these appeals. The appeals process with respect program eligibility was clarified.

We have added reference, Mr. Speaker, to a new expert review committee, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Committee, or pCODR. The department seeks expert advice from various committees to inform decisions as to which drugs are covered and under what circumstances they are covered. The act had already referenced the National Common Drug Review and the Joint Atlantic Common Drug Review processes. The recommended criteria of these expert committees are utilized when assessments are made regarding drug coverage under our Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program has five components or plans: the Foundation Plan, the 65Plus Plan, the Access Plan, the Assurance Plan, and the Select Needs Plan. The provincial government invests approximately $151 million annually in this program, Mr. Speaker, to provide financial assistance for the purchase of eligible prescription medications for residents of the Province who qualify for enrolment. Currently, more than 121,800 residents of our Province – or almost 24 per cent of our total population – are receiving drug benefits through this program. Funding for our public drug plan has increased from $127 million in 2006-2007 to our current budget of $151 million in 2011-2012.

The five components of the program are intended to protect and support some of our most vulnerable populations: those individuals receiving Income Support, seniors receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, individuals and families whose incomes are more modest, and individuals whose total drug costs are high and create a significant burden relative to their income. There is also flexibility, Mr. Speaker, amongst the various components of the program so that an individual is assessed and made eligible for the plan that financially suits them best.

The provincial government has provided many enhancements to the program over the last several years. The two most significant enhancements include: adjusting the income thresholds to qualify for the Access Plan in 2010-2011 to reflect increases that we have made to the minimum wage over the last few years – in 2011-2012, over 33,600 clients were beneficiaries of the Access Plan at an estimated cost of $10.8 million – and the addition of the Assurance Plan.

While national attention has been paid to the possible introduction of a catastrophic drug program, these discussions have not translated into action, Mr. Speaker. In light of this, the provincial government introduced the most recent component of the program, the Assurance Plan, in October 2007. This plan recognizes that even with a higher net income, expensive drugs can create a significant financial burden for an individual and their family. Since its introduction in October 2007, the Assurance Plan has grown to include over 6,400 clients in 2011-2012, with an annual budget of approximately $17.5 million.

Decisions to list medications for coverage under the drug program are evidence based and reflect the recommendations of one of several national and Atlantic review processes: the National Common Drug Review, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, or the Atlantic joint review process. The program also has a special authorization process to ensure that coverage for certain drugs is consistent with the utilization criteria recommended by these expert committees, thereby representing clinical and cost-effective usage of public funds.

Mr. Speaker, we are all proud of the Province's prescription drug program, but with any public program we must always be prepared to review and adjust the program to better meet the needs of the Province's population and to recognize the fiscal realities of the world in which we live.

In 2010-2011, the budget for the Department of Health and Community Services was an unprecedented $2.9 billion, Mr. Speaker. This represented approximately 40 per cent of government's total Budget. Our aging population and high incidence of chronic diseases will continue to tax our current health care system. To ensure the sustainability of our health care system now and into the future for our children, we must ensure that we have a system that is as efficient and cost effective as possible.

Mr. Speaker, as we face this challenge, our government remains committed to providing affordable access to prescription medication for beneficiaries of our prescription drug program. We are also committed to ensuring that all residents of our Province, whether they are beneficiaries of our public drug plan or not, pay reasonable prices for their generic drugs. Introduction of a new generic drug pricing policy will ensure this happens.

A 2006 study conducted by the national Patented Medicine Prices Review Board found that on average, prices for generic drugs in ten other developed countries were 15 per cent to 77 per cent less than the same drugs purchased in Canada.

We also know that people in this Province are paying higher prices for the same generic drugs than people in provinces that have already implemented new generic drug pricing policies, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and most recently, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, this is why I stand before you today. The Newfoundland and Labrador Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary, known as the formulary, is a comprehensive list of commonly used generic drugs, drugs which have been determined to have the therapeutic equivalent to, or the same clinical effect, of a brand product. This formulary is established under The Pharmaceutical Services Act and the Interchangeable Drug Products Formulary Regulations, 2007.

The drugs listed in the formulary are produced in accordance with sound manufacturing principles and have been found, based on acceptable testing, to conform to official Canadian standards. These drugs are also subject to a continuous review process. This Province has been a leader in the establishment of its generic formulary in legislating that the prices we establish for generic drugs apply to all generic drugs being purchased in the Province. This includes not only those purchased under our public drug program, but also applies to those purchased through private insurance drug plans and by residents who pay out-of-pocket for their medications. This approach ensures, Mr. Speaker, that all residents in the Province who are provided with, or purchase, generic drugs, are treated equally with respect to the ability to obtain generic drugs at reasonable prices.

Based on generic drug costs in the drug program in 2011-2012, residents of this Province have been paying, on average, approximately 60 per cent of the brand drug price for their generic drugs. We know that the cost of generic drugs in this Province should be lower. Other provinces are achieving lower costs and our residents deserve, Mr. Speaker, the same opportunity.

The provincial government has developed its generic drug pricing policy thoughtfully, fully recognizing the unique challenges we face as a Province in delivering high-quality health care services based on our unique geography and demographics. Currently, six other provinces have generic drug pricing models. We have had the opportunity to observe and learn from these provinces as they have implemented their own provincial generic drug pricing model. Government has drawn on the experiences of these provinces to ensure that as we move forward we are making decisions based on best practices.

We have heard from many individuals and stakeholder groups over the last several months through public debate on this issue. In January 2012, we also completed a consultative process with major stakeholders inviting written submissions on the proposed new pricing models, groups such as associations representing pharmacies and pharmacists, employer and business organizations, the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry. All of the information, Mr. Speaker, all of the observations and feedback collected over the last twelve to eighteen months was carefully considered in the development of the new generic pricing model which is enabled by the changes being proposed to the act today.

I am pleased to bring forward a bill today to reflect the needs and realities of our Province. Mr. Speaker, the proposed new generic drug policy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, once it is fully implemented, will see the price of most generic drugs decreasing to a maximum of 35 per cent of the brand drug price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We plan to phase in the new pricing policy over time as follows: from April 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 all generics, except for a small number that will be considered for an exemption, will be priced at no more than 45 per cent of the brand price; from October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 all generics, except for those approved for an exemption, will be priced at no more than 40 per cent of the brand price; and, from April 1, 2013 onward all generics, except for those approved for an exemption, will be priced at no more than 35 per cent of the brand price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Our intention to develop and implement a new generic drug pricing model has been well-known for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, and we expect that pharmacies have already been preparing for changes to generic pricing in this Province. This phased-in approach will allow pharmacies and owners further time to adjust and transition to the new pricing model.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that not all generic drugs can be brought to market at 35 per cent of the brand cost. To address this, we will be establishing a review process whereby on a drug-by-drug basis, if a manufacturer can demonstrate extraordinary production or manufacturing costs, exemptions to the maximum of 35 per cent of the brand price can be considered. This exemption process will be implemented so that prices for the generic drugs that will be considered for exemption will be established by July 1, 2012. Not all will be exempted and we will be carefully reviewing the information put forward by these manufacturers in the best interest of the people of the Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we know that our new generic drug pricing policy will provide significant savings, not only to the provincial government through the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program but also to employers throughout the Province through the private drug benefit plans provided to employees, and to residents of the Province who pay for prescription medications out of pocket.

While we work to ensure maximum value for the public, the savings achieved by the provincial government through the introduction of this generic drug pricing policy will be reinvested for the benefit of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: During our consultation process, we heard very clearly concerns about the potential impact that a new generic drug pricing policy may have on pharmacy businesses and their clients. Our government understands and respects the fact that as a Province we face unique geographic and demographic challenges in terms of the location of our communities and the distribution of our population.

We recognize that health care services pharmacies and pharmacists provide are valued by the people of this Province and are an essential element in the delivery of health care services. Our communities and all of residents benefit from the services they offer and the expertise they provide. This is particularly true in the more rural and remote areas of our Province. Based on experiences in the other provinces that have introduced their own provincial generic drug pricing model, as well as stakeholder input, we recognize and understand that this new pricing model may reduce the amount of professional allowances some pharmacies currently receive from generic drug manufacturers. To address this and to help offset this potential loss in revenue, the provincial government will be reinvesting a significant portion of its projected savings to assist pharmacies in adjusting to their new market reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Exactly how the money will be reinvested in pharmacies will be determined through negotiations with the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador or PANL. As an association, PANL is tasked with ensuring that the major issues and concerns of their members are voiced and understood. Our government enjoys a very open and collaborative relationship with PANL.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that these negotiations are actively underway as I speak. In fact, this afternoon these negotiations are taking place and will continue to take place all week. It can be anticipated that in response to the provincial government's new generic drug pricing policy, a new agreement negotiated with PANL may include such things as increased dispensing fees and may also include other targeted investments that would provide added benefit to the health care system.

We also recognize the potential impact that a new generic drug pricing policy may have on our seniors covered under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. Currently, the cost of drugs under the 65Plus Plan are paid for by the provincial government and the senior is responsible for paying the dispensing fee and any mark up on drug costs that is applied by the pharmacy. As such, the provincial government recognizes that seniors covered under the 65Plus Plan will not benefit themselves from reductions in the drug cost component of their prescriptions for generic drugs, while seniors under the 65Plus Plan will not benefit directly from reduction in drug costs, government remains committed to ensuring that these changes do not negatively impact our seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in order to sustain our health care system for future generations, for our children, Mr. Speaker, we have to find efficiencies within the current system. Coupled with the knowledge that generic drug prices in Canada have been documented to be higher than in many other developed countries and that across the country the residents of other provinces are benefiting from price reductions, it is our responsibility to the public to introduce a new generic drug pricing model.

The goal of the provincial government's new generic drug pricing policy is to ensure the future sustainability of our health care system by implementing changes that ensure the entire population of our Province is paying reasonable prices for generic drugs. By changing the generic drug pricing policy, as I have described here today, millions of dollars can be saved in this Province. These savings will not be at the expense of any of our residents, Mr. Speaker. This includes not only the clients of the public drug program, but also those with private drug insurance plans and residents who assume the cost of their own prescriptions. On average, all residents of the Province can expect to pay less for their prescription medications as a result of this policy. Through strategic reinvestments in our payments to pharmacies and modifications to our 65Plus Plan, service providers and clients will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing this legislation passed so we can move forward to meet this goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 12 today. I know the minister held a news conference this morning with regard to this bill, and I guess she anticipated that there would be a number of concerns coming forward, and obviously, the reason why she chose to address it early on in introducing the bill in the House of Assembly. She is right; there are a number of concerns with regard to this particular bill passing in the House of Assembly.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I just want people to realize and understand how the bill works. If you were to read this particular bill, Bill 12, you will note, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little change in that particular bill that has any significant impact on what would happen with pharmacies, to drugs, or to people in the Province. The details are in the regulations that come attached to a bill. We are debating a bill in the House of Assembly today that does not have the regulations attached to it because the government has not yet provided that information or developed those regulations so that we can have an informed discussion around them. Mr. Speaker, if everybody in the House and all members of the Opposition got up and supported Bill 12, it would really have little or no impact, because the real details are going to be in the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking that Bill 12 be passed and be able to implement this by April 1. I think the minister in her comments that she just made said that they are looking at a system where they will bring in so much of a change this year. What was it she said – from April 1 to September 30, all generic drugs except for a small number that will be considered for exemption will be priced at no more than 45 per cent of the brand. She is looking at doing that come April 1, which is five days away, but yet we do not know what the regulatory pieces are.

The minister went out today and she said, we are going to look after the seniors, do not worry about it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say a nice pat on the back – do not worry, I am going to look after you – is fine, but it is not fine. When you pass regulations or you pass a bill in this House and then you have the option to go away and develop those regulations, I think you should be telling us what it is you are going to do. This is where our concern is today.

