The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand here tonight and say a few words on this bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. This has been a bill that has been under discussion in this Province for some time now. The government has indicated its intention to bring forward legislation to lower the cost of generic drugs for the people of this Province, and there have been groups who are opposed to that and they have made their voices loud and clear in the public discourse of this Province on the Open Line shows and in the election campaign. Some of their advocates ran in the last election and the people, I think, heard very clearly during that campaign the position of both sides on this issue and the people made their decision, and their decision was very, very clear. There is no question, based on the normal principles of democracy, that this government has a mandate to bring forward legislation to lower the cost of generic drugs to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has strived since we were elected into office to do things to help people cope with the cost of living. To put money in people's pockets so they could cope with rising food costs, they could cope with inflation and with rising energy and oil costs. First of all, we lowered personal income taxes. In the first bracket, for the lower income people in this Province, we have the lowest income tax rate in Atlantic Canada. We removed the hated surtax on income tax. We indexed the credits. We indexed the many other benefits that people were receiving. It was described by The Telegram as the biggest income tax cut in the Province's history. That put money in people's pockets and that helped people cope with rising costs.

Another thing we did was we removed the hated 15 per cent tax on insurance. Under the old retail sales tax, there was a 15 per cent tax on insurance. It was originally 12 per cent, but when the HST came in the government of the day – I cannot recall which government that was; I think it was in 1997 – upped the tax and put tax on insurance. We removed that tax. We eliminated that tax. Mr. Speaker, in the last Budget we now rebate the provincial portion of the HST – the 8 per cent – on heat and electricity back to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, in continuing with that intent, this particular piece of legislation will now lower the costs of generic drugs to consumers in this Province to help them further cope with the rising cost of living. If things work out, Mr. Speaker, if the Public Utilities Board comes out with the correct decision and Nalcor's numbers do what they want them to do, then we will come forward with a plan to enable us to close down the Holyrood thermal generation plant, which produces electricity in this Province based on oil. Oil prices are high and they are going to go higher. We are going to eliminate that as well to help people again.

Now, with respect to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I should say for people watching that we know that there are certain drugs that are called brand name drugs. The example that was used here in this House was the drug, for example, Lipitor, which is manufactured by a drug company called Pfizer. These brand name drugs have trade names and they are protected by a patent. The patent, I think, is for twenty years now. That means that no other company can make a drug that competes with that particular brand name drug because of the patent. That is understandable, because the brand name drug company will have spent a lot of time developing their drug, they would have done research, they would have conducted trials, and they would come up with this new brand. That brand would be protected by a patent for twenty years and no one else was allowed to compete, no one else was allowed to manufacture a similar drug – which could easily be done. Once the drug is being sold on the market, the drug can easily be analyzed, the chemical composition of the drug easily determined, and the drug could be manufactured at very cheap cost, but no one can do it because they are protected by patent. After twenty years, when the patent ends, now all these other drug companies called generic drug companies, they can simply take that pill and they can make that pill or an equivalent to that pill very, very cheaply, and therefore they can sell it very, very cheaply.

So, generic drugs are essential copies of the brand name drugs that can be produced and they can be sold after the patent protection has expired on the brand name drug. The example would be Apo-Atorvastatin that is the generic drug for Lipitor. We have a formulary, the Newfoundland and Labrador Interchangeable Drug Formulary, which is essentially a listing of generic drugs that have been deemed to be therapeutically equivalent. In other words, they have the same clinical effect as the brand name drugs. The generic drug companies apply to get their drugs put on that formulary, and they are mandated that the generic drugs have to provide at least a 25 per cent difference, a lower price, than the brand name drugs, and I understand that most of them are about 60 per cent. The fact that legislation like this, which has been introduced in six or seven provinces in the country – even that legislation and the threat of that legislation has forced some of the prices down to the 60 per cent range.

What this legislation, of course, is going to do is mandate that the cost of the generic drugs will go down to 35 per cent of the brand. I understand it is going to start this year and it will take a year. It will go down in phases to allow the drug companies and the pharmacies to adjust to it. Eventually, the drug costs will now be 35 per cent of the brand. That is a major reduction in the cost of generic drugs for people in this Province, so it is the consumer who is going to benefit from this more than anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at how the generic drug companies charge the pharmacies and how the pharmacies charge the consumer to determine what is going on here. Mr. Speaker, under the current agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the amount that the pharmacists charge is based on the defined cost, which is the manufacturer's list price plus 8.5 per cent, then there is a markup on that and the dispensing fee, which the pharmacy charges on top of the cost from the generic drug company. So I am going to assume, to try to keep this simple, that the cost is $1 a pill. If the cost is $1 a pill, the pill is purchased and it is sold to a consumer that cost of the dollar is passed on to the consumer. Then there is the markup and then there is a dispensing fee on top of that. Mr. Speaker, what we have been told is happening out in the marketplace is that the cost to the pharmacy is not $1 and that what is happening, because of competition between the generic drug companies to convince the pharmacies to stock their particular brand of drug, is that cash payments are made, known as professional allowances, or drugs are sold two for one.

The markups on generics, first of all, tend to be very high. We are advised that the markup could be 140 per cent to 619 per cent for a $43 prescription, based on estimated rebates ranging from 40 per cent to 80 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if the rebates are paid to a pharmacy to stock a particular version of a generic drug and that rebate is 40 per cent to 80 per cent of the cost, then that is quite substantial; that is a great savings.

Let us assume it is 50 per cent; therefore, the cost to the pharmacy is now, with the rebate, fifty cents, but the price being charged to the consumers is $1. The cost to the consumer – the consumer is not paying the true cost. The cost is lower and the benefit of that lower cost is not being paid to the consumer. The consumer should be charged fifty cents in that case. The consumer is being charged $1 in that case, and I am talking about per pill here. That means that the savings and that the proof to the competition that is taking place between the generic drug companies to get the pharmacies to stock their product is not being passed on to the consumer.

I have a report here, and I am sure that members of the NDP might be well familiar with this. It is a report called The Economic Case for Universal Pharmacare and it is put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is a research tank in Ontario. It is a group whose reports I like to read from time to time. On page 41 of this report, which is written by Marc-André Gagnon with the assistance of Guillaume Hébert, they make some interesting comments, some of which I am going to quote here. Some I will not, because I disagree with them; I simply will not repeat it.

They say at page 41, and I quote: "Quite frankly, the way in which generic drug distribution in Canada is managed is problematic, if not scandalous. Reimbursement prices for generic drugs are set in terms of the percentage of the price of the original drug." They go on to say, "Normally, the choice to substitute...with a generic is up to the pharmacist." They say that: "Although the prices reimbursed for generics are set in relation to the price of the original drug, strong price competition remains between generic products. However, pharmacies reap the benefits of this price-competition, rather than patients."

It is our view that it has to be the patient, the consumer, who gets benefit from that competition and that is why we are lowering the costs of these drugs.

They go on to say a few more things. They say that generic drug manufacturers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that I gave him latitude in order to reference the article in question. I remind members that they are not to read from the pure text or articles. You may cite them or you may paraphrase, but it is inappropriate to read the text into the record of the House.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that rule applied in Question Period but not during debates in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: No, I am not challenging. I am seeking clarification from the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has indicated clearly –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has indicated that it is inappropriate to read directly from text and prepared papers. You can make reference to them. Whether it is in Question Period or whether it is in debate, it is inappropriate to read directly from another publication.

MR. MARSHALL: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The last point I am going to make from this article, it says that under normal circumstances – and this will be the last quote – the money should benefit the consumer –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no quoting. The Speaker has indicated that you are not to read from a publication. That is the end of the reading at the time the Speaker made the ruling. There is no allowance for a further quote, a second one, or a third one. The Speaker has ruled you can paraphrase and reference the text. You can reference the article, but please do not read from it.

MR. MARSHALL: Well, the point the article is making is it is the pharmacies that are benefitting from the competition, not the consumer, and that is the point of this legislation.

Drug costs have been going very high. I am told that generic drug costs in Canada are much higher than many other countries in the world. I am told that the cost of generic drugs in this Province is much higher than in the other provinces that have this program, this policy, in effect. Mr. Speaker, that is why this government has certainly brought this in.

Mr. Speaker, again, we understand that British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have introduced this legislation. We understand that New Brunswick either has or is about to introduce this legislation, so we are bringing this legislation in to help seniors and to help the consumer.

There was a lot of talk in the debate today about whether this would help seniors or not. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is being brought in for the purpose of helping seniors. If you have a senior who is not a member of a program, if you have a senior who does not have a drug plan, who pays out of pocket, they are going to find that their drug costs will go down to 35 per cent from 60 per cent; therefore, it will be a lot cheaper. Now, no doubt the dispensing fee will go up, but I am sure that dispensing fee will not go up more than the drop in the cost of drugs, and that is for someone paying out of pocket. If it does, then I imagine the marketplace will certainly deal with that.

I would also like to talk about seniors who might be on the Foundation Plan, who have a card on the Foundation Plan. Of course, they will not be impacted, because under that plan both the cost of the drugs and the cost of the dispensing fee are paid by the government anyway, so what will happen there is the savings will inure to the government.

One very important plan is the 65Plus Plan, in which seniors who have Old Age Security and have the Guaranteed Income Supplement, those seniors have a plan called the 65Plus Plan, under which government pays the cost of the drugs, and the senior pays the cost of the dispensing fee. The cost price will go down, and if the dispensing fee would go up, then the senior would be impacted in a negative way. The government is having negotiations with PANL, having negotiations this week, and we will ensure that some of the savings, some of the $30 million in anticipated savings that will come from this program will be going back into the system to ensure that no senior has to pay any increase in any costs as part of this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we talked about the negotiations with PANL. Mr. Speaker, PANL and the government have been negotiating; they have just concluded one agreement in which the dispensing fees were in fact raised, and they are now negotiating a further agreement. The purpose of that agreement is to – we recognize that certain people and certain businesses and certain rural pharmacies are going to be negatively impacted by this. Therefore, government representatives from the Public Service Secretariat and from the Department of Health are engaged with representatives of PANL, some of whom are sitting at the table – at least the Chair, I believe, is an independent pharmacist. There is a chair available for CICPO, if they wish to show up, and I have urged them to do so. I fail to understand why they would not send a representative to take part in these discussions, which are very important.

Mr. Speaker, also, the discussions will take place with respect to what the dispensing fees could be, and possible reimbursement for some of those. There could also be monies forwarded to deal with rural and remote pharmacists who have been negatively impacted by this particular legislation. We can, for example, have discussions about compensating pharmacies for their cognitive services that they will provide – the extended scope of practice in which pharmacists provide an additional service to the public, such as medication reviews and diabetes education, and other types of cognitive services such as that. An expanded scope of practice on the part of the pharmacist can provide broader benefits to the health care system, such as targeting chronic disease management activities, which can align with one of government's own strategic initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, this discussion takes place at the table. A seat is available for the independent pharmacists and I would urge them - as the Parliamentary Secretary did today and I am sure the Minister of Health has done as well, I would urge them to show up to the table and take part in those extremely important discussions.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there has been lots of debate. There was lots of debate on the Open Line; there was lots of debate in the election. As a matter of fact, I think people got sick of it. People heard both sides and they have made their decision, and the decision is to give the government a mandate to proceed with this legislation. This is about protecting consumers, it is about protecting seniors, and it is about protecting people with vulnerabilities who need these generic drugs very much and at a cost that they can afford and that the Province can afford.

In addition, there will be savings to the Province. We are anticipating $30 million in savings in the year 2013-2014. As I said, we will use some to go back into the pharmacy industry. We will use others to make available to the regional health authorities to help them in their drug acquisition costs which are getting very, very high, such as cancer drugs. That is going to be important to more and more people as our population continues to age.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I have enjoyed the debate and I will listen to the rest of the debate this evening.

Thank you, 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.

I am delighted to be able to stand again and speak to the bill that we have on the table in front of us now, Bill 12. I hope the Minister of Finance does enjoy listening to me as he sits over there.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, for people who may not have been listening all day and who are listening now for the first time, this is a bill the heart of which is the issue of generic drugs and lowering the cost of generic drugs. I think for the sake of listeners, I will take a minute to talk a bit about what generic drugs are. I think people know the term but they may not always know what the implications are of a generic drug.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out, and I am really glad he did it, generic drugs should be cheaper than the drugs that we are used to because what it is all about is that brand name drugs are made by a pharmaceutical company that has put years into research which has led to the brand name drug. The pharmaceutical company that made the drug has the patent on the drug. However, internationally, pharmaceutical companies are not permitted to hold the patent forever. There has to come a point at which it is estimated by governments, both within a country and internationally, that the pharmaceutical company has reaped its benefits. It has paid for its research and it has reaped its benefits.

At a certain point in time those benefits become equalized out when generic drugs are permitted to be made. Then you have generic drugs on the market sharing the patent with the companies that have the brand name drug and who made the original drug that the generic drug is based on. For that reason, generic drugs in and of themselves should be cheaper because the companies that are selling the generic drugs did not have to put any money into making the drug. They did not have to put any research money in. No research and development money went in from that company. The drug no longer has to make money for a company that made it because those years are over. Now, it is extremely important that we have generic drugs because, if not, people who depend on drugs are going to continue to be gouged. It is really important that we protect the generic drugs and protect how long it is before generic drugs can come on a market.

It is interesting to point out that this issue and this struggle around generic drugs goes back more than twenty years, when we first started the free trade agreements with the United States and then went into the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, when we are looking at the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which is the agreement between Canada and Europe, the issue of drug patents and generic drugs has always been on the table with regard to trade.

One of the biggest issues that we had to fight around the free trade agreement, and then NAFTA also – and some of us were involved in those issues back in the late 1980s and early 1990s – was the protection of generic drugs and not allowing the pharmaceutical companies to hold the patent for too long. We had to fight that to protect ourselves as a country, actually. It was a big fight and the fight is still going on.

For example, right now in the trade talks that are going on between Canada and Europe, Europe is trying to change the length of time that a pharmaceutical company can hold the patent. It is very serious because if we do not keep the length of time as short as possible then we are going to have people suffering from not having access to generic drugs as much as they should have access to them. It is an issue that the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association is very concerned about. They believe that if we allow the length of time to be changed, the length of time that a pharmaceutical company can protect its patent, if we allow that length of time to be changed and it becomes a longer length of time, the consumers in Canada are really going to suffer.

It has been estimated - the work has been done - that if the EU were to get away with what they want to do, the annual increase of drugs for Newfoundland and Labrador is estimated at $46.4 million. Being able to make sure that we have generic drugs is extremely important, and being able to make sure that those generic drugs are as cheap as they can be for the consumer is also important.

From an economic perspective, there are a lot of people who are gaining from this bill that we have in front of us. I am not saying that is negative. I am just pointing it out, and I think the Minister of Finance has pointed it out as well. Yes, the consumer will gain because the consumer - we will find that the price of the generic drugs is going to change radically. Right now, the generic drugs here in Newfoundland and Labrador are 60 per cent of a brand name drug. The plan that the government has in place would, in three steps, bring that down to 35 per cent. That is saving money for the individual consumer. It is also saving money for the government as it pays for drugs through the public health plan, and it is also going to save money initially for private insurers as well.

You have three different things going on there. Yes, we definitely want the individual to have a cheaper price for drugs. There is no doubt about it. Yes, we definitely want seniors to be among those individuals, and yes, it is good that government also is saving money from our public health care plan. There is no doubt about that, but I am certainly not happy about private insurers making a windfall, which initially will happen for them until you get renegotiation of bills.

I mentioned this earlier in speaking to this bill, but I want to come back and speak to the issue of the relationship between the government and the public insurance to consumers. Government is saying, and I believe them, that they want to save money. They are saying it is going to be $30 million and they want to take that $30 million and put it back into health care or other programs.

My challenge to the government is, there are going to be problems for the consumer, for some consumers, and the money that they are going to save is going to have to stay in the drug program in order to help those consumers. This is not fear mongering that I am presenting. I am presenting the reality of what has happened in other places. For example, in BC, in British Columbia, when they brought in a similar plan, the dispensing fee was $8.60; then, under this plan, the dispensing fee went up to $10, and now they are looking at the dispensing fee going to $10.50. Now, they have a uniform dispensing fee there – from $8.60 to $10 and to $10.50 in British Columbia.

For a senior, for example, who is part of the 65 Plus program and who pays a dispensing fee, if the same thing happens here, all indications are the same thing would happen, looking at what has happened in other places. First of all, the money that government saves has to go, I believe, morally and ethically, to the seniors whose dispensing fee may go up. I think that is where that money has to go.

Secondly, if we get smaller pharmacies, independent pharmacies – and especially the rural ones, but not only – if we find that they run into financial difficulty because of the change in the whole system, which has happened in other places as well, which has happened in BC, which has happened in Ontario; if that happens, in order to offset the closing of pharmacies, government, I believe, will have a moral and ethical responsibility to put money in to help them also.

I am not saying it cannot happen. What I am saying is I want to know for sure that government understands that the money they are saving is really not being saved; it is money that is going to be moved around in the same system. That is all that I am pointing out. If the money is not moved around in the same system then you will get individuals who are going to suffer and you will get small pharmacies that are going to suffer. Now, that is very logical. It is very clear to me that that is the reality that we are dealing with.

My problem is that government has estimated – and we have not seen the figures that they have used to do this estimation, and I am wondering if those figures are going to come out on the table during Committee of the Whole – but they are saying they are going to save $30 million. So that means they are going to have $30 million because of the cheaper costs of the generic drugs that they can use somewhere. I am saying it is still going to have be used in the drug program for the reasons I just spelled out.

My concern is, in British Columbia they said they were going to save $300 million, but what happened in British Columbia is they only saved, to date, $100 million – one third of what they estimated. What they have found in British Columbia is that they were going to stop at 35 per cent of the brand-name cost in bringing down the generic drug price, but they have found that in order to save enough money to help the whole program they have in place, they are having to bring the cost down to 25 per cent, which is good for the consumer, except the government is having to do it in order to save enough money in order to save the program.

So, it may sound complicated, but if we are listening, it is not complicated; it is very, very simple. So, money is being taken from one hand to go in the other hand to do the same thing, and government will not be saving money, ultimately. The one good thing is – and this really is good – that a program like this will make it cheaper for the consumer. So, I am not saying we should not be doing that. We should be making it cheaper for the consumer, but government also has to realize that the money that it will now be gaining from the lower price of the cost that will not be going out to pharmaceutical companies, will, though, have to go into the pocket of the consumer in order to help them with dispensing fees, which are going to go up. It has happened everywhere else; we are not trying to paint something that is a pie in the sky, it has happened everywhere else. The money is going to have to go in to help independent pharmacies. It has to, because if we do not help independent pharmacies, then we will help people in the Province who do not have daily access to the drugs that they need.