We know, Mr. Speaker, even from the briefing we did in the Department of Health with the minister's own officials – because she was not there that day; it was the officials from her department. No, no, I do not have a problem with that, but they are the people who develop all of this; I do not have a problem with that. In the briefing that we had with her officials, they outlined to us unequivocally that one of the groups that are going to be negatively impacted by this change in generic drugs and the pricing of generic drugs is going to be seniors in the Province. We all know that today, seniors are the very people in this Province who live on fixed incomes. They have no ability to earn extra income; they are really restricted to whatever their take-home pay is on a monthly basis and they cannot grow that income in, I would say, 99 per cent of the cases.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we also know that we live in a Province where people over the age of sixty-five are more susceptible to chronic disease than any other age group. We also live in a Province where chronic diseases are growing at a rapid rate. We know that 80 per cent of people with chronic disease in this country today, Mr. Speaker, are usually terminal or end up dying as a result of chronic disease. We know that in Newfoundland and Labrador we have one of the highest death rates, Mr. Speaker, associated with chronic disease of anywhere else in the country. So that is what we are dealing with.

We know today that seniors in this Province have a very strong reliance on medications and access to those medications. We know that affordability is an issue for them and we need to ensure there is going to be protection for them. It is okay for the government to say: We will save $30 million on this program; that is $30 million in our pocket. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, for the government to have the money in their pocket; it is another thing for the people of the Province to have to pay it out of their own pocket. It is a very different story, I would say to the minister.

We are five days away from this bill being implemented in the Province and this new formula being implemented. The very least, I would say to the minister, is: Tell us what you are going to do. Tell us how you are going to protect the seniors of this Province from having to pay more for their drugs. Tell us how you are going to do that. Tell us how much it is going to cost to do that. Tell me how many seniors in the Province are impacted by that. We are five days away. Surely that information is in the department. The minister has weighed it out. She has thoroughly looked at all of this. If not, I would hope that she is not bringing this bill to the House without that kind of knowledge.

So we need to know this, Mr. Speaker. We need to know how it is going to affect seniors, people today who are making decisions about paying their light bill and putting food on their table. That is the reality for many seniors in this Province – seniors, Mr. Speaker, who are getting warm in the Avalon Mall because they cannot afford to keep the heat on in their homes. These are the people, Mr. Speaker, who could get dinged on this bill with the higher drug costs, the very people, the very seniors who do not even have an avenue to socialize in many cases in this Province because they cannot afford to. They cannot afford to leave their homes and become active participants in gyms, in fitness clubs, and all of these kinds of things, because they do not have the ability, the financial ability, to be able to do it.

This is the group, Mr. Speaker, that could be most negatively impacted out of everyone else in this Province. That is because they have no medical insurance programs, in many cases. We know that from the statistics that we obtain from the Department of Health; therefore, Mr. Speaker, they do not have that kind of protection as well. They are the people who actually pay out of their own pocket; the money comes right out of their bank account, right off their seniors' benefit every month to pay this increased cost.

It is nice to have some reassurance from the minister, Mr. Speaker, that everything will be fine, but let's see it; let's see the details. We want to see the details. We want to know how these people are going to be protected, because right now, today, I do not feel comfortable telling the people in my district, oh, that is okay, we are going to bring in new regulations; that is okay, don't you worry about it, because the minister said we are going to look after you. We need to have more of a guarantee, Mr. Speaker. We need to see what the guarantee looks like and how we are going to prevent this cost from being implemented upon seniors in the Province.

The other piece is in prescription drug costs. Mr. Speaker, we pay the lowest prescription drug cost, I think, in Canada or among the lowest. We are around $7.15.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS JONES: Dispensing fees, sorry.

We pay $7.15 in dispensing fees, one of the lowest in the country, something, I think, that we have all been proud of – to say that we have been able to keep that fee down for people in the Province, at a time when other provinces have seen their fees increase. In fact, Mr. Speaker, forty years ago, our dispensing fees were equivalent to what they are today, so that will tell you how long we have been able to maintain that kind of a fee structure in the Province without gouging consumers and patients on dispensing fees.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, you look at what has happened in other areas of Canada where they brought in – the minister, in her remarks said there were six provinces who have adopted the generic formula for drug pricing. Let's look at those provinces in terms of where their dispensing fees have gone, because we have seen an increase. I am just going to take Alberta, for example; in Alberta there is now a three-tier system. I do not have that note in front of me; I am sure I have it here somewhere, but there is a three-tier system. When you get to the third tier of drug dispensing, that dispensing fee has today reached $20. That is what the patient is paying to access that drug. Now that is not for all the drugs, but it is for some drugs, Mr. Speaker, that are listed. The fees actually vary and they are done in a different tier system.

Are we going to see that in this Province? We do not know because you are not telling us those things. We do not know how high our dispensing fees are going to go. We know they are going to go up. They have to go up. We know they are going to go up, but how high are they going to go? How much money will need to be recovered by pharmacies in this Province in order to keep their doors open?

We are being told, Mr. Speaker, by independent pharmacists – and I am sure the minister has this because it was in a presentation, I think, that was made to her when she was doing a review of this, I think is where I read it. They are saying it could go as high as $14, which means we could actually see the dispensing fees double up in the Province. If that is to double up, again, that is going to have a significant impact on people within Newfoundland and Labrador, a very significant impact. We need to know how high these fees are going to go, because we know they are going up. What kind of fee structure are we going to see? Are we going to have a two-tier fee structure system, a three-tier? Are we going to have four tiers? Are we going to have the one right across the board? All of those things, I think, are critically important because, as I said before, it is one thing for the government to do this to save money themselves; it is another thing for them to do it and cost everybody else in the Province more money.

When you are talking about prescription drugs and when you are talking, Mr. Speaker, about accessing those drugs, you know, people do not really have a choice; in a lot of cases it means the difference between having good health and worse health. Mr. Speaker, if they are going to recover and address the diseases and the problems that they have, then they are going to need to have access to these particular medications.

Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we are not seeing right now as a part of these particular generic drug changes that the Province is proposing. These things are not accompanying Bill 12. That is why, when you look at this bill, it can be somewhat deceiving, but you need to really drill down into the details of what the bill really means. The devil is in the details, as they say, because it really is going to depend upon the regulations that the government brings in. We have no control over that, as an Opposition. The patients out there in the Province do not have a whole lot of control over it. Pharmacies do not have a lot of control over it. We can give our input, we can tell the government what we would like to see and the kind of protections we would like to see, but at the end of the day it is their decision.

Mr. Speaker, what I would have hoped to have seen today in the minister's press conference on this particular bill is her laying out the regulations for us. We are five days away from having a new formula implemented in the Province that could potentially affect every single person who takes medication, in terms of what they pay out of their own pocket; yet, she went out and had a press conference and did not deal with any of those things, still did not tell us the regulations. I guess we are walking in the dark here in terms of what could or could not come out of all of this at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the other impacts here. One of the other impacts is obviously going to be on independent pharmacists in the Province. I think this group have been somewhat vocal in the past. They have come together as an organization to kind of raise awareness of what their issues are and how they are going to be impacted by this situation.

Mr. Speaker, we have 190 pharmacies in the Province, and 104 of them are independent pharmacies. This group, CICPO, has sixty-five members in their organization. They are all independent pharmacists, and they are fundamentally concerned by what will happen. Independent pharmacies are not the big chains. They are not the Lawtons and the Shoppers Drug Marts. They are the small independent people that you are going to see all over the Province, like I have in my district. I have an independent pharmacy. They are a one-person operation. They do more than pharmacy work to supplement the operations of their business in order to keep their doors open. They are strongly reliant on the fees they receive from generic drug companies, because that is going to be a major loss to them. A lot of people may not understand how that works. How it currently works is that right now many of these pharmacies, depending on how much they buy, they get discounts or they get incentives from the drug companies. They may get two for one deals, they may get rebates in other ways on the drug costs, but all of that comes back to supplement their operations, to supplement their small, independent pharmacies. These are all over the Province. One of my colleagues who will be speaking to the bill actually has a list of them and will get into the detail.

I know my colleague here, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile has independent pharmacies in his district. There are some members here with three; I think the Member for St. Barbe has three in his district. I am sure there are members over there who have independent pharmacies in their own district. I know the Member for Ferryland has one in his district because I had the opportunity to meet the pharmacist who works in your area and to listen firsthand to how this will impact them.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the fact that they will be impacted. We also cannot ignore the fact that in many other provinces where this generic drug formula was brought into play, that a lot of these independent pharmacies, if they did not go out of business, they certainly seen a reduction in their business. They have seen it much more difficult to be able to survive from a financial perspective and it made their profits more than marginal in terms of what you would expect as a return from that kind of a business and being in that kind of a business.

The most important thing I think that happened is as a result of the loss of revenue, we have seen a compromise in service. What that means is that in many cases - and believe me, I have a lot of experience in dealing with pharmacists over the last two years, more than I have ever had in my life, and I know how important they are in our health care system. Do you know something? Two years ago I never would have known that. I never would have known that because I was not a patient of the system. I was not dependent upon the pharmacists as a health care provider until the last two years, and then I became significantly aware of the job that they do. I have as good a relationship with my pharmacist as I could ever have with my doctor, probably a better one on most occasions in terms of consulting them for advice.

What we have seen in a lot of the independent pharmacies - and I think we have to be careful that we do not lose that in Newfoundland and Labrador - is we have seen the loss of that personal service, that personal touch, that health adviser, that health information that is constantly being provided to patients. That has been one of the key pieces for us, especially in rural areas of the Province, but not just rural areas. I used a pharmacist here in St. John's because I took all of my health care treatment here. So I used a pharmacist here and a pharmacy here. I know the same level of service that exists.

It is critically important and I want to explain that for a little bit because these pharmacies are able to provide that health information service, that counselling service, to their patients and to their clients because they have the marginal return on revenue to be able to do it. So what they are doing is the kickback, for want of a better word, or the rebate they get back from the drug companies goes into their independent pharmacies. Then they are able to use that money to retain more staff so that their staff has more time to spend with the patients so that they can do the kind of community supports and the kind of community help that they do over-the-counter within their pharmacy. That is what is happening.

Once we remove that subsidy, that rebate, from the generic companies, we are removing a large portion of the revenue that would go into independent pharmacies. So what does that mean? Does that mean we are going to take enough revenue out that we could potentially see a number of them close? Which would be absolutely horrifying, especially in many areas of the Province where you are not going to get a Shoppers Drug Mart down in Ferryland, you are not getting a Shoppers Drug Mart down in Forteau, it is not going to happen because they are not going into those larger centres.

So we depend upon the independent pharmacy, the guy who borrowed the money, set up his business, is running his practice, went to school, learned how to be a pharmacist, came back home, did all of this, and invested in the community. We are highly dependent upon these people. So if we are going to make regulations now that are going to compromise their services, what does that mean? Does it mean we are going to marginalize them to the point where they are going to end up out of business? Then we have no service in many of these communities. Does it mean that it is going to compromise them to the fact that we no longer have that counselling, that health advisory and information service, that we always had within the pharmacies?

Mr. Speaker, we do not all live in a bubble here. They are business people, too. At the end of the day, they are no different than the airline company. They are no different than the guy downtown who is selling you T-shirts. They have to make money, too. If they do not make any money, they have no reason to be in the business. So, we have to be realistic about what we are talking about here.

I think for government to say, listen, we are going to reinvest back into independent pharmacies is one thing, how are you investing back? How much money are these pharmacies going to lose as a result of this? That brings me to the 2008 Locke report because in the Locke report he specifically outlined, Mr. Speaker, that there was going to be a tremendous loss of revenue to independent pharmacies. He made the offer to government – because we are talking four years ago now – and he basically said to government: Listen, I am prepared to do some work for you on this. I am prepared to have a look at this. What would you like me to do? Of course, as a result of it the government did not bite, they did not say that we want you to do this or we want you to do that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they did not even act on that particular report. When, in fact, they could have gone back and did a very thorough review and found out exactly what this impact was going to be. They should be concerned today that they could end up with places in this Province in the next twenty-four months that will not have pharmacies because they are not going to be able to keep their doors open.

I would have preferred to have seen government due diligence on this and take Dr. Locke up on his offer and go back and do a real, thorough investigation into what the implications were going to be, but just from his report we know that there are significant implications. These implications could very well affect many rural pharmacists and many independent pharmacists here in the city that fall into that particular category.

Mr. Speaker, when I talked about chronic illness, I need to tie this into pharmacy because I think it is very important that I explain to the people of the Province where we are with regard to chronic illness. When I look at this and I read it, I find it very alarming, to be honest with you. So alarming, in fact, that I do not know why government has dragged its feet on implementing a management plan for chronic diseases in this Province. They have not done it, and every time I read the information, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled by what I am seeing. I am looking for my note here, Andrew; do you have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when you look at chronic diseases, it is not a proud record to say that we are leading the country in many cases with regard to what is happening. It is the leading cause of death in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know, Mr. Speaker, that lifestyle factors are the major contributions to the development of chronic diseases and by modifying these factors, the risk of developing and dying of such diseases can be reduced in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I want to outline that, because this is where pharmacies come into play in a lot of cases.

We have not done a good job as a government. In terms of reducing the number of chronic diseases in this Province, we have not done a good job on prevention and management. As a result of it, Mr. Speaker, as the population is aging, we are seeing the rates of chronic disease rising within our health care system. We need to be able to respond to those particular circumstances. When I am talking about responding to that, we all have a role to play, and the pharmacists have a role to play in doing that. That is a role they have been trying to play outside of government, outside of the health care system, in a very ad hoc way when they provide health information, when they provide a voice, when they do all of this. That was my experience.

When I started accessing the care of a pharmacist – not just going in, passing in a prescription, paying my fee, getting my prescription, and paying for my drugs; when I go in, I talk to my pharmacist. They tell me, Mr. Speaker, what this drug is going to do, what the side effects are going to be, how it is going to react to the other medications that I am taking. They also tell me what I should be taking to help counteract some of these side effects. They tell me what I should be eating, they tell me what kind of physical activity I should limit myself to or I should do. It is a whole gamut of things.

Up until two years ago, I thought a pharmacist was a person who I walk in to, I give them a piece of paper, they gave me a bottle of medication, I give them some money, and I walk out. All of a sudden I am starting to realize that one of the key people in providing health care to me is that person behind the counter, that pharmacist who knew more about the drugs and medication that I was taking than anyone else I dealt with in the health care system, who I could call up twenty-four hours a day because I was a patient with a chronic disease and because that pharmacist cared about me as a patient.

I know I am not the only one, because I know this person and I know they take calls from all kinds of patients long after they close up their stores or their dispensary at 9:00 o'clock or 10:00 o'clock at night. They would take calls from me with regard to my drugs and my medications. On weekends, I had pharmacists who I could call if there was an emergency and I had questions, which I had to do on a number of occasions.

I look at that now in retrospect, and I do not know what I would have done without that service. I would have been a person who would not have been able to provide for my own health care in the way that I did because I did not have that expert advice available to me.

That was here in St. John's and I had the ability to access those services here, but you can access it all over the Province. The only difference is the pharmacy that I went to in St. John's – yes, there was a Shoppers Drug Mart down the road from it. I did not go to the Shoppers Drug Mart. I have no problem with Shoppers Drug Mart. I like their point system; I buy cosmetics there. Mr. Speaker, I did go to a different pharmacy, but in my district people do not have that option. They have one pharmacy. It is an independent pharmacy.

In Burgeo, you have that one independent pharmacy. There is probably any number of them here. So what happens to Mr. and Mrs. Littlejohn who have to go down the road to the independent pharmacy, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. and Mrs. Jones, or Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who have to go down the road to that pharmacy, and all of a sudden that pharmacy is no longer there? Now they are going to a place where they have a person behind the counter who stands up and can explain to them about their medication. They can give them their phone number to give them a call. They can talk to them about when and how they should take their medications to best improve their health. In doing so, they themselves are practicing chronic disease management and prevention within their own communities. That is a community service that they are providing to people.

Let's talk about special authorizations, because I have been the person who had to deal with special authorizations. I went to my doctor. I got a prescription. I went to the pharmacy and they could not fill it because I needed special authorization. How do I get a special authorization? I do not know. They gave me a prescription. I thought I would come in, pass it in, and you are going to give me my medication. It does not work that way. There are forms to do out, and there are things that you have to do. I could have gone back, set up another appointment, gone back to my doctor, sat down with them, got them to do the paperwork, send it into the Department of Health, let it go through the system, and eventually someone would have called me back and said you are either approved or not approved for special authorization under this drug.

Instead, guess what my pharmacist did? He did all of that for me. He did all of that for me. Did he have to do it? No, he did not have to do it. The process was I go back to my doctor. I have to wait a week, get another appointment with my doctor because they are full, the list is this long, and then I finally get the paperwork done and finally get in the system. You never know, in a couple of weeks I might find out if I am going to be able to get this drug covered or not. What do they do? They do the paperwork, they send it in, and they do it all the time for people. I know of many people, especially seniors, Mr. Speaker, who are not familiar with how the special authorizations work and the paperwork that is involved, or do not have the ability in many cases to do a lot of that. They look to their pharmacist to do that for them, and they do it.

As we cut back the resources and the revenue of these pharmacies, what happens to this service? That is where my concern is. My concern is ensuring that the level of service we currently get today will not be lessened as a result of this. It is one thing to save money, it is another thing to reduce services and cost more money to people. Those were the points that I wanted to make on this bill.

The other piece, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the special authorization a little step forward. I do not know what the process is right now, maybe the rules have changed and I might have somebody hauled up on charges if I am going to say this. I know of cases where people have walked in with special authorization prescriptions – this did not happen to me but I know several cases of people where it did happen. Because they needed that medication right away and because they did not know the process, not only did the pharmacist and pharmacy fill out the paperwork for them and get it all sent in for special authorization, they actually let them have the drug until that authorization came back. I know that. They actually let them have the drug because they knew the patient, they were a person who was commonly coming to their pharmacy and they said look, we cannot see you without these medications. One of those cases was a cancer case, they just went out there and they said listen, it is going to take a few days to get all of this approved so you take the drug, you take the medication.

Some of these medications are very expensive. I took medications that were $1,200 and $1,300 a shot for one particular drug, for one shot of one drug. They were letting patients have those medications, not knowing if they were going to special authorization, not knowing if they could even pay for them at the end of the day when it was all said and done. That was a service that they offered, that was the service that they gave to those patients because they lived in the community with them, they were community-based pharmacies, they knew the people intimately and they said listen, we are not going to see you stuck, we will do this.

I do not think we can overlook any of those things. We have to maintain that level of service. It is like everything, as you weed away at the revenues and it becomes much and much more difficult for them to keep the lights on and the heat on, it is going to be even harder to continue to provide the quality of service that we have seen from a lot of independent pharmacies in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I was really disappointed that a lot of the independent pharmacists did not get to have more say in terms of the regulatory piece around this. These were the questions that I asked in the minister's department when I went for the briefing because I am told that the negotiations with regard to any supplements for pharmacies in the Province is going to be done through the Pharmacists' Association and not through the pharmacies. I have a problem with that, Minister, and I am going to explain to you because I explained this to your officials.

The pharmacy in my district, the pharmacy in the District for the Member for Burgeo – La Poile – and I will use those two as an example – are not owned by pharmacists. The owners of our pharmacies do not sit on the pharmacy board, Mr. Speaker. They do not sit on the board. In fact, it is their employees who are members of the Pharmacists' Association. It is their employees. Minister, you are telling me that your government is going to negotiate with the employees of the pharmacy in my district to determine what that pharmacy owner is going to get at the end of the day. You are not going to negotiate with the owner; you are going to negotiate with the pharmacist, who is an employee.

I have a problem with that, a huge problem, because I think if you were really, really wanting to do something here substantial, you would be talking to the people who have to make the decision at the end of the day to either keep their doors open or close them, and they are the people who own the pharmacies. They are the pharmacy owners and they are the people you should be talking to.

A lot of these pharmacists, who are part of the pharmacy association, work for government. They work within the public service. They work at the Health Sciences, they work at the Janeway, they work down at St. Clare's, and they work with Western Health, Labrador-Grenfell Health and Central Health. Mr. Speaker, they are employees of the government. A lot of these pharmacists are employees of the government. They are not independent owners; yet, they are going to be the people who are going to say aye or nay as to what these programs are going to look like for pharmacies. You know yourself that that is not acceptable. You know yourself, if you really think about it, deep down you know it is not acceptable. You should be negotiating with pharmacy owners in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I ask the member to please direct her comments to the Chair.

MS JONES: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they certainly should be looking to pharmacy owners for what the solution is going to be because at the end of the day it is not the pharmacists they are paying a cheque to behind the counter who is going to decide whether that pharmacy stays open or closes, it is the guy or the lady who owns the business. They are the ones who are going to make the decision. When they decide we can no longer employ two, three, four people, we have to make layoffs; it is the owner who is going to make those layoffs. When they decide, Mr. Speaker, that they can no longer afford to keep the heat on or provide the services that they are providing to their clients in the community, it is the owner, the pharmacy owner who is going to make the decision, not the employee behind the counter.

I just thought it was unbelievable when I heard that government was actually going to negotiate this with pharmacists and not the owners of the pharmacy. People out there who own the pharmacy have to let their employee go in and make a decision on what services they could get supplemented for. They are going to let public servants who work within the health care corporation decide what supports should go to independent pharmacies once the revenue comes out. That is what you are doing. That is exactly what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I know what the government is going to say. We have given them a seat on the board if they want to take that seat on the board. Mr. Speaker, they said, we will give them a seat there or whatever the case may be for a pharmacy owner or whatever the case may be. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with I think it was 104 independent pharmacies in the Province. Those 104 independent pharmacies should be the people at the end of the day who are in negotiations with government, not an association of professional employees who are employed by the public service and who are employed by large chains like Shoppers Drug Mart. Not employees who are employed by the operators and owners of pharmacies, but they themselves should be the very people who are a part of that particular negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues that are really unresolved around this particular bill. We hope that through debate we will be able to have the government clarify for us in a lot more detail what the impact is going to be, again, on seniors and what the impact is going to be on the general public in terms of dispensing fees. Are we going to see our fees double up? Are we going to see the cost of dispensing fees for some drugs go as high as they have in Alberta, like $20 for dispensing fees? What is going to happen to independent pharmacies? What will happen to the community services that they provide?

Your government has not done a chronic disease management plan. You have agreed to do it. You have been four years. You have not brought it into the House of Assembly. Now we have health care providers out there, like pharmacists, who are trying to do that piece of work in the community to keep down chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador while we are dealing with an aging population. Where is that service going to be? Where is it going to leave the people who walk into a pharmacy office and do not know how to access drugs from special authorization and all of that? Are they now going to get turned away and sent back to the doctors' offices? All of these things are fundamental.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is how we are going to reinvest. The government talks about reinvesting some of this money. How are you going to reinvest it? I think that is the critical piece, because if the reinvestments are not done appropriately then we are going to see seniors taking money they are paying for their heat and paying for drugs; we are going to see people out there in the Province paying more for dispensing fees, and we are going to see pharmacies in this Province marginalized.

MS SULLIVAN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, that is pure fear mongering. We have committed to ensuring that seniors in this Province are not going to have to take money from heating, or are not going to have to take money from anywhere. We have ensured – and we have stated it time and time again, and we will continue to state it, and we will ensure it in policy – that seniors are not going to be impacted by this policy, Mr. Speaker. This is fear mongering, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: One thing I will agree with the minister on, although it was not a point of order, is that there is fear out there, minister; there is fear out there. You can try and downplay it if you want, but it is fear, because there is a reality in this Province; the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that there are a lot of people in this Province who are seniors who cannot afford to pay that extra cost. So, there is a level of fear that is out there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says: we will give them our assurance. Four years ago, you gave your assurance in this House of Assembly that you would have a chronic disease management plan for this Province, and where is it? Where is it, Mr. Speaker? Where is it? Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything. They stood in the House of Assembly over a year ago and told me that they were going to look at the benchmarks for breast screening in this Province, and they were going to refer it to a committee, and they would bring a report back. Where is all of that? We have not seen any of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, please.