So, this is the bulk of what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very simple, really. So, what we are asking, what I am asking, is I want it clearly explained to me, from the government, how it is going to work. I am hearing generalizations around: we will have money to spend. I am hearing $30 million, but I do not know where that came from. I know that in BC and other provinces they overestimated what they were going to make and are already having to change the formulary. We are hearing government talk about how nobody is going to suffer, it is good for everybody. Yet, evidence is being presented that unless government puts some things in place, it will not be good for everybody.

What I want from government as we have come to vote on this bill – I just do not want generalizations, I want actual definite things put on the table that show us what they are committed to. That is what I want. I want it said clearly and I want to hear from government it is a commitment that this is what is going to happen.

Government has brought this bill to the table for us to discuss. One of the things they are saying to us is that they are still sitting at the table with the Pharmacy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, negotiations are still going on, and that is why there are some things they cannot say. Well, you see, that is not our fault, Mr. Speaker. We did not ask them to bring the bill to the table before they finished negotiations. If they still had discussions going on, that is their problem; they are the ones who started this.

The questions that I am asking are questions that deserve to be answered. We deserve to have that information if we are going to vote. If government has brought the bill to the table too prematurely, then that is their problem. We could have been in this House long before this month and we could have been dealing with these kinds of legislations, Mr. Speaker.

This government has had enough time to be able to bring this act to the table. We have already been told today by some ministers of how many years this discussion has been going on. Surely to goodness, by the time the bill came to the table for us to discuss, by the time it came to this floor – something that they started discussing back in 2006, I think, we have been told here in the House today – then they should have been able to come with all the Is dotted and all the Ts crossed so that we know exactly what we are dealing with.

If I am forced to a point to say no to this act because they are not giving me something clear to really think about and something clear to be able to make my decision on, it is not going to be my fault, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be their fault for bringing the bill to the table before they have all the information to bring to this floor for us to talk about.

I do want to take up one more point since I still have time. A couple of my colleagues have brought up the issue of Standing Committees, and it has been pooh-poohed by ministers on the other side of the House. I heard one minister saying: we did the consultation, we talked to all those people, you have to – well, I did not hear "you have to trust us", but that was the implication – we have met. What they do in other jurisdictions, what they do in Ottawa and what they do in provinces right across the country is the all-party committees get to speak to all of those people and everybody, together, gets to study the situation. If this government would only open itself up to having all-party discussions –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If this government would only open itself up to having all-party standing committees that actually take a piece of serious legislation, like this piece, where we can sit together and discuss it together, we would not be having the kind of debate we are having in this House tonight. Because we all would have been involved in consulting, we all would have been involved in looking at it, tearing it apart, and coming up with the best piece of legislation we can come up with. So, I do not want them complaining about anything that is going on here tonight or that has been going on here today because they have created the whole situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to get up and speak on Bill 12. I have listened to a lot of the speakers today and it is a very important piece of legislation, but I think there is one thing we have to keep in mind here. I know from this side of the House anyway that everybody here have seniors, we are seniors, and we are getting close to being seniors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: Yes, I am.

We have families, relatives, friends, and anything that we have done here as this government and the initiatives that we have brought in, Mr. Speaker, have been for the good of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Any initiatives that we have brought in, some of them strictly supported, the benefits went to the seniors, and a lot of the other initiatives supported all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think the Minister of Finance explained it very well on some of the investments that we have made and some of the exemptions that we have made that have been very beneficially to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I come from a rural community and I can appreciate what some of the pharmacists do. As a matter of fact, some of my closest friends are pharmacists and we have a very good, friendly relationship; we still do. They know that this government is doing the right thing and what we are doing here is for the good of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our government has said we are going to do this. Just let me say this because I have to go back to my district and I have to face the seniors in my district, we are here, and I can say it, the seniors will not be impacted. As a matter of fact, it is going to be a benefit. This government and the Province will save $30 million, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I would like to speak also on the independent pharmacists and pharmacies. Mr. Speaker, there is a group called PANL and they negotiate with this government. It has been mentioned here before. Today, it has been mentioned by a number of the members. There is still a seat that is not filled on this committee, Mr. Speaker. I ask the question: Why? Why isn't it filled? When an independent pharmacist, or working for an independent pharmacy, as some people said, maybe that pharmacy is owned by a private individual and not a pharmacist by trade, we depend on that pharmacist and he or she depends on that pharmacist to do what is right for his or her business, Mr. Speaker. I ask that question: Why is that seat not filled?

In saying that, we all got up here today and we talked about supporting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and doing what is right. I believe in the past number of years that I have been here, the things that we have done have been right and benefited all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. It was mentioned that we are getting some Open Line shows and some other types of demonstrations from independent pharmacists, Mr. Speaker. Some of them took the initiative to join some other parties during the election in the fall of 2011. As it was said, they were not successful, but there was one thing I never heard today, Mr. Speaker, one thing that I witnessed as a candidate in the election of 2011. In October 2011, I started getting e-mails from constituents in my district. The names were on the bottom of the e-mails, saying: Support the independent pharmacists in their plight against this generic bill we are bringing in.

I will inform, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition that this is relevant. This all pertains to what we are talking about here today.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to make the connection soon.

MR. FORSEY: The connection was that I took ten of the forty or fifty that I received and I contacted ten of these constituents in my district. Only one knew about the e-mails – only one of my constituents – and they were really upset that these e-mails were sent out. It was –

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. FORSEY: Shameful, I say, Mr. Speaker. We are getting back to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to keep his comments relevant to the stage of the debate, which is second reading. This is an amendment to the second reading of the bill and I would ask members to keep their comments relevant. If you want to bring some kind of perspective to it, I would ask you to connect it to the bill – very quickly, though.

MR. FORSEY: I thought I did that, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I did not. I think we are trying to make connection with generic drugs and brand-name drugs. We are trying to make connection with the people that dispense it, who are pharmacists. We are talking about a group here that deals with the government, who are pharmacy owners. These types of e-mails came from an independent pharmacy and had no bearing in my district whatsoever. It came from an independent pharmacy, Mr. Speaker. It is all relevant as far as I can see and I apologize if I could not make that clearer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

What we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not just talking about one group of people. I know out in rural areas, every time that you come up with a change, when somebody is making a change, there is a brick wall that goes up, always: Oh, my goodness, what is going to happen? Of course, you explain to them that change is good. Change is always good. I never minded change; there is nothing wrong with it. Change is going to come anyway.

The Opposition will get up, Mr. Speaker, and say these changes are not going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially our seniors. Well I would not get up here – so silly – I would not get up here today knowing that I have to go back to my district and we are going to do something that is going to be actually not in the best of their interests – how foolish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: It is silly. Are they the only ones on the other side over there that have relatives that they go back to – like we have no relatives, we have no aunts and uncles and seniors?

MR. KENT: You don't have a lot of friends.

MR. FORSEY: Okay, I might not have a big lot of friends.  I thank the Member for St. John's North –

MR. KENT: Mount Pearl North.

MR. FORSEY: Oh, Mount Pearl North, I am sorry.

MR. KENT: Stick with your script now.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you. I don't have one. I don't have one, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know.

MR. FORSEY: But what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is going to benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and this government is going to save $30 million, which will be reinvested back into the Province for the good of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. All the initiatives that we brought in regarding our drug program – the Provincial Drug Program has five components; actually, one of the components that was brought in, the Assurance Plan, will now be added to this bill because of what the bill says. It will enable a new generic drug pricing in the Pharmaceutical Services Act. So, we are amending the Pharmaceutical Services Act, Mr. Speaker.

I have seen it out in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure a lot of us of have seen it. This prescription drug program that we have in the Province right now is probably the best in the country. We have already heard the Minister of Health get up and say that our budget has gone from $127 million for the program from 2006-2007 to $151 million in 2010-2011. In five years, we have increased that budget, I believe, $24 to 27 million; you can check the numbers. It is a great investment. Our budget right now for health care is $2.9 million – 40 per cent of the Provincial Budget, Mr. Speaker. We are offering millions.

MR. JOYCE: Did he say billions? He said millions? (Inaudible)

MR. FORSEY: I am always impressed, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Bay of Islands can actually correct me. I remember when he was here in the House prior to before and he always wanted to help me out in my district; I appreciated that, too, but I did not need it, but he did it anyway, and I never turn down any help, of course –

AN HON. MEMBER: At least he is listening.

MR. FORSEY: But at least he is listening, that is right, minister.