MS JONES: So, what I am saying to the minister, Mr. Speaker – she does not want to hear this, but what I am saying to her - is in five days you are going to bring in a new generic formula in this Province. Tell me how many seniors are going to be impacted. Tell me how they are going to be subsidized. Tell me how you are going to guarantee the assurance that you are quick to stand up and say you are going to give to them. Tell me how you are going to do it, and tell me what the cost is, because if she does not know that today, then, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how they are going to implement this in five days. So, if she knows the information, share it with the people of the Province, alleviate the fears that are out there with many of the people in this Province, as to how this is going to impact them, and let's get that out of the way. That is what I would say to you, minister. Why you want to keep your cards so close to your chest on this, I have no idea whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the other piece to this generic system. First of all, we are spending about $148 million, I think we spent, last year in the drug program in the Province. In New Brunswick, where they are rolling out a similar program, they spent $190 million last year in their drug program. In New Brunswick under this new generic formula and the changes they are looking at saving, Mr. Speaker, $1 million a month per year; that is $12 million per year.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the minister is telling me she is looking at saving $2.5 million per month, double what they are going to save in New Brunswick. Yet, we are spending $148 million in our Budget and they are spending $190 million. How are we saving two times plus more in our drug program when we spend less money than what New Brunswick is paying? Mr. Speaker, that does not add up to me. We need to know where that is going and where they are coming up with the numbers.

The other piece to this, Mr. Speaker, is we are only talking about generic drugs. Mr. Speaker, we also know that it is the brand drugs that eat up the bulk of our Budget in this Province. We know that while brand drugs are a lower percentage in terms of usage, they eat up a lot of the financial revenue in the drug program. We are only talking generic drugs under this particular formula.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out is that the government is not only – this particular policy is going to apply to everyone who buys drugs in the Province, so there is no exemption such as insurance companies, for example. I have an insurance program with Desjardins because you guys negotiated the deal. You guys got rid of Blue Cross, you negotiated the deal with Desjardins, and you said it was going to be a lower cost. Since then my premiums have gone up, up, and up; I am paying more now than I ever paid, Mr. Speaker. It was supposed to be a better deal, but it just went up.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government going to make money, but the insurance company is going to save a load of money. Desjardins insurance company in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, is going to save a load of money today that is going to come out of independent pharmacies in the Province. They are going to lose the money. The guy down in Ferryland who owns the pharmacy, the people down in Trinity – Bay de Verde, the one down on the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland, Fogo Island, Bell Island, all of these people, they are all going to lose money. Goose Bay, they are all going to lose money, Mr. Speaker. Labrador West, every one of them are going to lose money, but the insurance company, Desjardins, of which we all have our insurance policies in Quebec, are all going to gain money. They are all going to make money. Because we are now going to take that out of the independent pharmacy and we are going to allow not just the government to make some savings here but we are going to allow the insurance companies to make savings.

Mr. Speaker, in some provinces, the rules did not apply to the insurance companies – in some provinces. Now, I understand that might be changing, but in some provinces it did not apply to the insurance companies. I do not know if the minister is going to give me this guarantee as well, maybe she is going to stand up and say: I guarantee you that when the insurance company saves money on their drugs they are going to reduce your premiums and you are going to save money. Now, maybe she wants to give me that assurance as well, the same as she gave the seniors and the same that she has given everybody else in the Province, but I do not believe it. I do not believe that Desjardins in Quebec who is going to save money, Mr. Speaker –

MS SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, she does not need to put words in my mouth and tell me what I am going to tell her. When I get my turn to get up again, I will tell her what I am going to tell her. She really does not need to help me out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MS JONES: I say to the minister she does not have to jump up on her feet, she is going to do a lot of talking before this bill gets through the House. There are going to be a lot of questions. This is just the warm up to this, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was quick to jump up and give assurances to seniors, give assurances to people on dispensing fees, give assurances to independent pharmacy owners, so I am wondering if she is going to give assurances to everybody who has an insurance plan in Newfoundland and Labrador that while we are going to give money back to insurance companies and allow them to build up their revenues that they are all going to give us a break on our insurance costs, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if she has negotiated that deal and if she has negotiated that deal, Mr. Speaker, come and tell us all about it because it was not in your news conference today.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure Desjardins in Quebec are sitting back listening to this today counting their money. They are counting up how much they are going to make, Mr. Speaker, and they are saying: Well, we are taking this from the independent pharmacies of Newfoundland and Labrador but look at all of the money we are going to make, boys, look at all of the money we are going to make.

There is where it is, Mr. Speaker, because I have not gotten a break on my premium since the government negotiated with the company out of Quebec, and I doubt it if I am going to get a break when this is all over. I guess we will have to see.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about other changes that the government should be making, because we know that that the government's lack of due diligence in adding generic drugs to the formulary in this Province is actually costing us money as well. The minister talks about making savings and we know for a fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are drugs that are on the formulary for other provinces for extended periods of time. We have seen it. We have seen specific drugs, Mr. Speaker, where Newfoundland and Labrador has been the longest Province in Canada trying to add those drugs to the formulary. As a result of it, one of those drugs alone was costing us about $400,000 a month. That is what we were paying out of the general revenues of the Province because we could not get meetings together and have this drug added to the formulary, while all of the other provinces had done it. I am only talking about one drug – well, Saskatchewan did not have it done, but almost all of the rest of them had it done.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying, the point I am trying to make is: Listen, Minister, how come you are not looking at the program within your own department, how drugs are added to the formulary and making sure that they are done properly, they are done in conjunction with those drugs being sanctioned by the group in Canada that do those drug approvals, and why aren't you doing that? Why are you not having those approvals done promptly and as a result of it, it is costing us money, costing us huge amounts of money that are coming out the general revenues of the Province. If you are looking at any delays in adding a drug to the formulary, being around $400,000 a month, well, Mr. Speaker, in a year that adds up to be quite a substantial amount of money. I think it is $4.8 million, is it? I am not sure.

Mr. Speaker, these things are all very important and they are very critical when you look at savings and investments in health care and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to getting all of the answers from the minister. I am looking forward to seeing how many seniors are going to be affected, how her guarantee is going to materialize so that they do not pay more money, how much that is going to cost us. I am looking forward to seeing how much money she is going to tell us that independent pharmacies will lose in this Province, and how much she is prepared to reinvest back and what that is going to look like. I am looking forward to her standing and telling me she is going to negotiate with pharmacies in this Province and not their employees, and not public servants but actual pharmacy owners. I am looking forward to her telling me, Mr. Speaker, how I am going to save money on my medical insurance because she is going to give a big cheque back to Desjardins and all the other insurance companies out there.

I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to the minister telling us how she is going to deal with special authorizations for patients and what system is going to be put in place in the absence of pharmacies doing that particular work. I am interested in her telling me what kind of a prescription fee system we are going to see in the Province, how many tiers, if it is one tier, or two, or three, and what those fees are going to look like, how much it is going to cost us. Overall, I am looking forward to the minister telling me what the actual savings will be at the end of the day, because right now we are talking broad numbers of $25-point-something million. We know if she is going to invest some of that back, how much is going back and what will be the true savings at the end of the day? Will it be $20 million, will it be $5 million? Those are the kinds of things that we are looking for here.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping before we vote on this bill that the minister will table in the House of Assembly all of the regulatory pieces associated with this bill so that when we vote on it, we can vote with confidence knowing that the consumers, the patients, and the pharmaceutical services in this Province, the community pharmacies, are being protected and that we are not leaving all of this to chance; we are not leaving all of this to a negotiation that will happen further down the road. We came in here - and this is probably not the best comparison, but I have to outline for the House that we passed Bill 30 here a year ago, the animal rights protection act, Bill 30. We did not have the regulations, Mr. Speaker, at that time. We still do not have the regulations, and as a result of it, the bill has still not been proclaimed and we still do not know what it is going to look like. Now we are doing a different bill, Bill 12, and we still do not have the regulations associated with that particular bill. We have no idea how it is going to look or what it is going to look like.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have the opportunity to have further debate on this. We just wanted to outline for the public today exactly what the implications of the bill could be. Again, Mr. Speaker, when you read the bill there is really nothing in the bill you would vote against, but it is the regulations that would be developed as a result of the legislation and how those regulations are going to impact the people of the Province, how they are going to impact the services we have become accustomed to and how they are going to protect the seniors in our Province and what they pay. Those things are very, very important.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that note I will allow the minister to respond to the many questions that I have raised today. I look forward to her tabling that information now in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am pleased this afternoon to stand and to have my voice added to the discussion with regard to Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. The act itself, when one looks at it, is fairly simple. It is a combination of some housekeeping, plus something substantial when it comes to the section that has to do with what people in the Province pay for generic drugs. It is not just housekeeping, some substantial stuff there as well, all of which is necessary and all of which needs to be discussed. Some of the pieces that are more substantial do need to be discussed. I am glad to add my voice.

The main point of the act, of course, that we are looking at is the new generic drug pricing model. It is important to have a carefully thought out generic drug pricing model. The proposal of the act, of course, is to reduce the price to the public and private insurers and consumers, following what is happening nationally. It is important to note that we are not the same as other jurisdictions when it comes to this issue because the proposal that we have here, the proposal that would change the price of the generic drugs, means one thing here in this Province when it comes to insurers, for example, than it means elsewhere.

There are some provinces where the formulary, the cost of drugs, is one cost to the consumer and a different cost to insurers. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have one formulary and if I pay for a drug as an individual or if my private insurance covers my drug, the cost is the same to both.

One of the issues that we are dealing with in the proposal that is coming forward is that for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the benefits to the consumer will also initially be the same benefit to the insurer, and one has to ask why. For example, if it is going to be cheaper for me to pay for the drug, why should it also be cheaper for the insurer, when the insurers have a premium that has to be paid by the person who is insured that is not going to change. Initially, the private insurance companies are going to make money on this change that is coming in.

This is an issue that I would like to raise and I would like to hear from the minister on, whether it is in second reading or in Committee of the Whole. If I do not get an answer in second reading, I will bring it up again in Committee of the Whole because it is an important issue. I do not think that we should have private insurance companies benefiting from the change that we are making. There is nowhere of course in the bill where I can see that issue being addressed. The question is: Is it being addressed? If it is, I am assuming it is going to be addressed in the regulations. What does the government have to tell us with regard to what will be in the regulations with regard to private insurance companies? It is, I think, an extremely important issue.

Insurance companies, we know, are not suffering in this world of ours. Insurance companies make an awful lot of money. If there is going to be a benefit to the consumer in this Province, then that benefit should be totally to the consumer. I am going to be very interested in seeing what the government is bringing forward when it comes to that whole issue of what is going to happen to insurance companies. Are they going to be allowed to continue with your premiums without any change while making money off the changes that are being made because of this act? That is the first issue that I would like to raise and it is the issue that I put forward to the minister as I have said.

As the formulary price for generics in this Province goes down from 60 per cent to 35 per cent, on the face of it that is good, on the face of it that is very beneficial, but let us make sure it is not something that is going to benefit private insurance companies who do not need it. We want it to benefit the individual.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to bring forward, is the issue of the fact that pharmacies will have reduced revenue because of this change to the formulary. On the face of it, that does not mean much when we are talking about a pharmacy that is located in Sobeys or a pharmacy that is located in Wal-Mart or the Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies, the pharmacies of the big chains. That is not probably a really big deal, but as has already been pointed out in this House, in which I really want to speak further to, we have many places in this Province where people are served totally by small pharmacies, small independent pharmacies, places where you are not going to see large chains go.

The reduction in revenue, if there is a reduction in revenue for those small independent pharmacies, then they are going to have to find ways to not lose money. It is not only a fact of losing money; they are going to have to find ways to keep operating. That is the issue. They have told us that there is the possibility of having to have reduced hours. There is a possibility of having to lay off people. In most cases, actually, most of these pharmacies, they may only have one other person besides the full-time pharmacist. If they have to lay off people who are going to help the local economy, the laying off will mean tremendous workload on probably the owner pharmacist, because very often you do have an owner pharmacist, and the reduced hours will make it more difficult for people who need to get to the pharmacy.

We have to make sure that the reduced revenue to pharmacies is not going to cause a change in service, or, even worse, a loss in service. I do not think it is point that can be made too strongly. We have places in the Province, whole peninsulas, which are served totally by smaller pharmacies, and we know that no large chain is going to go in. This is a very, very important issue. Again, it is one of the things that I would like to hear the minister speak to, because when we are dealing with this act we are not dealing with the details that will surround the implications of this act, the details that come out in the regulations. We all know that. I know that the government knows it, and I know that it is probably part of discussions, but in order to vote on this bill, I have to vote on the bill – like I said, on the surface it looks fine, but when I look at those sort of subsidiary details then I am going to take that into consideration when I vote for or against the bill; because, unless I am assured that the issues like the ones I am raising are being taken care of then I am going to be hesitant to vote for the bill, especially the second one - well, all of them, but the second one with regard to what is going to happen to smaller pharmacies, to the independent pharmacies, to pharmacies that really serve the people of the Province.

The pharmacist is a very special person in a community, especially in a community where you may not have a medical clinic, in a community where you may only have one physician, for example. The pharmacy is playing a role that is essential to the health care in the communities. I am quite concerned that we are putting this bill in place in a very quick way, now that it is finally here, instead of slowing down the process, slowing down the transition period, making sure that regulations are in place and making sure that the things we are concerned about are going to be dealt with.

An issue that has been raised in the House already, but I want to raise it to be on record, no matter how many times this is raised, it is important to raise it. If pharmacies go to offset their loss of revenue by putting up dispensing fees this becomes very problematic. It becomes problematic for a lot of people, but it will very definitely be problematic for people over sixty-five, people who are part of the 65Plus program because the only fee they pay is the dispensing fee. Most of them in that program, all of them who get covered under the 65Plus program have low enough income already because that is why they qualify. If they have to pay a larger dispensing fee then it is going to bring real stress into their lives. It is going to be a heavy burden.

I am waiting to hear, Mr. Speaker, because it was not presented by the minister yet. I will be waiting to hear what definitively the government is going to do. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this begs another issue to be brought to the floor by me because our Party has a position which we are very, very firm on, and that is that all people, all seniors, everybody over sixty-five should be covered by a drug plan like in other parts of the country. There should not be any senior who cannot be assured that they are being taken care of when it comes to drugs, especially because it is one of the major costs that seniors have in terms of in relationship to younger people in society. As people are getting older they are getting diseases, not always inevitable but very often inevitable, and their drug costs are high. The fact that we do not have a universal drug program for seniors is, for me, very problematic. The issue then becomes even more troublesome when you think about the very low-income people who are on the 65Plus program; if they have to pay a higher dispensing fee it becomes very problematic. When you look at the people who may be $1,000 above the cut-off for the 65Plus program, they already have to co-pay. If they have co-pay and added to that a higher dispensing fee, then we really have major problems.

I am disturbed that the government still does not look at the possibility of all seniors being covered by the 65Plus program. Maybe the Minister of Finance is going to surprise us, and maybe this year's Budget is going to bring that in, Mr. Speaker. I certainly would like to think that is going to happen, though I have not yet heard this government say it is committed to a universal drug program for seniors.

If we do not protect our seniors, then what does that say about us in our society here in Newfoundland and Labrador? What I will be asking for from the minister is not promises, is not nice words, it will be real, concrete details when we go to vote on this act. Those details to me are necessary. I need to know what those details are if I am going to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker.

In talking to pharmacists, this is one of their concerns. Pharmacists tell us - and I am not just talking about the pharmacists who are the independent pharmacists or just in rural pharmacies, also pharmacists who work in the larger pharmacies are also telling us that they are concerned about those who are on the 65Plus program. They see the financial burden on seniors. They see the stress on seniors and they try to find ways in which to help seniors. When they see the possibility, the potential for them suffering more, then this really bothers them, Mr. Speaker.

It is also pharmacists who are rather concerned as well about the private insurers. Now, we know that the private insurers will not be getting windfall continually, because once the contracts with employers, for example, get renegotiated, you can be sure the employers are going to be pick up the fact that the cost of drugs has gone down. One would hope that in renegotiation with private insurers, employers will make sure that premiums get adjusted accordingly. Certainly in the short term, there is going to be a windfall for the insurance companies.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to know how government is going to help the independent pharmacies make up the lost revenue and how they are going to do that in order to protect seniors on the 65Plus Plan. It is going to be important for us to figure out how the government is going to deal with the possibility of private insurers being able to reap windfall profits.

We would like to know why the transition period is only one year. What is the hurry? Why is it that the transition period is happening so quickly? I would like more details from the government on that. I would like the government to explain to us why all of a sudden, now that they are finally bringing this bill in – because we have known for awhile that this was being discussed in government – why are they not allowing for an adequate transition period to make sure that all of the bugs are ironed out?

Now, Mr. Speaker, another concern that we have is – the government talks about the money that they are going to make. They say that bringing this new act in and bringing in the new formula for paying for generic drugs is going to save the government $30 million annually. I would like to have the government explain to us, and I would like the minister to give us details on how they have figured out that they are going to save $30 million annually. I would like to see the breakdown that shows that. It has been shown in other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, and in other provinces where they have brought in this new way of costing the generic drugs, that the savings have never been what they thought they were going to be.

The classic example is British Columbia. When British Columbia brought in the new formula, British Columbia said they were going to save $300 million. That sounded fantastic, but in actual fact they have only saved $100 million. They have actually saved only a third of what they said they were going to save. If it turned out that instead of saving $30 million, we only save $10 million; and if it turns out that in bringing this in we have seniors who are worse off because of having to pay higher dispensing fees; and if it turns out that smaller pharmacies, whether they are independent pharmacies in urban settings, or especially those in the rural settings where they are the majority, that these are giving less service, or that they are even having to give up existence; then what would $10 million be worth? I would be willing to put out the question, what would $30 million be worth?

I would really like to see a breakdown from the government of a cost-benefit analysis of what they are proposing here. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, we have to include the whole issue of what is the impact on people; not just what is the impact on government, not just what is the impact on the pharmacy, or on the private insurers, but what is the impact on people, and will even the $30 million be worth it. If we follow the track that has happened in other provinces, if this is an overestimate and we only save, say, $10 million, or $15 million, well, certainly we would have to ask the question: Is causing pain and harm and undue burden to people worth it?

Mr. Speaker, I have made the main points that I wanted to make here this afternoon and I will be looking forward to having the minister speak to these issues. We know that this bill will be going into Committee of the Whole, of course, as all our bills do, and there are more details that I will be bringing forward. I do not have adequate time in my twenty minutes in second reading to do so. We will bring these details forward, and I am hoping that we are going to have details that go with the bill that will allow me to vote for it. Right now, we do not have those details.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this legislation today. Before I go into, I guess, the crux of what I wanted to say – I do not know if it is unparliamentary to say such, but I would like to look over to the House Leader for the Liberal Party, the Opposition Party, and just say fear mongering, just coming out and saying it – I am just wondering where you get off on saying a lot of things you do. I am just thinking the people that you are directing your fear mongering to are probably the same group of people where you said Muskrat Falls is going to double your hydro bill – something that has never been proven. Again, I do not know if this is unparliamentary but it is gibberish and I would say you not fit getting on with that. It is awful because you have people watching this at home; they are hearing these things and it is completely not accurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. S. COLLINS: I just wanted to make sure she got that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as a government we are always looking, obviously, for providing better, more efficient service. The legislation we are speaking to today will do just that. Unlike some of the legislation that was spoken to last week, and no offence to any of my colleagues who are lawyers in the House, but it seemed to get a bit dry. Some people said: Well, did it apply to me or not? No offence again to the Minister of Justice, but this is something that affects everybody in this Province. I would argue that it affects everybody profoundly, and profoundly benefits everybody in this Province.

Whenever we undertake anything as a government, obviously we do it for one purpose only and that is to benefit the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one particular group, I would argue, and that is something I would say again to the House Leader of the Opposition. I am not up here advocating on one group, I am advocating on all of the people of the Province, the same people, I would say to you, who elected you and had you stand here in this House. I would take that in mind from this point forward.

As An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, it is an important piece of legislation, as I have said. It has been worked on for some time. The current act was given ascension back in December, 2006. This is not something that just came up over the weekend; this is something that has obviously been looked at for quite some time now.

In a time where we need sustainability in the health care system this was, again, an obvious efficiency we could target. As the minister said earlier, last year we spent $2.9 billion – billion with a B – that is what we are spending in health care; 40 cents of every dollar we make goes to health care. It is money well spent, obviously, but the thing is at the end of the day you have to look at sustainability, you cannot keep increasing that. Where is the money coming from? I do not know if it is the influence of your colleagues to your side there, with the money tree, but money has to come from somewhere. So, where do you get it from? If you stand with a plan, I would ask you where does the money come from and what exactly is your plan? Instead of just raising the negatives and fear mongering and whatnot, I would ask you for a plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: What is that? Money tree, yes.

Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Speaker, an interesting thing, are the second largest source of health care costs in Canada. I saw a number from 2007, actually, where prescription pharmaceuticals accounted for – again the B word – $19 billion in Canada. This is a huge, huge thing, obviously. Again, the importance cannot be overstated. Through this legislation we can realize savings at the same time as not sacrificing delivery of service.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I would like to take a moment to explain some of the terminology used in this legislation. The vast majority of people here – I say on the floor because I know we have an audience of probably some better trained and qualified people than myself in this field, but the average person watching this on television, I will refer to Mr. Joe Chesterfield in Burgeo. I have not met the man, I have heard lots about him, but I am assuming he does not have a pharmacy background. So I just want to go through a couple of the terms and definitions we use here, just so, obviously, everyone who is watching on television, and even in the House, can have an informed debate and know where we are going with this type of thing.

The word we hear most of here is generic. While I would be safe to assume most of us know what that is here, for the benefit of people watching on television – so the word, again, generic drugs, it is essentially a carbon copy of a branded medication. So, a company goes out and spends a huge amount of money on research and development, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. For that, they are given a patent, what is called a patent or patent protection, and that lasts, I believe, it is now twenty years – I think that was changed some time ago from seventeen, but nonetheless, they are given a certain time period where they are exclusively the maker-suppliers of that drug. Once that patent protection lapses, then, of course, it is opened up to everyone. That opening up the door to everyone is where you obviously get generics playing a part. So, once you lose that twenty-year window, then the competition opens up to everyone. Mr. Speaker, I would say competition is a good thing, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Again, this legislation, we want to take advantage of that savings. So this is what this does here.

This is also something important, because you hear a lot of people saying, well generics, are they just as good as the branded? I would say, again, as a layperson in this field, I would look at the research that I have read and whatnot. Before a drug can be sold as an approved generic in Canada, it has to receive a notice of compliance from Health Canada. That compliance is the exact same compliance that a branded drug would have to have. So, a branded drug, say, twenty years ago would have to go through this avenue, it is said to be safe, it is said to do what it is supposed to do. The branded drug, twenty years later, would have to pass that same litmus test. What you are having, you are still having a safe, effective drug, but again, of a different name, and fortunately it is cheaper.

Again, I just want to go on with this, perhaps something that most people would understand and perhaps a common example of it is Tylenol. Everyone knows Tylenol. It is perhaps the most widely used medication next to Lipitor. Everybody knows Tylenol. You can go into the drugstore, Mr. Speaker, and you see Tylenol on the shelf and Tylenol may be $10. Everybody loves Tylenol, it is great. Us, as politicians, we probably take too much of it. We see that Tylenol, but next to it, on either side of it, are generic brands. Now, so acetaminophen – and it could be under a Life brand, like at Shoppers, or the Walmart one which eludes me at this point –

AN HON. MEMBER: Equate.

MR. S. COLLINS: Equate. It could be a bunch of different names, but if you look at the medical ingredients, not the non-medical because that is in the large part gibberish, it is just fillers, but the medical ingredient is acetaminophen, 250 milligrams, 500 milligrams extra strength, whatever it takes. Right next to that, the Equate, the Life brand, or whatever the case, is the exact same makeup of the pill but it is at far less cost.

Normally, most cost-conscious people, such as myself, would go for the lesser brand kind of thing. I do not think I have ever bought a bottle of Tylenol in my life. I have always gotten what I wanted, but you do not go for the brand. There is generic; that is the thing. We are targeting these generics that provide the exact same service and provide the exact same medication but at a fraction of the cost.

Now, I mentioned Lipitor. I am somewhat ashamed to say as a young, spry thirty-three year old that I am actually on Lipitor. I would say it is more about genetics than about my diet, but again I do not know if that is entirely right. Lipitor is the best selling drug of all time and Pfizer, the producer, had average sales of $11 billion a year. Last year before it came off patent I think they peaked at $13 billion – again, billion. Once their patent protection expired a few months ago, I think it was just three months ago, there was an all-out war because this is the most used medication. Everybody wanted a piece of the pie, so everyone started jumping in making - I know when I went to get my prescription filled, I looked at it because I am used to seeing Lipitor. I looked at the package, I did not recognize the name and I had to go back to ask the pharmacist: Is this what I was taking? He said: Yes, it is a generic brand now. So due to the competition, you can now buy –

AN HON. MEMBER: $400,000 a month.