I would just like to say that I am supporting this bill, I think that this government is on the right track, and I would like to say to the people out there in television land, well, all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and including the people of the District of Exploits, Mr. Speaker, that this, today, is a good program for the Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that – as clarified now by the Member for Exploits – the government hopes to save $24 million with this plan – sorry, $30 million with this plan. It is getting better all of the time. The increase in the cost of the drug plan has gone from $127 million to $151 million in a five-year period. Based on the bill that is before this House, it is anticipated that $30 million will be saved. Of that $30 million, some will have to go back into assisting the small town pharmacies, the independent pharmacies. The credibility problem that a person runs into in looking at how these savings are calculated is that the proposal from the government says that the increase in prescription drugs has gone from $127 million to $151 million over the last five years, and that is around 20 per cent. That is a 20 per cent increase in five years. Over the same period of time, the increase in health care spending has gone up 50 per cent and the increase in government spending generally has gone up 60 per sent. It is almost as if the government is proposing to take the speck of dirt out of a pharmacists' eye without taking the log out of its own eye, all the while maligning drunken sailors.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today and yesterday there has been considerable discussion over whether the government spent like drunken sailors or not, and that is clear in Hansard. I say, in defence of drunken sailors, a drunken sailor spends his own money; the government spends the peoples' money.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health tells us that the government has, in fact, collected feedback for the last twelve to eighteen months and has carefully considered the development of a new generic pricing model for the Province. Yet, we have also been told that the idea, or the plan, the desire to have a new prescription drug plan for the Province has been around since 2006, so why did the government wait for six years to begin to do anything? Why have they now spent twelve to eighteen months assembling information that they will not share with this House? Why won't they share it with the critics if they have assembled this information? We do not find it in the bill because the bill is a barebones bill. We do not find it in the draft regulations because there are no draft regulations, and that is the problem that anybody who is intent on debating this bill will have.

On the one hand if the Opposition raises an issue that is of some concern, they are accused of fear mongering. On the other hand if they ask for information, the government says well, it will all be in the regulations. If it is going to be in the regulations, how can somebody, in good faith, vote for a bill when they do not really know what the outcome is going to be.

The government says that a significant portion of the $30 million savings will go to assist pharmacists in adjusting to their new market reality. Of $30 million, how much is a significant portion? Has the government decided to commit 50 per cent, 25 per cent, 75 per cent? The government must have some idea; the minister must have some idea, Mr. Speaker, as to how much of the $30 million it is prepared to put back into the system for the small pharmacist. Small pharmacists will need that support or they simply will not be in business. Why would they stay in business at a loss? How would they be able to attract new individuals into a pharmacy unless they are able to get a decent return on their investment and make a reasonable income?

We have heard, in this House, comparisons yesterday from the Member for Terra Nova, which in my respectful opinion trivializes the difference between generic prescription drugs and patent prescription drugs by comparing these drugs to Tylenol generic and Tylenol in the manufacturer's name. He may as well have been comparing it to President's Choice ketchup and Heinz ketchup. Simply, it is not a logical comparison, it is not a fair comparison, and it trivializes the difference. We are talking about prescription drugs and prescription drugs require a pharmacist and prescription drugs require dispensing fees. It is not something that you can simply pick up off the shelf.

If the member had been referring to, let us say for example Tegretol instead of Tylenol. If he had been saying Tegretol was prescribed by the physician for Trigeminal Neuralgia and the pharmacist said well Apo-Carbamazepine is a suitable substitute then there would require some discussion, the pharmacist would be expected to discuss the differences. Clearly, the physician likely would not have. The physician would probably be very busy, might not have gone into all the side effects. The pharmacist is going to be expected to have the ongoing discussion with the patient who is going to receive the generic drug versus the patent drug. Clearly, there must be a value that is put on that. Consultation is given and the discussion is provided by the pharmacist. Pharmacists add value. Pharmacists in small-town pharmacies, in my view, add more value than big city pharmacies because they know their patients, they know the individuals they are dealing with, and they are available to answer the questions.

This bill is being put through in too much of a hurry in my view. There is no need to put it through this quickly; hence, the amendment to postpone any implementation and postpone second reading is simply to give the government an opportunity to be able to flesh out some of the parts. It is not necessary to rush this through and bring it in on April Fool's Day. We may as well wait until Halloween. We are just as well. That is only another six months.

Clearly, it is important for consumers to get good value for their prescription drugs. Clearly, it is important to maximize the value to the consumer. There are many other ways that this government can engage pharmacists and small-town pharmacists so that they are able to increase the revenue they receive by offering additional services and additional benefits.

Has the government, for example, inquired into whether pharmacists would be permitted to provide injections? Should pharmacists be permitted to give flu shots? Under this act or the regulations, what types of additional payment for services could pharmacists receive?

Has the government contemplated different levels of remuneration for small, rural pharmacies, depending on the size of the market being served? If it is a very small market being served, the government presently and from the last government forward, decided it was appropriate to have a different pricing system for gasoline for our cars. Is there any prospect that the government would consider variable remuneration for pharmacists that would be driven by the overall health care package? I am not paying that different individuals would pay different amounts based on where they live, but clearly pharmacists in small pharmacies who are providing a more personalized service in a remote area where there may not be a physician should be entitled to receive more compensation for the services that are being provided.

What about group insurance premiums review? The insurance companies will reap a windfall on this new legislation and new regulation immediately. They will reap a windfall because in the length of time it takes to readjust their billing - and the market will drive their billing down, hopefully. They have priced their extended health care plans, their drug coverage, based on a certain level of payment. Now that level of payment is going to be lower. How soon will the consumer benefit from that?

There is also another issue in this Province in dealing with when generic drugs are made available. This Province takes far too long, compared to other provinces, in how long it takes to approve a new drug to be introduced. New generic drugs take far too long in this Province to be introduced. There is absolutely no reason it should take that long.

Furthermore, if, as the government says, and I do not doubt it, that half a dozen or more provinces are ahead of us in this type of generic drug legislation, if we are content that those half a dozen provinces are making the right step, why couldn't we introduce in our approval process, a process whereby if a generic drug is available - it has been made available for thirty days, it automatically goes on the market based on what a half a dozen other provinces have already approved - why are we waiting around to save the type of money we could be saving, that we heard the Opposition House Leader refer to yesterday, as much as $400,000 in a month? We certainly need to tighten up the process to save money. We need to speed up the process and we may be able to put into place a different process entirely under this act when it becomes law.

The delicate balance that will be important for this government to calculate and to put into place deals with small pharmacies. Clearly, it will be necessary to support small pharmacies in the changeover; however, if too much is devoted to the small pharmacies to keep them alive and providing service, then too little return has been realized for the taxpayers. You cannot give away the whole $30,000, or whatever amount. On the other hand, if too little is devoted to those pharmacies then too many of them will close up shop.

While it is important for people to get good value and not pay too much for drugs and not pay anymore than is necessary, it is even more important to be able to get those drugs. If your only pharmacy is 100 kilometres from the next pharmacy and that one goes out of business because they simply cannot afford to keep going, then you may get cheaper drugs, but you may not get the drugs at all.

Another issue that the government goes back and forth and back and forth on is: Who should represent the pharmacists? Should it be the pharmacists or the pharmacy owners? Should it be PANL? Should it be CICPO? Then some of the arguments that I have heard relating to this issue must be made by people who have no business experience or no business sense. Why would you send an employee to negotiate your contract? Why would you send an employee to figure out your business plan and your financial statements and sit down? The pharmacist you might just have hired a year or two ago out of school – that is the person that is going to be the member of the panel who is going to negotiate how much you need to keep the doors open? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, none. Clearly, one is a professional association and likely does a good job for its members; the other is a business organization and a group that negotiates with government for the pricing for these generic drugs.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what insight does a pharmacist working in a major hospital have in the cost of operating a small-town, rural pharmacy? It is simply not adequate to say that CICPO could have a seat at the table. It makes no sense. It would make much more sense to keep the professional association away from the business lobby group and then negotiate through the business lobby group.

Mr. Speaker, I am still quite concerned at why, if the minister has said – and I have no reason to disbelieve her – that a study done in 2006 is what this program is based on, why did the government wait for six years to save all of this money – if, in fact, we are going to save all of this money? In the last twelve to eighteen months, whatever information, whatever surveys, whatever discussions that have been had, why is the substance of those discussions not being put into a proper bill instead of having a very thin bill prepared and passed, and then a bulky set of regulations put in place for drugs that have not yet been negotiated? In my view, the government is going about this – a very good idea, and a very contemporary idea and something that needs to be done in the Province, but it is being run through in too much haste at this point. There was far too much delay for one-half dozen years and now there is too much speed.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to further debate when this bill gets into Committee, but at this point there are numerous flaws that need to be addressed and many opportunities for improvement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and speak to this amendment this afternoon, or this evening. Mr. Speaker, I have sat here all afternoon, for the first hour this evening, and I have listened to most hon. members on the opposite side talk about our seniors and talk about it in a way, my colleague the Member for Exploits said earlier, like we have no seniors.

Mr. Speaker, we have 45 per cent of the people in the District of Port de Grave who are seniors. We care about our seniors, Mr. Speaker. Contrary to the belief, we do care about our seniors on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, this program and this act will benefit our seniors. The Minister of Health and Community Services has spoken many, many times in this House over the last two days. She has assured the Opposition, she has assured the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that seniors will not pay more for prescription drugs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how many times that the Minister of Health and Community Services needs to stand in this House and say that people, our seniors, will not pay more for prescription drugs in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know how often you need to hear it. That is one of the guarantees, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as well, in the last two days I have heard many, many times in this House about the savings, about the $30 million, and what we are going to do with it. One of the things we were going to do with it – and I will speak to our seniors again, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to be the favourite topic, make sure we have some fear in our seniors, or whatever the word may be.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to take some of those savings and invest to make sure that our seniors are taken care of. The Minister of Finance today, Mr. Speaker, stood up and he spoke to this bill; he spoke to the number of initiatives that we have already done to assist seniors in this Province. We do care about our seniors, Mr. Speaker, and we are doing it again by passing this new prescription drug act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Third Party this evening and she talked about it. She talked about, this is a good bill for consumers. Mr. Speaker, any time we can stand in this House and pass legislation that benefits every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that a good thing to be doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, I sit here and I listen, and I listen intently to the debate on both sides of the House. When I listen to debate on both sides of the House, I think about what the benefit is going to be to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot see how – when we bring in a bill like this and an act like this, that we are going to benefit and lower the cost to the consumer – that can be a bad thing, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we can talk about all the other things, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about we have no regulations, or we have no this, or we have no that, or the government did not do this, or the government did not do that, but at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we are benefiting every Newfoundlander and Labradorian by passing this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, again, when we are passing this bill, we are phasing it in. Right now we pay 60 per cent, if I understand it correctly, of the cost for generic drugs, and this bill will do a phase in over a year. We will go to 45 per cent, then 40 per cent, and in the end 35 per cent of the generic cost. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, I do not get it, I guess. Maybe I am not getting it, but anyway, I just cannot see how this bill can be a bad bill when we are saving these kinds of dollars.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I seen day, we talk about – I remember my hon. friend from the Bay of Islands talked about he is normally agreeable. He is normally agreeable. The only thing about it is, Mr. Speaker, every time the government goes to propose something he is never agreeable. So, I do not know. My hon. friend across the way, it is a good thing. He always says he is agreeable but at the end of the day he is not agreeable. I am not sure where that goes.

Anyway, besides that, Mr. Speaker, once again we are learning. We are learning from the other seven provinces that are bringing this legislation, or already have brought this legislation into being, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be a bad thing when seven or eight other provinces are considering bringing this to the House and to their province.

We talked about it here today, Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating through PANL. We are negotiating with our people through PANL. If you look at New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, they are not negotiating. They are saying here it is. This is the way it is going to be, wham, bam, thank you, ma'am, done. No negotiation, none. People in New Brunswick do not even get to have a say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: So, you see, Mr. Speaker –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LITTLEJOHN: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You get a little excited, get a little carried away when you get on your feet.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think there are a couple of other things. I would certainly encourage the independent pharmacists to go back to the table. There is a seat at the table at PANL for them. The minister has made it clear that is where they should be, Mr. Speaker. That is where they should be so they can negotiate some of the concerns they have. As well, Mr. Speaker, if they go back to the table the issues and concerns they do have can be addressed at the table and it can be negotiated.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services already talked about some of that $30 million could be reinvested into any adverse effects that this bill may have on the independent pharmacists. I think this is a good opportunity for them, Mr. Speaker. Yes, in my district I have two independent pharmacies, Mr. Speaker, and I have spoken to those people. I have encouraged these people to go back to the table. When you look at it, Mr. Speaker, I think that is where these things need to happen. It needs to happen in negotiation. People need to talk to each other. If we are going to get an agreement, we need these people to go back to the table where they can express their views and opinions.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else to say to this bill outside of the fact that – again, to go back to my first point, Mr. Speaker, this bill benefits every consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador. That cannot be a bad thing, Mr. Speaker. When we look at this new generic bill, I think we should support it because it benefits every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I do believe that independent pharmacists can have a voice and a say, but they need to go back to their seat on PANL and negotiate through PANL what they have and their concerns to be.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to stand here and contribute to the debate on Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Mr. Speaker. As I was home during the interlocutory period there, Mr. Speaker, I had dinner with my son and my wife. I felt so privileged to be representing a district here in St. John's and to be able to go and have dinner with my family, and to come back here and to contribute to debate on this bill.

I want to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Bay of Islands for once again keeping the Legislature open in the evening for an evening session so that we can make up for all of the lost time – all of the lost time, Mr. Speaker, that we lost out on when we did not have a fall sitting of the House.

I hear a lot of moaning and groaning from the other side. I know that the government MHAs do not want to be here, but I appreciate this opportunity and I consider it to be an honour and a privilege to be able to be here as long as it takes to represent my constituents in the District of St. John's North. It is nothing but a privilege.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the commentary across the way all day and it sometimes disturbs me to hear the sort of jocularity and bravado with which the members across the way dismiss any opposition or concern that comes from this side of the House.

I am proud to stand here as a Member of the New Democratic Party Caucus to represent my district. Mr. Speaker, when –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: I am getting there; give us a chance, now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Relevance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance of jocularity.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say that when my constituents voted for me, they knew they were electing a New Democrat. They know that the New Democratic Party stands for public health care. We are only party in this country that stands for public pharmacare, Mr. Speaker. We are the only party in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who says that all senior citizens in this Province should not have to pay for prescription drugs; they should have a public prescription drug plan that comes at no cost to them, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my constituents to address Bill 12, the bill to amend the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Mr. Speaker, people are concerned about this bill. There is no question about that, and despite the fact that assurances have been made from this government, people are still sceptical.

Mr. Speaker, I would say people have cause to be good and sceptical. People have cause to be good and sceptical, because despite the fact that this government claims to be open and transparent, there is too much evidence to the contrary. That is where the doubt enters into people's minds.

I would like to point out today to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, I had an Access to Information request to her office; I got back six pages of toner. That is the sort of openness and transparency that people have come to expect, but there is a way to resolve this, Mr. Speaker. There is a way to resolve this, to eliminate the doubt in people's minds, because we have a committee structure. We have the social services sector committee, a multi-party committee of this legislature that we could have sit, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is about a third into his speech and I have not heard anything relevant to the bill yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member to restrict his comments to the bill that is in second reading. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the clarification.

We could have open hearings on Bill 12, the Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. We could have open proceedings; those could be publicly accessible. People who are concerned could come and express their opinions, could provide their input in a public forum. If CICPO, or PANL, or independent pharmacists, other pharmacists, senior citizens, other members of the public who have concern about this – if they have concern about this bill, they could come and make representation to those committees, but we do not do that, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker. They could submit briefs about Bill 12, the Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. They could do that. They could bring documents, they could give oral evidence to that effect; that all exists, but we do not use those committees to their best effect. We just need those meetings to be called. I do not know, maybe that is the role of the Government House Leader.

I would like to say, also, I am very privileged to be here to be able to address this, because the Government House Leader was on CBC last weekend lamenting the fact that he has not heard enough of me on the various pieces of legislation that have come forward. So, I am really happy to be able to assuage his concern over there.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that seniors are concerned about this bill, and about the effects that it will have on affordability in their lives. There are a good number of seniors in this Province, Mr. Speaker, out there that are living on fixed incomes. The cost of electricity is going to go up; if this government gets its way, the cost of electricity is going to go up even more. There are increasing costs of transportation, for gasoline, for insurance, for food. Costs are going up. As inflation goes up, costs generally go up.

MS SULLIVAN: 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, I really take great exception to the fact that the member opposite will stand up in this House and will speak again to the people who are viewing at home and tell them that the cost of their drugs is going up. Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to that. We have taken time to say that is not –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was trying to explain to the members opposite – maybe the minister did not hear because there is so much noise on the other side of the room, Mr. Speaker. I did mention drugs, in fact. I was mentioning all of the costs that are going up for seniors. I was going to say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KIRBY: – if I get an opportunity, Mr. Speaker: Will this result in inflated drug costs for seniors? There are many ways that can happen. So there is fear out there, there is no question about that.

What will be the impact then? We have had independent operators and independent pharmacists out there who are saying they may have to increase costs to compensate for losses that are going to occur as a result of this legislation. They may have to do that – some of them say – if they lose money as a result of this bill. They likely do not want to do that, but that is basically the situation they are in. They may feel they do not have any other choice but to do that because government does not give them a choice.

Some of them felt so strongly about that, Mr. Speaker, in the last provincial election some of those individuals who are independent pharmacy owners ran in the election. They felt that strongly about it they ran in the election. They were candidates in the election. They felt so strongly that they put themselves forward on the ballot in the election in order to represent their interests and their concerns.

I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear these comments from members across the way today, more or less belittling those individuals for putting themselves forward for election. I think that does a lot to discourage members of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador from putting themselves forward during election time to represent their constituents. When we have members of the government sitting here belittling them and belittling the fact that they were strong enough in their convictions to put themselves in the ballot, to look up in the public gallery at those people and to say that to them, it is just completely unbecoming of members of this Legislature and ministers herein, I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, there is another concern here about what the regulations are really going to contain. We have heard a lot about that today. We have received assurances, but we have received assurances about other bills that have come before this Legislature. I am being inundated from individuals in the public about the more recent bill on animal cruelty, which is yet to be made into law and proclaimed in this Province. We hear from the members opposite that this is being delayed because they are still working on regulation. How long are we going to wait to see regulations on this? How much consultation is going to take place on the regulations for this? That is a major source of concern. Where is the plan? More and more, we hear rhetoric without any plan.

We hear members opposite talking about politicizing this. When you sit there and you belittle people, independent pharmacy operators who were candidates in the last provincial election, you are politicizing. That is what you are doing to this bill, whether you realize that or not, taking shots at members of the public gallery who are independent pharmacists who are courageous enough to put themselves ahead for public office.

The Member for Gander said, Mr. Speaker, that he was an independent pharmacist or he was a pharmacist one time, back in the day he was a pharmacist. We have people who have been sitting in the public galleries here the last two days who are currently pharmacists – who are currently independent operators of a small business in this Province. I trust their current knowledge as well as I trust the past knowledge of the Member for Gander District. Their opinion is as legitimate, if not more legitimate, than the member's opinion. He should at least give them fair hearing.