MR. S. COLLINS: That is a lot.

I lost my train of thought, Mr. Speaker.

Due to the fact that we now have generics in the market, the competition, Lipitor can be purchased for 80 per cent of its original cost. If we can get this policy in place, we can take advantage of that. Imagine 80 per cent off; 80 per cent off. Now we can buy the competitors or, if we choose, we can buy Lipitor, whatever the case is. With a policy in place such as this, it caps the ceiling. There is not going to be the price, then something added on top, and then something added on top. We are going to be getting the drugs for the price we should be paying.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is taxpayers' dollars. I am floored when I stand here and I listen to the crowd across the way. They are always talking. I do not understand it – the money. Given that I am a young fellow, perhaps I was not too into the politics when the Liberal Opposition had government. I just wonder how they operated because money is no object to this crowd; yet, on the other hand, they can stand up day after day saying we have to reign in spending. So that is what we are doing today. We are providing better service, more effective service –

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record, before the member swallows himself whole over there, that the drug Lipitor that he is referring to was delayed in being added to the formula by your government, Sir, and as a result of it cost taxpayers in this Province up to $400,000 a month. Why don't you get up and tell us about that, if you want to talk about wasting money –

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MS JONES: - because we have seen many examples of it in your government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I will go back to the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. S. COLLINS: Again, do you know what? I do not stand here claiming to be a pharmacist. Obviously, I have just proven that. I would say to you: that is fine, fair enough. What I am trying to get across to the people who are watching us today is what exactly generic means.

A generic, in effect, is the exact same medication as a branded one, after patent protection expires. Generic drugs are less expensive than their brand name counterparts but provide the exact same effectiveness. Generally, and it is because of that, use of generics play a vital role in helping to improve access to required prescriptions and to help contain the rising cost of health care in this Province and in our country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, with that being said, there are facts around the use of generics and we recognize those obviously, that there are concerns around the actual pricing in this country at the same time. In a study done in 2006, the findings showed that the average international price for generic drugs in ten developed countries, as the minister said earlier, was 15 per cent to 77 per cent lower than average Canadian prices. What is worse than that is compared to other provinces in Canada, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay higher prices for their generic drugs than provinces that have already adopted this sort of policy.

I would love to say we are leading the way in the charge on this, and in many cases whether it be poverty reduction or other things that we have done in this government, we seem to be trailblazers, but this is not the case here. While it has been talked about since 2006, as was said earlier, there are six other provinces that are already doing this with the seventh coming on board. I will mention something with regard to the seventh one because it was brought up. New Brunswick actually did not meet and do any consultations whatsoever. They did not do any negotiations, and their time frame was six months as opposed to ours being a year.

I think the Leader of the Third Party had mentioned that a year is a short window of opportunity. I would argue that others are doing even less. If everyone sits at the table and everybody is willing to negotiate, I think a lot can be done in a year and I think many would agree.

With that being said, I would also like to say it will be seven come – New Brunswick coming in, I think in the very near future. I have read other pieces that other provinces are looking to come on board. At the end of the day, every jurisdiction across this country faces fiscal restraints when it comes to these types of things with health care. People are getting older, people are taking more medications. We have to do something; again it comes back to sustainability. I think this obviously will be a move in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, how will this legislation improve our current policy? As it stands now under Canadian standards, in order to be listed on the formulary, a generic drug manufacturer must guarantee that the price of a generic drug will not exceed 75 per cent of the equivalent brand price. There is a 75 per cent ceiling in place. Currently when buying generic drugs, residents of this Province pay approximately 60 per cent; as generic drugs in more recent years have come down in price, we are paying 60 per cent.

Once this new proposed policy comes into effect, the percentage will drop to 35 per cent of the brand product. It is going to go from where it is now, at 60 per cent – and it could possibly be at 75 per cent in the legislation, 75 per cent is where it is right now. Luckily it is not that high; it is at 60 per cent, but it is going to come down to 35 per cent. This will potentially save millions, I think, tens of millions – I think $30 million was the number that was given a short time ago – every year. That is huge money. Huge money that could be reinvested, and I will speak to that in a second, but that can be reinvested in a variety of areas. Any time you can save money and create efficiencies and reinvest it again, it is hard to see how anyone can not be on side with such a thing.

With some of those savings, as I was saying, being reinvested in our health care system, and important to note that some of those savings will also be targeted investments into rural or remote pharmacies in under-serviced areas.

We recognize that this new model obviously – I think it is obvious from the comments that we have heard, that it may reduce the amount of professional allowances some pharmacies currently receive from generic manufactures. With that in mind, target investments, as I had said, will be made to help the pharmacies adjust to their new business reality. We understand, this is not something – the Opposition is not coming in here today educating us on, well, perhaps you are going to have problems with this; we see these. Again, this thing has been in the works for some time. What we did is we created a policy; now we are going to make sure it goes out smoothly. The thing is, we are putting this in for all the right reasons. We want people to be happy with it, every resident of the Province.

Somebody was saying over across the way the importance of pharmacists. You do not have to tell us about the importance of pharmacists. I am from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know what it is like growing up not being near a hospital because, of course, our population did not justify it. Now when we had to go to a hospital, we had a great one, James Paton Memorial in Gander, to go to, but I would say thirty-five, forty minutes – we would not go there, so our pharmacy is the center of our universe.

The pharmacist essentially, in a large number of cases, is your doctor. You get advice from them, they tell you, they point you where to go, that type of thing. I would say you do not have to sit across there saying, well, pharmacists are very important. Of course they are. We see that. We recognize it. Again, like I said, we see the policy that we want to put in place, but our next step is, how do we ease that transition for pharmacists, recognizing the fact the important role they play in our communities, especially rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The measures we will take – these businesses are still, we want to make sure that these are still capable of operating as healthy businesses, because at the end of the day, we recognize this; pharmacies are businesses. They are business people. Pharmacists went to school for a good number of years to study this type of thing; they know their trade, they know their skills, and obviously, they deserve to be paid for it. We are not looking at attacking the pharmacist; this has never been the case, that is not what we are here for today. It is about getting the best possible price, best bang for the buck for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and at the same time, easing the transitional period for the pharmacists who are affected.

Furthermore, we will phase in – as I had said, there is going to be a transition period. That is the biggest piece to this, and I think that is something that needs to be recognized. Unlike New Brunswick and some other jurisdictions that had shorter times, we are actually allowing a year for transition. The minister outlined it earlier, but I again go over it. From April 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012, all generics, except for a small number that may qualify for an exemption, will be priced at no more than 45 per cent of the brand price; then from October 1, 2012 to March 31, it will go up to 40 per cent; then at the end, from April 1 onwards, all generics will be priced at 35 per cent, allowing for exemptions in certain cases.

This will allow for pharmacy owners to more easily adapt to the new pricing policy over an extended period of time. While this is going to be implemented sometime soon, the thing is, we are aware that this has been on the go for some time. This was not decided over the weekend. This has been something that has been ongoing for quite a number of years. I refer to the study that was done back in 2006. I refer back to the provinces, the other six that have already implemented this, referring to the one that is going to implement it and actually has not set their course yet, but they are actually going to be implemented before us because the time period is even shorter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: That is the thing. I wonder – they stand and they quote other jurisdictions. Why don't you quote New Brunswick? No negotiations, no consultations. I did not hear that brought up; this is the most recent and the latest. Obviously, I do not know their mindset, because we are not in agreement because we are trying something different. We have looked at the other six jurisdictions and we are trying to learn from what they have done, and I think we have a pretty good idea. It is going to be a growing process and that is why we have allowed this transition period. To reference other provinces and leave out the most obvious, the one that is going through it right now, New Brunswick – six months, no consultation, no negotiation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: It is awful, I cannot even imagine. It was not brought up, but that is fine.

Mr. Speaker, if I may digress a little bit to speak somewhat to the specifics of our Province's wonderful drug plan, because I think it was dragged through the mud there a little while ago. I know as an MHA – I was elected back in 2009, and even working for the previous MHA before that from 2004 onwards – I have seen quite a lot, obviously, handling calls for constituents and whatnot. While obviously there is always room to move, grow, and that type of thing, this drug plan is absolutely fantastic, and I would say amongst the best in the country, easily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: And I am not speaking off the top of my head here, because I have had the calls from constituents. I know the people who are on expensive drugs that could not afford them before – and this drug plan is right there. I have had people cry on the phone. So is it all that bad? Is it all that bad? I would not say it is.

Again, I want to take a few moments just to talk about the drug plan. Again, the Province currently invests approximately $151 million – I believe was the number we heard earlier – annually for the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. Now, the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program provides financial assistance for the purchase of eligible prescription medications to over 121,000 residents of this Province. So, I think it would be quite easy to assume that every one of our districts obviously has people in receipt of this. It is something that affects every one of us, and I would say to the –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: I would think they do, yes.

The total budget for 2011-2012, as I said, $151 million. Over the last five years, our government has made significant enhancements to this drug program. In Budget 2010, we reassessed and increased the Access Plan thresholds, raising the allowable income levels, effective August 2010, so that more people would be eligible. In January 2007, we launched the Low Income Drug Plan, later renamed the Access Plan, for individuals and families with low incomes, and in October 2007, we implemented the Assurance Plan, for individuals and families with high drug costs relative to their income.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

MR. S. COLLINS: My Lipitor story kind of threw me off there a little bit.

If I may have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. S. COLLINS: So, just quickly – I will not go into all the things I want to say – anyway, we have the five drug plans: the Foundation Plan, the 65Plus Plan, the Access Plan, the Assurance, and the Select Needs Plan. Many of us are not overly familiar with the Select Needs program, but it covers 100 per cent for things such as Cystic Fibrosis and growth hormones.

The thing is, this plan - obviously, the money is invested; the money is doing well. We hear it as MHAs, as I am sure you hear it when you are on the other line with your constituents; this plan has been great. At the end of the day, we are going to make sure that this plan brings the greatest benefit to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I would say to all parties involved – all parties – I would encourage everyone to get to the table, negotiate, make sure this is the best deal for everyone. I think at the end, we can certainly be proud of the piece of work we have done, as in other jurisdictions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that the reason he needed more time was because of his Lipitor. I guess we should be grateful that it was not Viagra, because I am not sure if he would have finished sooner or taken longer. If his delay was drug induced, it was Lipitor.

In my district, Mr. Speaker, there are three pharmacists, three independent pharmacies, and they employ between thirty-five and forty people. There is a pharmacy in Norris Point, there is a pharmacy in Port Saunders, and those are 170 kilometres apart – 170 kilometres from one small-town pharmacist to another. Then another 10 kilometres or so further on in Port au Choix, there is yet another pharmacy. Two of these pharmacists have been practically fixtures in the community for as much as thirty-five or forty years. As might be expected, they are late sixties or early seventies and they are still carrying on the business and the profession of pharmacy.

The biggest concern in my district about this bill – and it is difficult to assess the bill at this point because the bill is really a bare-bones bill and it is to be followed up with some fairly heavy regulations – the biggest concern is that two of our three pharmacists may well be driven out of business by the regulations that follow this bill. Now, the minister can say that is fear mongering, but when they are gone, it may in fact be factual and not fear mongered. My concern is not that the legislation is not well-intended, but in fact there be unintended consequences for many small pharmacists. We appear to be trying to apply an upalong, mainland solution for larger densities of population to a small density of population.

If you look at the pharmacy in Norris Point, it is owned and operated by somebody who is around seventy years of age. That person employs upwards of fifteen people, depending on the time of the year. It is not far from the hospital. He has no succession plan. A succession plan would simply mean that somebody was available, interested, or wanted to take over his business. A concern he has expressed is that with this legislation, with what appears that the revenue he now receives in rebates – and I have no problems calling it rebates; he gets extra either product, being drugs, or rebates in general, and he uses that to carry on his business.