What would we like to hear more details on, Mr. Speaker? How is the government going to – through regulation or otherwise – help independent pharmacists to make up the lost revenue? Because they are going to lose revenue; we have heard that and they have said that. It seems pretty clear. How is this government going to protect seniors who are on the sixty-five plus access drug plan? How is this government going to protect those seniors from any increased costs such as dispensing fees? We have not heard anything about that? We hear that we should just trust them. That is what we heard today: Just trust us. Why is the transition period for this only one year? Why was it phased in? Why is there no plan to phase this in over a longer period of time? That is what we want to know – simple question.

We know that right now pharmacies in this Province are receiving rebates from manufacturers to offset the high cost of generic drugs in the Province. So these rebates help independent pharmacy operators, they help rural operators, and they help them to offer services. They help them to offer services such as delivery of services. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills stands here practically every day and talks about the importance of the delivery of services to people in this Province. This is an important service that these independent pharmacy owners are delivering to the people of the Province. What is going to happen there?

They also deliver services, such as free consultation. When individuals come into their place of business they offer free consultation. Prescription adaptation, they offer free consultation on what sorts of prescriptions that people require. I went into a pharmacy recently and asked: Should I have this cough medicine or that cough medicine? I got independent advice free to me. There are also correspondence and mail in services to insurance companies that are also provided free of charge to some of these independent pharmacy operators at the moment.

Now the department says it is going to reinvest some of this money back, but it has not told us how. We do not know how. How is this government planning to reinvest that money back into the system? We have no idea. We hear different numbers. I think it was $30 million earlier today. I think I heard it is down to $20 million-odd now. They are not even consistent on the amount of money they are planning to save. We have no details. There is no plan for how it is going to be reinvested into the system. Yet, private insurers, the big insurance companies, they are going to get their savings right away. Well, it is great for them but that is not what happened when these generic drug laws were brought in, in other provinces.

Independent pharmacy owners in this Province are asking for a longer transition period for this law. That makes a lot of sense. Why just one year? Why not two years, three years? Give them a longer period of time for which to adapt their business. That is perfectly reasonable. It makes a lot of sense to me. I do not know why anybody is not listening to that on the other side.

What is going to happen to those free services that are currently offered to members of the public by independent pharmacy owners in inner city and rural areas of the Province that are provided right now free of charge? Are they going to be discontinued? Are those services no longer going to be available for members of the public? Will there be an extra charge on top of perhaps a higher dispensing fee, which independent pharmacy owners have said they may have to charge because of the hardship that this legislation is going to cause them?

Pharmacists are going to be faced with reduced revenue. That is really what they are saying they are looking at. Are we also going to have reduced hours as a result of that? Are they going to have to layoff staff? Will they have fewer staff available to provide services in rural communities and independent pharmacies in inner city areas here on the Northeast Avalon? Will there be closures? Will there be loss of the only drug provider in a community or in a region? Is that going to happen? That is quite possible.

These pharmacists say they do not disagree with the new model per se, but the timeline is too short. It is too short for them to adapt. One year is not long enough. So what will happen? Will employees see a loss of hours? Will employees see a loss of wages? Will employees see a loss of benefits? Those are all real possibilities with this law as it is, but we do not know, Mr. Speaker, because we do not know anything about the regulations that are going to be coming behind this. We have no reveal. It is not a slow reveal. We have no reveal from the members opposite on what their plans are. They just say: Trust us, we have a plan. Something we hear fairly constantly.

Pharmacists are asking the Department of Health to provide more numbers. Provide the numbers to them so they can more properly –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: The independent pharmacy operators are saying, provide the numbers on this. What is your plan? So they can properly analyze and look at the impacts of this change.

Somebody mentioned over here earlier today, I think it was the Member for Burgeo - La Poile –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, if pharmacy employees in this Province see a decrease in hours, see a decrease in benefits? Will they see a decrease in wages? Is that what we really want to see? Is that what you folks what to see?

Yet, we are going to see a windfall, Mr. Speaker, for private insurers. Not seniors, for private insurers. That is what this does upfront, right away, provides a windfall of profits for private insurance companies. That is really what we are seeing here. The next time I get up and speak I will explain that in intricate detail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: We do need, Mr. Speaker, changes. We need changes to our prescription drug plan in this Province; there is no question. We do need reforms, but are these the sorts of reforms that we need to see? We need to see a lower co-pay. That is what we need to see, like other provinces in Canada that are progressive and forward looking in their prescription drug policy – provinces like Manitoba, like Saskatchewan, like British Columbia – that is what we want to see. We want to see higher income thresholds so that seniors living in poverty, seniors who make more than $16,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, are able to have more comprehensive public prescription drug coverage. For some of them, paying more is not an option, I am sorry; paying more is not an option for a lot of seniors who are living in poverty in this Province. All seniors in this Province, Mr. Speaker, all seniors in this Province should be on the 65 Plus Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you for this opportunity. It is an honour and a privilege to stand here on behalf of my constituents in St. John's North and speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very important legislation that we are debating here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I am not about to entertain the way the opposite side has been entertaining here tonight. I will speak strictly on Bill 12, which is a very important bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Ladies and gentlemen this government will implement programs that will benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: This government is here for the people of this Province and that is why we decided to amend this important bill. The lower costs of generic drugs, savings for residents – we are bringing in this bill to give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the same benefits as other Canadians.

I am a new member of this House of Assembly. I came here to represent the wonderful people of Bonavista South and the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government will continue to deliver good-quality health care services. We will make changes to deliver those services that will mean great things for the future of this Province; if you listen to the Minister of Health and Community Services, you would definitely know that we are about to bring change for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: I worked in health care for twenty-six years. I served on community council for fourteen years, Mr. Speaker. I would not stand here tonight and support a bill unless it meant well for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are a number of pharmacies in the District of Bonavista South who provide wonderful services, and I do not want to mix the issues the way the Opposition side is mixing issues here tonight. I do not plan on doing that. I plan on giving facts to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: I served on negotiating teams in the past, provincial negotiating teams, and I do know about negotiations. I cannot understand why a certain group will not come to the table and negotiate on behalf of their group. I cannot understand, because this government definitely provides an open-door policy for negotiations to take place in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: PANL is recognized in legislation as the negotiating agent with government, Mr. Speaker. They are tasked with insuring that the major issues and concerns of all of its members are voiced and understood. We enjoy a very open and collaborative relationship with PANL, Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is this body with whom we are negotiating, Mr. Speaker. The Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners have said they feel PANL cannot represent their interests. However, CICPO has a seat on PANL's Government Relations Committee where they could represent their own interests, but refuse to take part in that particular program, Mr. Speaker.

Our government has an open-door policy on negotiations, a fair and diplomatic procedure. While the number is expected to be small, we recognize that there may be a smaller number of pharmacy owners who are not pharmacists and who may not be members of CICPO. While the owner may not be a pharmacist, as a requirement to be a licensed pharmacy business they must have a pharmacist in charge who would be a member of PANL.

PANL has confirmed that they receive calls from non-pharmacist owners. They have assured us that their concerns are taken seriously and considered in the same manner as those expressed by their members, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering why this group will not come to the table and negotiate in good faith on behalf of their members. It does not make sense. This government will implement programs that will benefit rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I listened to the Minister of Health and Community Services time after time get up and speak in this House and give good points to the members opposite and to the residents of this Province, and for some reason the members opposite are not listening attentively. Apparently they are not, because they get up and ask the same questions for some reason over and over, and no reasonable explanation on what should be done in this circumstance. Brand name drugs are very costly, Mr. Speaker, very costly. This bill will definitely reduce the cost of drugs that are provided to the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Six other provinces have already moved forward on a similar policy. This government has a track record that is excellent, Mr. Speaker. The people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize this and support this government in passing this bill that will certainly have a major impact and a beneficial impact for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: I listened earlier to the Minister of Municipal Affairs – a person who is qualified, worked in pharmacy, had his own business – and people opposite, for some reason, do not want to take advice from people who are qualified in the bill that we are talking about here tonight, Mr. Speaker. This government knew this bill was very important. We decided to stay here tonight and debate this issue, and we will stay as long as it takes to continue to debate this issue because it is very important for the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Thirty million dollars in savings, Mr. Speaker, annually, that will be put back into health care. This government is fiscally responsible, Mr. Speaker, continually saving money to put back into health care. The health care budget takes 40 per cent of our spending, and we have a responsibility to save in areas where we can save, Mr. Speaker. Different from members opposite, we do and we will continue to be fiscally responsible on behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: This is not about cutting programs. This is not about reducing sectors of health care. This is about saving money in a program where we can save. We are making the right decisions again, Mr. Speaker, and we, as a government, will continue to make the right decisions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, exactly how the money will be reinvested in pharmacies will be determined through negotiations with the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LITTLE: Some of the savings will also be reinvested to address government's ongoing commitment to ensure the seniors covered under the 65Plus Plan are not negatively impacted by the new generic pricing model. We remain committed to ensuring this new pricing model does not negatively affect these beneficiaries.

It is expected the decreases in generic drug costs will offset on average any potential increases in dispensing fees for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, whether they are part of a private insurance plan or cash paying customers. In addition, some residents with private insurance coverage may see their employers choose to either decrease premiums or increase benefits due to savings to their drug benefit plan.

I am hoping members opposite are listening to this, Mr. Speaker. This is a major benefit for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: On average, I say all residents of this Province can expect to benefit from this policy once this Bill 12 is passed and implemented, Mr. Speaker.

I will definitely continue to work with the Minister of Health and Community Services who is doing such a fine job in the department and department officials, as well. The people of this Province recognize what our new minister is doing at this point in time.

In health care, our government is spending more money per capita than any other province in this great country, Mr. Speaker, and is continuing to invest into health and community services. I am honoured to be part of this government and I am honoured that the people of Bonavista South gave me the opportunity to speak in this great House, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to have a voice in this House, Mr. Speaker, and speak on bills –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: – like Bill 12 - that are very important to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LITTLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment. I take it into consideration. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: When the opposite side gives me a compliment like that, I am certainly gratified. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LITTLE: What I will do right now, Mr. Speaker – based on all of the positivity that comes from this side of the House, in opposition to the negativity that is coming from that side – I will definitely stay on this side of the House for a long, long time, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that I was enthralled there for a minute. I was reading my e-mail and I just heard that there is a pharmacist on Open Line right now, actually, talking about how this particular bill we are debating in the House could cause him to have to raise his dispensing fees to almost double what they are today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this bill passing. This is the point we are getting at. In fact, the member owns a pharmacy on the Burin Peninsula, I say, the individual that is on Open Line right now.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I want to raise on this bill, but unfortunately, I am only going to have twenty minutes. I am sure I will have other opportunities to speak on this before the evening is over.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to the amendment that we have on the floor of the House now. For people who do not understand what that amendment is, we are asking the government to hoist the bill off the floor of the House of Assembly and to delay it for six months, until the regulations have been negotiated and agreed upon. That is the point of the amendment that is on the floor of the House of Assembly that we are debating tonight.

The reason for that is because the minister and her government have implemented and introduced a bill here in the Legislature that they want to have ready to go for April 1, but yet, Mr. Speaker, they are not prepared to tell us what the impact is going to be on the people of this Province, on seniors in this Province, on independent pharmacies in this Province. That is the problem. That is the issue that we have here.

Mr. Speaker, today, the minister sent out – she had a busy day; she was all day writing press releases, Mr. Speaker, on this issue. I never saw as many press releases on this in one day from the government since all of this started, but anyway, she was busy today, and she sent out a few press releases. I am going to address a couple of things that she mentioned, because she certainly challenged the Opposition. She said in her press release – and I will not read directly from the minister's press release, Mr. Speaker – but basically what she said is she does not understand why the Opposition is taking the view that they are taking. So, I am going to see if I can explain it to her so that she can understand it and give herself a break on press releases for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell her, this is the reason why we have implemented and brought forward the amendment we did this evening; it is because not only do we want to ensure that there is going to be savings for the government – which seems to be the primary focus of this bill – but we also want to ensure there is going to be savings for the people of the Province. We want to make sure there is going to be savings for the seniors in this Province, Mr. Speaker, who are part of the drug programs, and we want to ensure that community pharmacies, independent pharmacies in this Province, will not close up, I say to the minister. That is the reason that we have brought forward the amendment that we have, because we feel that government is acting in haste here.

We feel that government is not taking the time that it needs to take to negotiate, first of all, with the pharmacies – not the pharmacists, but with the pharmacies in this Province, negotiate with the people who own these businesses, who are based in communities all over this Province. I have a list of all of these communities here. We have pharmacies here that could be affected in Topsail, in Goose Bay, in Roddickton, in St. George's, in Portugal Cove; the list goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to table it if the members wanted it. We are looking at Port au Choix, Flower's Cove, St. Alban's, and Pouch Cove. We are looking at Bell Island, Glovertown. We listened to the member who is supposed to be representing the people of Glovertown, who – I am pretty sure, I have my list here; I think he even took donations from pharmacies in his district; I am not sure – got up on his feet here today and had not one word to say about how these pharmacies could be affected in his district, had not one word to say, Mr. Speaker, about how the seniors in his district – because I am sure there are a few out there who might have voted for him – are going to be impacted by the dispensing fees that could result as a result of this particular legislation. The member did not speak to that, the Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, others spoke to it. I have a whole litany of e-mails here. I have them here from his district. In fact, I have one here, I do not think it is from his district, it is from the Springdale area, the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale's district. Mr. Speaker, the e-mail that went to the hon. member yesterday after he spoke in the House was an e-mail from a pharmacy in this Province telling him that the information that he was giving in the House of Assembly was not, Mr. Speaker, the entire – well, they questioned his research is what they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They actually questioned his research in terms of who did the research for you, where did you get your information because it is certainly not the accurate information that should be put out there in the Province. That is what was said to him, Mr.Speaker, in addition to him being called a young grasshopper and a few other things that I will not get into in the e-mail, Mr. Speaker.

The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is they were trying to influence and clarify for the member opposite who obviously does not understand what the impact of this bill is going to have on the pharmacies, the seniors, and the people in his district, they were trying to make him understand and share their information with the Member for Terra Nova who very naively had given information to the House which they feel is inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that they wanted to point out is they feel that the government is really cozying up to the brand name companies that provide drugs in this Province. They are cozying up to the brand name companies because, as we all know, the brand name drugs are not going to be affected, Mr. Speaker. They are not going to be affected. It is only going to be the generic drugs that are affected. There is a thought out there that the government has cozied up with all of these. Of course, the other thing that is pointed out here is that generic drugs make up about 30 per cent of the drug cost in the Province – 30 per cent of the drug cost in the Province. At the most, Mr. Speaker, they are saying here it could be 45 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: What they are saying is that the government's estimates in what they are going to save are way off base. Mr. Speaker, because the government has not given us any of that information, we do not know that they going to save $30 million or not. They have not disclosed any breakdown for us on where these savings are going to be. Mr. Speaker, how can they stand there and say –

MS SULLIVAN: I want to provide information (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: There is no opportunity in the debate in second reading to provide information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS SULLIVAN: At some point I would really like to do it, because this is again (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has recognized the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government likes to say they are going to save $30 million, but then they whip right around and they say: we are going to put money back, we are going to make sure that seniors are not affected, but we do not know how much of that $30 million is going back; they are saying: we are going to make sure that pharmacies in this Province, pharmacies in Goose Bay, in Labrador City, in Glover Town, in Terra Nova, in Fogo, Twillingate – they are saying: we are going to make sure that these are not going to close down, we are going to make sure of that, but they will not tell us how much of that $30 million is going to be invested.

When the minister says the government is going to save $30 million, she is not being fair with the numbers, Mr. Speaker, and disclosing that information to the people of the Province. Therefore, we have no other choice, only to do what we are doing tonight, because in the absence of negotiating proper regulations to accompany this bill, we do not know what we are voting on, Mr. Speaker. We have no idea what we are voting on.

Maybe the members opposite feel comfortable – oh, my, we have the assurances. We feel comfortable. We are all going to go out and support it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that level of comfort. I do not have that level of comfort. I am not going to go back and say to the seniors in my district that, oh, do not worry, the government is going to look after you, when I know the government does not control dispensing fees in this Province, when I know that pharmacies can charge whatever fee they feel is necessary in this Province for dispensing fees, and I know that seniors are going to be left on the hook to pay those fees. Is the minister saying that they going to cover dispensing fees for all seniors in this Province? Is that what the minister is saying? Is she saying we are going to cover the full cost of dispensing fees for seniors in this Province? Is she saying we are going to cover the $7.15, or ninety-five cents, whatever the cost may be, Mr. Speaker.

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

Again, I am going to continue to do this –

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has not recognized the member yet.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to stand every time members opposite try to instil fear in seniors in this Province because, Mr. Speaker, that is really unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister thinks her standing up on a point of order is going to put the fears of seniors to bed in this Province, I can tell you a different story, minister.

She talks about fear and fear mongering this week like it is a new word she has just learned, Mr. Speaker, a new word to her vocabulary.

Anyway, let's talk about this, because it is a serious issue. The minister knows she has no control over dispensing fees in this Province; she has none, unless she is going to bring in a bill and force it, implement it. Maybe that is what she is going to do. Why doesn't she tell us about it? We know she does not have the control and that is the reason that we are concerned about where this is going.

I have an email here. This one is from Baie Verte. The Member for Baie Verte might be interested in hearing this; I had quite a few from your district, actually. Mr. Speaker, this one in particular tells me this individual is sixty-six years old and they are part of the 65Plus Plan. They went to their drugstore, and right now, on one of their medications, their dispensing fee is $13.64. That is before this bill is even implemented. That is while the pharmacy is still getting performance benefits under the generic program. So what happens when that generic program is gone and their revenues are gone? Where is that $13.64 fee going to go then – to $23, Mr. Speaker? Is that where it is going to go then?

I ask the Member for Baie Verte: Why don't you answer to your constituents that are raising those issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: What about this one, Mr. Speaker; one of the drugs they are taking, the dispensing fee is $11.64. There are dozens of emails like this from all over the Province, from seniors that are part of the 65Plus Plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is not fear mongering. It is real, because the government – unless you are going to bring in something that is going to pay for the entire dispensing fees of seniors in this Province, then they are going to be left paying the fees that are set for them, because currently you do not have the authority to be able to do anything about it.

So it is one thing to say, do not worry, we are going to look after you.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: I wonder if the member opposite will provide us with the information that she is referring to in her speech. She is referring to it, Mr. Speaker, so we should be entitled to the notes or to the documents she is referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members opposite do not want to hear what I am saying. That is three points of order since I stood on my feet, and none of them were a point of order. An opportunity for you to get up and use up my time – that is all that was, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues, and I have absolutely no problem about telling members in this House. Another e-mail from Bay Roberts – the Member for Bay Roberts stood in the House and spoke this evening. I am sure he has had an opportunity to read the e-mail, to talk to the pharmacy out in his district that has concerns with what is happening here on the floor of the House tonight. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, he has gone in before he stood up in the House and said: what are your concerns? What are your issues? He might have, Mr. Speaker.