What is his business all about? This small pharmacy, besides the drug coverage, contains all the other items that nowadays pharmacies tend to carry, but this individual is a pillar in the community. Anybody with any fundraising functions, it is always a safe bet to go there and get a donation of $50 or $100. His drugs are delivered from up to an hours drive north of there. You can go into one or more of the small stores in the area and if there is an assortment of brown packages that have just showed up, that is drugs for people who either do not have transportation or it is not convenient for them to drive. Their prescriptions will come out to them.

If you go further north, there is another pharmacy in Port Saunders, both of these are near hospitals. He is sixty-seven or sixty-eight years of age, he employs a dozen to fifteen people. He has no succession plan in place. There is nobody who wants to take over his business. He has a real concern that if the revenue he now uses in order to maintain his operations, the extra benefit that he receives from the drugs that he sells is not something that he could simply put in the bank or spend on himself, this is extra revenue that he uses to maintain his business. If he is unable to maintain that business - or sooner or later he will retire in any event - if it has become so unattractive in small towns for a person to have a pharmaceutical business, a drug store, then who will fill the void? Where will people look for their drugs?

In St. Barbe District, with nearly 9,000 people and three pharmacies, we do not even have a Tim Hortons. We do not need a Tim Hortons but we certainly need pharmacies. The fact that this legislation has been proposed and it is absolutely bare bones is a real concern to the pharmacists.

The third pharmacy is in Port au Choix. That one is slightly smaller. For the benefit of the people in the community, this is operated by a much younger couple. Hopefully, if they are permitted to stay in business then they will be around for a number of years. The real concern that I have in my district for people who depend on pharmacies is they do not have the means to go a couple of hundred kilometres to Corner Brook and fill a prescription at Shoppers or one of the other drugstores.

What happens if this legislation and the regulations that follow it are so improvidently applied that these businesses go out of business? This is the overall concern. It is easy for the minister to say we are going to put regulations in place, but why don't you? Why should people trust you? Why should people give you a blank cheque today and say pass the bill, we will put in place the regulation? When a bill is accompanied with a substantial regulation, obviously the regulation is the operative part of any bill. I think everybody in this House knows that; however, when the bill is so small and the reg is so large essentially it means that the legislators are passing off to the bureaucrats the requirement, the opportunity and the need for them to put in place the regulations. That is really where the pharmacists are afraid they are going to be hit.

If this bill is poorly applied through the regulation, and if the regulations are not well done and if it drives pharmacies out of business in our small communities then we have lost part of the infrastructure for our communities. Pharmacies in small towns are important pieces of infrastructure. They are the part that helps apply our medical plan. If you cannot access drugs at a reasonable price and on a timely basis then you simply have no drug plan. There is no point in having a drug plan. The dispensing fee that our pharmacists receive right now is the lowest in the country. In many of the smaller, rural pharmacies they do more work, provide more advice and put in more hours than you would see in any of the major pharmacies in major cities.

Mr. Speaker, what I say to the minister is: How can you say you are helping rural Newfoundland and Labrador when you fail to demonstrate any insight into our infrastructure needs and you legislate without any real inquiry into the effects of your legislation? There has been no real inquiry with small pharmacists. If there has been I would like to know which pharmacists they were because I have spoken with a number of these pharmacists and they are extremely concerned.

One can say that it is fear mongering, but a fear of the unknown is a real issue. The big concern that many people have in dealing with government at this point is: How do we know what you will do? If you have not decided yourself what you will do, if the regulations had been adopted, if the regulations had been prepared so they could be debated and discussed, a better sense of well-being that this legislation will do the right thing. We have no such sense of assurance. It is easy for the minister to sit back and say: Trust us, it is in the regulation. Well, we do not know what will be in the regulations. Apparently the regulations either have not been drafted or they are early enough on in their formulation that they may be something entirely different than has been represented to us today.

I do not doubt the well meaning intent of the bill. I do not doubt the need to use generic drugs. Clearly, generic drugs are a way to save a significant amount of money in drug coverage but at this point the government has not given anybody, not the pharmacists, not the Opposition, no members of the public, enough information to be able to assess what is coming. We are facing a very thin bill, a bill with only a half a dozen clauses, and that is the broad strokes. We are supposed to accept the bill as it is formulated and then sit back and wait for the regulations. How can anybody do that?

We see this time and time again with this government. This government says trust us, trust us on Muskrat and we will tell you if it is going to be a good deal, then we will work it out. Why is it that the government is so afraid of the people, with such small Opposition and such a large government that the government is afraid to put forth its position for debate? It will not put forth its position for public debate. Why shouldn't the public debate this?

If the government were to put forth what it truly intends to do, the debate would rage on the Open Line shows, and I dare say that the government is more afraid of the Open Line shows than this Legislature. There is a massive majority; this government can pass practically any legislation that it wants in record time. What does that do for democracy when you fail to put forward what you are going to do and then you expect all of us to support you?

It is encouraging to note that a number of the members are actually listening. I am encouraged by that because that means that they are taking this debate seriously. One observation; decorum seems to be better today than maybe on other days and that would be beneficial and useful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is trying to give some latitude to the member, but I would ask you to bring your comments relevant to the debate that is at hand.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What assurance can I give to the three pharmacies in my district when the government says that we will look after you later? That is really what the government is saying. The government is saying we will look after you later, pass this bill, sleep tight, do not worry about it, we have it all looked after. That is no assurance whatsoever.

The people of this Province have been treated to essentially eight years of hyperbole and poll massaging, so it makes it very difficult to accept what the government says at face value. Please give us more detail in your legislation. Please put forth what you say will be in the regulations. Give us the bare bones of what the regulation will be and not just the act, because the act is telling us absolutely nothing. The pharmacists are very concerned and, more so than the pharmacists, the older people will be concerned.

How many small-town pharmacies can we afford to lose and still provide the kind of drug coverage that people expect to have? There is no point in providing drug coverage if you cannot access it because you do not have transportation. Will it be a drive-through type of coverage that we see in some provinces? Will it be to telephone up and have mail-order drug coverage, or do we want to maintain pharmacists who provide proper instruction and proper assistance in our prescription drugs?

At this point, it would be impossible to support the bill because we do not know what it is we are supporting; however, maybe over the course of the next little while we will learn a little bit more about the government's true intentions, assuming that the government knows what it intends because it seems to make it up as it goes along.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, we have good news but also challenges. We know that the whole area of health care is fraught with complexities and is fraught with expense as well. We know that the pharmacists, as we have all talked about today, play such a vital role in our community. When I think of the complex health needs of my own parents, both my mother and father, who, in their later years, were on multiple medications and their pharmacist in St. John's Centre played a vital role in their health care.

Pharmacists also catch potential problems with potential drug interactions that sometimes doctors do not catch when they are doing prescriptions. In the long run, they can save us money as well. We also know that there are a lot of seniors who end up in emergency because of confusions over their drug regimes. Again, because of the complexity and the wonderful advancements that have been made in the health care field, drugs and pharmacare becomes even more complex as well. Again, it is good news and it is challenges.

One of the roles that I have seen pharmacists play particularly in my district is that they play a bridging role with some of our constituents who cannot avail of the drug programs that we have because the threshold is so very low. Sometimes they cannot afford their drugs until the next payday. They have told me stories of where the pharmacist will give them their drugs anyway until their paycheque comes, which is far better for sure than going to the payday loan companies.

The implementation of this bill in five days – I am very curious about the regulations and the details, and how they will be implemented. One of the areas I am wondering about is whether or not seniors' advocacy and resource groups have been consulted in this process, and I would love to hear about that, particularly if there are concerns with seniors that some of that can be allayed.

One of the problems I see with eligibility requirements for some aspects of the pharmacare program that we do have – the drug prescription program that we do have – is: a, the low level of threshold when we consider the general affordability that many of not only our seniors, but people on low income, face in our Province right now, as a direct consequence of our fabulous newfound prosperity.

Also, another aspect is that I have a constituent, a family in my district, a husband and wife. He lost his job. They are in their late fifties; both of them are kind of infirmed. He lost his job this year due to a new registering requirement in the field of work that he is doing, and his wife has a chronic disease; however, he cannot access all the programs with our prescription drug program because it is based on his income from the previous year. So, it can be hard. There are difficulties, then, if you fall on hard times and cannot get access to our drug program because of the fiscal requirements based on your last year's income and taxes.

I was very happy to hear the minister say that service providers will be protected. She said that a significant portion will be reinvested back to the pharmacies. I am very curious as to how concretely that will happen, what will be the absolute plan, the concrete plan, and also, the minister's commitment when she said that government remains committed to make sure seniors are not negatively impacted. I believe that to be true. I am very interested to see exactly how that may be implemented, what are the details, and what will the regulations be?

Again, the whole concern is over the higher dispensary fees, which will impact not only seniors but also low-income earners, moderate-income earners who have fallen on hard times, who may not be eligible for some of the programs in our prescription drug program.

I have also spoken with both pharmacists and constituents in my area who talk about not being able to buy more than, for instance, a week's worth of their medication because they are waiting for payday, or they just do not have the cash to do it, or their credit cards are maxed out. Therefore, for the same prescription that perhaps could be dispensed for three months, they cannot afford the cash-out rate for the three months. Therefore, they are getting it dispensed maybe every two weeks. Then, what will that mean for them in dispensing fees if the dispensing fees go up? This could be a significant impact, again, for low-income earners who do not qualify because the threshold. I believe the threshold to be much too low when we look at the general affordability in life right now for many people, for many working families, for many working individuals.

I also would like to talk about a single mom in my district who is on Income Support, who has four children, and who has diabetes. She is taking four needles a day. She is not eligible for the pump. Pardon me, she is taking actually six needles a day. She is not eligible for the pump. Because she has been on six needles a day, she has had several infections that either result in lengthy stays at emergency – where she also has to take, sometimes, her two youngest children with her because she cannot afford to pay somebody to watch her children while she is at the emergency – or also at times, have resulted in a hospital admission. Her doctor is telling her that her diabetes would be much better handled and managed if she was eligible for the pump, if the pump were something that would be covered for adults with diabetes under our prescription drug program.

We know that the percentage that consumers co-pay in our Province is very high compared to other provinces. The co-pay for the low-income Access Plan is 20 per cent to 70 per cent, and the co-pay for the high-cost drug Assurance Plan is 5 per cent to 10 per cent - and that is compared to 3 per cent to 4 per cent in Saskatchewan and 2.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent in Manitoba. The eligibility for the 65Plus Plan is tied to a federal program with a very, very low income threshold, namely, the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If one of our seniors makes even a dollar more than the cut-off, which is about $16,000 – and I challenge any of us in this House to live in our current economy with heat and light and accommodations and food and drugs, to be able to live on $16,000 a year. We have relegated our seniors to states of poverty; but, if you make over $16,000 a year or if you are late in filing your income tax, you get cut off from your GIS, and then our provincial drug program cuts you off as well. Then we have seniors who cannot afford their drugs or who cannot avail of our Prescription Drug Program. Pharmacists have told us how hard this is on many seniors, the whole area of drugs and pharmaceuticals, that it is very, very costly. We all know that; we all know that through our own family situations.

If you are a senior living on $17,000 a year and not eligible for the 65Plus program, then you are put on the Access program and then you have to co-pay. Again, the thresholds are far too low. They relegate our seniors into lives of poverty, into lives of choosing whether or not they are going to cut their pills in half. Then, it costs the system so much more, because then we are dealing with hospital admissions.

Our Prescription Drug Program needs reform. We all know that. We all know how expensive it all is, but there is good news with the potential lowering in the prices of generics. Our Prescription Drug Program needs reform, we need lower co-pay rates, and we need higher income thresholds. It is indisputable. People cannot live on a dollar more than $16,000 a year. It will save us in the long run, but all seniors should be on the 65Plus Plan.

The complexity of our health care is with us, so much of it is based on pharmaceuticals but that is where we have come. Part of that is success and with that success comes challenges, with that science comes challenges. In this time of our prosperity in Newfoundland and Labrador, which we should all be sharing in, which should be positive for all of us, with 500,000 people in our Province, Mr. Speaker, I do believe we can get this right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up in this House at any given time, especially a pleasure to get up and have some comments with regard to An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. As most people in this Legislature and most people outside of this Legislature probably know that I, in my past life, was a pharmacist, a pharmacist by trade, a pharmacist by profession, a pharmacist that I dearly loved. It provided to my family but also provided some great relationships in regard to the people that I served.

I remember back – and I will give you a little bit of history and a flavour to exactly the history of pharmacy and then I will get to the points in regard to this act itself. It is all relevant, really, to what I am going to say. I remember when I entered pharmacy, way back when, that there were no dispensing fees, there was no such thing. As a matter of fact, there was a move on the go at that particular time to move to a dispensing fee program instead of percentage on cost. That is exactly what pharmacies used to charge years ago. That is exactly what it was, and it was determined by the government of the day that there were some savings to be had in regard to moving toward a dispensing fee system as compared to a percentage on cost. I was not an owner at the time, but I witnessed many pharmacists and the owners of the particular pharmacy that I was employed in at the time to have considerable apprehension towards moving towards a fee for service or a cost that was not derived from a percentage on cost.

To a turn, what I say to that is that same apprehension is here today in regard to the bill we are discussing here, and which we should, on the floor of the House of Assembly. Even though, I have listened carefully this afternoon in regard to the bill itself and some of the things that have been said here that are not intended to be false or misleading. I do not think it is, but certainly it might put some fear in regard to especially the most vulnerable people in our society, our seniors, people of poverty and people of lower incomes. I take exception to that because the simple reason is this bill is not about that. This bill is about actually being fair to all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as our pharmacy owners and our independent pharmacies. That will be worked out in regard to the negotiation process, which it should, and they should be a part of that.

As well, when I entered pharmacy there was no such thing as generics. There was no generic. We did not even know what it was at that particular time. When generics were first introduced to Newfoundland and Canada, there was a fair bit of apprehension as well in regard to moving to that model. In providing drugs at a lower cost, people thought that their profitability would go down and whatever it was that they were apprehensive about. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that when you move to any form of a model beyond the one that you are used to, it brings a certain amount of fear and a certain amount of apprehension.

What I always practiced when I was in business and in pharmacy in particular is, well, when I see change I also see an opportunity. The opportunity in this case is that I advocated on my own in regard to when I used to own a pharmacy. Being an independent pharmacy owner, that pharmacist should be a part of the health care chain and take a unique role in regard to the delivery of health services across Newfoundland and Labrador, which we have never been afforded that recognition in my belief. This move here could actually be the opportunity in regard to moving to that recognition and being compensated for services that might be provided by pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador to their patients that now they are trying to offset costs in regard to the generic rebates and the professional fees thereof.

They can move to there because of the simple reason that we are open to that. The minister has been very clear in regard the intention of government. She has been very clear in regard to the intention of government in regard to the 65Plus program. She has been very clear in regard to the most vulnerable people in our society. We have a proven record.

I heard the word in regard to some of the other hon. members here in this House, comments in regard to trust us. Well, I have never used that and neither one of us has used that. All we try to do is communicate to you that we have a proven record in doing the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador and trying to do the right thing for all the people who live here. This is one of the things that we are going to try to do because there are savings to government. It is incumbent because for the simple reason is that yes, I was a pharmacist by profession prior to this life, but it is incumbent on me now as the MHA for the District of Gander and also as the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explore ways to reduce costs and be more fair, transparent and accountable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in general. That is exactly what we have to do as a Province.

We are also known as well to support small business in Newfoundland and Labrador through the many reductions in taxes, et cetera. Through the present Minister of Finance that we have, he has been here a fair while in being that particular minister and witnessed and brought forward for Cabinet's approval a lot of those reductions that were felt right across Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to supporting small businesses and keeping them alive.

We as well, and I will as a past pharmacist recognize the unique role that pharmacists play in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. They play unique roles in not only rural Newfoundland and Labrador which has been mentioned here in this Legislature today, but right across this Province and even in more urban areas and cities such as St. John's, Corner Brook, or urban communities such as Gander, Clarenville or wherever it may be. They have that unique relationship with their patients; they go the English mile in delivering that service.

I had the reputation in my particular community that if a person phoned me at any given time, at any day of the week or the year, that I would get out of my bed and come in and make sure that patient had access to the medications they needed. I am sure there are a good many like me in Newfoundland and Labrador, because I have heard that particular story prevail in regard to independent pharmacies right across this Province. That is not lost on this government in regard to the unique place that pharmacies have in Newfoundland and Labrador and also the services they provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why we have said from the get-go that this is not about closing down pharmacies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, not at all; it is just moving to a new model. It is an opportunity for pharmacies to get to the table and make sure that they are compensated not only in the dispensing fee model in regard to that aspect and that component of the actual remuneration of those services, but also to get recognized for the unique services they would provide to the people. The hon. member across the House referenced, in regard to her own experiences with a pharmacist, that she had no experience before. She was quite intrigued that these pharmacists go the English mile in regard to providing that service.

I will say this as well, and I do not mind saying it, sometimes when I was delivering that service I forgot about profit. I forgot about anything else but just delivering a professional service that I had gone to school, learned how to do, learned from the older pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador how to deliver, and I tried to deliver it to the best ability that I could to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is about reinvesting as well in our pharmacies. Sure enough, yes, absolutely, we cannot place them in regard to the House of Assembly here today. We cannot lay that out, because that is a part that pharmacists and pharmacy owners should have a role to play. As a matter of fact, I was in the department this morning and those negotiations have started and those negotiations will go on. They will be at the Department of Health as long as they want to be at it in regard to putting forward the things that they need to see in regard to those regulations, to offset any decrease in cost to them in regard to the professional fees or their profitability.

I remember as well – and I have been part of many programs in Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to my days as a pharmacy owner - I remember that people from the industry warned me, and warned others, not to be including those pharmacies or those professional fees in their business plan, because they predicted that at some point in time not only would they be reduced but they would actually cease to exist. They would cease to exist.

I am a firm believer that in time they will cease to exist, they absolutely will, because the industry is changing. I heard people in this House of Assembly today speak about this bill and the regulations thereof that will be developed over the next number of days, in the next while, in regard to the negotiated process that we are having with PANL. They talked about the bill as if it is the first time that this was ever introduced in Canada.

Many times – if anybody wanted to look at Hansard – when I spoke in regard to some of the regulations that are brought forward and the amendments that are brought forward in regard to my time as the Minister of Government Services, I always said that I would love to be a leader. We should lead the pack in regard to Canada, and take our rightful place in Canada as a Province and as a Legislature, instead of being the followers all of the time. This time around, we are not the leaders; we are absolutely not. As a matter of fact, we are way behind. The simple reason is that six provinces have already implemented the particular program and adjustment to the generic rebates, and some of them have outlawed it completely.

As well, we have another one that will probably end up implementing it before us, and that is New Brunswick. They are going through a process there that there is no participation from the profession itself, there is no participation from the ownership and the independent pharmacies in New Brunswick. That concerns me, Mr. Speaker, because they should have a voice, and there is a way to have that voice, and that is in the Department of Health and Community Services. They have a right to engage in regard to what they see that would benefit them as a profession, where they can continue to deliver the professional services that they, in their hearts and souls, want to deliver to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but also to make sure that their pharmacies are profitable. I have been on record, and this government is on record as well, that yes, we by all means have to get a bang for our dollar when we are spending the people's money, but we are not averse to people making a profit, either. That is a fact.

As I just mentioned, I firmly believe that these generic professional fees will eventually cease to exist. I see this now as a starting point in regard to being rightfully compensated in the right way, and not have to pay, as I have heard in the different media sources – have pharmacists being paid somewhat in a way through the back door what they should be paid in regard to the services that they are delivering. So, if they believe in their hearts and souls, as I did in the past, that these are services that should be recognized, and these services should be compensated for, then there is a process that you have to go through in regard to making sure that it is a part of the regulations.

Once these regulations are brought in, and everything is done, all these kinds of things in the future – be it a couple of years or so, or whatever it may be in regard to time frame - well, that is a process that will be ongoing forevermore in regard to recognizing those particular unique services that pharmacists provide to the people.

I go back to that health care chain – and I have heard it many, many times over the years that I have attended AGMs and conventions and that kind of stuff - that pharmacists were disheartened in regard to that recognition, as being one of the most important cogs in the wheel when it comes to delivery of health services in this Province.

In turn, again, and I do not mind saying it, I see this as an opportunity, an opportunity that I would encourage pharmacy owners and whatnot – you cannot have everybody at the table; you just cannot have it. You just cannot have everybody at the table. You cannot have every single independent pharmacy owner in Newfoundland and Labrador at the table negotiating for their own selves. That is not the way it works. The simple reason is, I always looked at my profession as a team; a team that delivered services right across Newfoundland and Labrador.

The services that a pharmacist, an independent pharmacy, taking them as an example; delivering in St. John's is no different than what I delivered in Gander and it is no different than somebody who is delivering it on the Northern Peninsula. They are all there for the same reasons. The reasons are, yes, they picked the profession, they have to make a living off it but more importantly, they want to deliver the best service they possibly can to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think yes, that is true, and I think yes, that we as a government, we are on record in regard to recognizing that particular service. I encourage them to get back to the table, or get to the table. If they have any different views in regard to any of the negotiating team that is at the Department of Health and Community Services right now, with regard to PANL, well make them known and bring them to the table for future or for use in that process.

As well, I want to talk to right now, and hopefully some of them, and I am creeping up to that age, God forbid, but that is it. That is a part of living and part of being born, is that I probably am listed as a senior citizen now. I want to talk to them, and any of them who are looking at us in this House of Assembly today, I want to be clear, and very clear, as I have been clear to the people of Gander that I served as a pharmacist, that in no way will seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador be impacted by this with regard to the 65Plus program.

There are about 80,000 seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak. Out of those 80,000 seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would venture to guess there are 50,000-plus of them who are on the 65Plus program. They only pay for the dispensing fee. We have been quite clear that we will reinvest in our seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador as we have done in the past to make sure they are not impacted in regard to any increase in cost and that fee. That is clear. We have been clear time and time again and we have brought many things to this House of Assembly. We brought many things to our budget in regard to offsetting any costs that we possibly can for our seniors. We understand that they are vulnerable. We understand they are on fixed incomes, so we have to reinvest in regard to that process.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that some 50,000-plus of them would be covered by the 65Plus. Somebody might ask in regard to the other 25,000 or so, what happens to them? Well, the reason why they are not on the 65Plus is because they have other means of paying for their medication. They have gone way beyond the thresholds we have in regard to that program.

As a matter of fact, I will go back in my memory in regard to the seniors who I served. Very rarely did a senior come into my pharmacy and actually have to pay full cost out of their pocket. I can say that with all honesty, all honesty. It was very, very rare if that ever happened. As a matter of fact, if they did come in and they actually had missed the opportunity to be covered, I advised them how to go about getting on a program that actually compensated it for them.

We are not ignoring the impact of this bill and what it might mean to our seniors and to the people of Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, it is all about saving money for the people. We are and we have to do that. As members of this Legislature, we have to do that. We absolutely have to. That is our job on this side of the House, and that is your job on that side of the House, too, to make sure that we are saving money and we are getting the best bang for our dollar. We are not ignoring the impact that it may have on any sector of our society. We are not ignoring the impact it might have on small pharmacies and independent pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not, absolutely not, because that is a process.

I am seeing, as well, that – and I will go back to it – we are not the first to even entertain this, with six and now seven ahead of this and the reasons why. You should ask yourself: Well, why did they do that? Why did other provinces do that? Well, the reason is because there are savings to the people of that particular province. They did not do it just to disenfranchise independent pharmacies or pharmacies in general in the province that we are talking about. They did not do it for that reason. As a matter of fact, I am glad that we actually waited awhile before we actually went into this process because now we have challenges identified and whatnot in regard to the implementation process that they went through.

We are going through a year of an implementation. There are a lot of things that will happen in that year. In regard to New Brunswick, they are nearly jamming it down the throats of the actual profession and also whoever else may be the stakeholders at large in New Brunswick. We are not doing that at all. We have a graduated process that we will honour. We will go into, as the minister is entered into now, a process of negotiations.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, and thank you to the hon. member.

I will not be long; I will clue up here now pretty soon. Maybe in Committee stage I can have another few words in regard to this piece of legislation, because I believe it is very important that we all understand it. I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in general will benefit from it. I believe there is an opportunity for pharmacies and pharmacy owners in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is for them to seize the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

Is it the wish of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.