He probably never even talked to the people who were involved, probably never even spoke to them and yet, came in here, stood on the floor of the House, and never once acknowledged what the implications could be for these pharmacies in his district or for the seniors in his district. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they all knew where they were when election time was around – over $27,000 donated from pharmacies to the PC Party in this Province, over $27,000, and that does not even count the election this year. That was all prior to this year, I say to the hon. members.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they will not sit at the table with them. They took their money, but they will not even sit at the table with them. They would rather go out and negotiate, Mr. Speaker, with public servants that are pharmacists in this Province. They would rather go out and negotiate with employees.

I talked to a lady today who is an independent pharmacy owner, who is not a pharmacist. Her pharmacist has to go and sit at the table with the government and negotiate whatever deal that she is going to get as a pharmacy in this Province. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: She has to send an employee to do that. She is the person at the end of the day who has to decide if the door stays open or closes, if their light bill can be paid, and if the workers can be paid.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem we have with the bill. We have no problem with the government looking for a haul of money in the Budget. We have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. We have no problem with the government trying to save money. It is too bad they did not think about it a lot earlier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, because I am straining my throat, Mr. Speaker, to hear myself here, straining my throat.

Mr. Speaker, the thing is that we are dealing with two very critical pieces that are affiliated with this bill, and it is not good enough for the government to just stand and say we will give you some assurances. Because I can tell you that those assurances are not being felt out there right now by seniors who are paying $10, $12, $13, and $14 already in a dispensing fee on certain medications, Mr. Speaker. That is one situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the other situation is that they know the government has not committed to cover that, other than to say to them we are going to look after you. Well, how are you going to look after me? How are you going to look after me? That is what we are asking the minister to tell us. Are you going to announce that you are going to fully cover all the dispensing fees for seniors in this Province? If you are, stand in your place and tell us that. Stand up and tell us so that they will know. Then stand up and tell us how much of that $30 million that you are not going to be saving because it is going back to offset the dispensing fees that are going to be charged to people in this Province, because one way or the other the pharmacies have to keep their doors open. If they cannot do that, they have to close them, and that is the reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland, does he want to go home and see his community pharmacy shut down? The Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South, do you want to go home and see your pharmacy shut down? That is the same people who gave you all money in the election. Is that what you want to see? Baie Verte - Springdale, do you want to go home and see your pharmacies closed down? Is that what you want to see? If not, why don't you ask the government what they are going to do to protect them and keep their doors open? Ask them what they are going to do to ensure that that does not happen so you do not have to drive from Springdale to Grand Falls – if there is a pharmacy open in Grand Falls – to get a prescription.

Mr. Speaker, those are the critical pieces. It is all right for the government to say we are going to save money. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that you want to do it in secrecy without telling people how they are going to be impacted. How you are going to offset the cost to them, how seniors on fixed incomes are going to function, and how pharmacies are going to stay open. I think they deserve an explanation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. I have sat here through the debate yesterday, sat here today and on into the evening, and the political arena, this House, is a place where people would hope that points get debated. When we get a member opposite saying that government is cozying up to brand name companies and that we are going to bring in – just think about what is being said – something that is going disadvantage the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I mean it just blows my mind that somebody would get up and say that.

Look, I have a mother; my mother is on a fixed senior's income. Now if anyone thinks that I am going to stand up here and support something that is going to disadvantage her. Just imagine what we are saying. It is simply, simply ludicrous.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have found in this House, eight-and-a-half years I have been in this House, and one of the most, I suppose, challenging and pressing times is when we have people who sit in the galleries with a particular issue and we sit here and we have to look at these people. I think that somebody mentioned tonight that there was a gentleman on Open Line, I will not say for sure, but I am willing to bet that he was from my district.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go back to the things that happened, but just for one minute, the position that was presented to me before the election is still the position that is presented to me today. The member opposite just asked where this $30 million is going to come from. Well, because of this change of legislation 86 per cent is going to come from the generic drugs that is in the formulary right now, the other 14 per cent is going to come from the generic drugs that we know are going to come in place within the next year. There it is. People have to realize that the folks opposite are never going to get up and acknowledge that. They never will get up and acknowledge that.

I went through it. There were the TV ads. One of my colleagues mentioned the e-mails that came in, the campaign of the e-mails that were signed. I mentioned it to a particular person and they had no knowledge of it, so, fine. Those are the tactics that people use. That is fine. They want to get their point across.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: To me now, Mr. Speaker, that is water under the bridge. What we want – and the opportunity is there for these people to get back to the table. There is the opportunity there. We have seen people who have sat in the galleries for days to make their point, but in the end, Mr. Speaker, where is the solution found? It is found through negotiating at a table, and this is where these people need to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not only me who the people have to convince. This document has been referenced, I think, a couple of times this evening; it is The Economic Case for Universal Pharmacare, referenced and, I do believe, supported by the Third Party. Mr. Speaker, these words are not coming from my mouth. They are, but they are stated within this document.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what has to be done is that I have to be convinced. In this document are strong statements. Anybody who knows pharmacists and pharmacies knows that second to a doctor, the pharmacist, in the terms of provisional health care, is probably one of the closest associations that people have. When I go into a pharmacy, I trust what that individual is going to tell me. I truly do. Oftentimes, I will go up and ask the pharmacist, because I can get the response, rather than have to go wait an hour to get to see the doctor. I trust in what that individual says.

In this report, I believe it is pages 36 to 42, listen to some of the statements. Do not convince the folks out there, convince me: Generic drug distribution problematic if not scandalous; pharmacies reap benefits, not patients. This one is one that really got to me: institutionalized form of corruption. Now, I would contend there is not one person in our gallery tonight, or watching, who is a pharmacist that would agree to that. If that is the case, convince me otherwise. The NDP are supporting this document, have promoted it –

MR. O'BRIEN: That is their platform.

MR. JACKMAN: – and this is something that they stand on. This is not something that we have promoted and said. It is just something that has been placed in my lap. When I consider what I have to do to represent my constituents, well, I have to consider that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JACKMAN: Listen, this document says: If provinces use more generics than patented drugs, it can enjoy considerable savings. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing something to disadvantage the people in the gallery, nor the people of our Province. We are trying to do what is best for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the Minister of Finance who stood up and spoke to some of the things that we have done in health. This is no different than what we have done. Since 2003, Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-four dialysis patients who are able to receive dialysis care on the Peninsula: on my Peninsula, the Member for Grand Bank, and the Member for Bellevue. We have invested in districts all across the Province, across political stripes. We do it because we want what is best for the people of this Province, likewise in this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I have to go back again, that there is a place at the table for this group. There is a place at the table. The solution will not be found by Open Line shows, it will not be found by people debating it in this Assembly. It will be found at a table, and, Mr. Speaker, here is what - I explained where the $30 million will come from. Well, this generic change in pricing policy, Mr. Speaker, will be of benefit, not only to seniors, it will be of benefit to people across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it has been already said here, this government is not about to let all rural pharmacies fall by the wayside. We have not been a government that has done that in any situation. I was in the Department of Fisheries where we dealt with challenges around fish plants, we were not a government that abandoned them, nor will we do any abandoning of pharmacies or the people those pharmacies serve. It is not the way we operate, Mr. Speaker. We operate for the people who operate pharmacies, and we will continue to offer our support to those people who need it across this Province.

Mr. Speaker, look, if people do not realize the demographics of this Province, where people my age are heading, and people older than I am, and see how taxing health care is going to be on this Province, last year forty-something percent of our Budget, $2.9 billion. If we look where our population is heading that number has to rise, but it is incumbent on us as a government to look to where we can have savings. It is as simple as that. The minister has gotten up and said it over and over. Members on this side have gotten up and said it over and over.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask people in the galleries, people watching, remember political jockeying. It is not the way to find solutions. I have said it twice; I will say it a third time. The solution has to be found at a table. If we have a group that feels there has to be – surely, there has to be somebody in the group in the gallery, or somebody in the Province who represents independent pharmacists, who can be a strong voice at that table. The seats are there. I would encourage the folks to get a person in that particular seat. I have to say this, because somewhere along the way groups are being advised. I would certainly encourage them to look at the advice that they have been given, because, Mr. Speaker, we are not an enemy in this cause. We want to find a solution, and that solution only can be found through co-operatively working together, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would say tonight that the Opposition House Leader –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: She might have been out of breath when she was up talking, but she is not out of breath now, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, I saw a tactic used tonight by the Opposition House Leader that I do not think I have seen used since Mr. Grimes and Mr. Reid were here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, my God.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members not to refer to anybody who has been in this House or outside this House by their name, please.

MR. JACKMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was the Member for Exploits and the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame. When we came into this House earlier on, that was the tactic they used. They would pick up and they would target you – this is what your constituent said – and they would point at you. I have not seen that used again until tonight. Mr. Speaker, it was ineffective then and it is ineffective now. That is never getting to the real issue, because you can get up at any point – I can get up and call someone out there and say to somebody, text me an e-mail. It never gets to the bottom of the issue, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you one thing – I do not want to use the phrase again, no, I will not use it, but I will tell you one thing: there are people in this Province who have been upset because of the information that has been put out there, and from where I sit, the information is not correct. If there are people in here who are dispelling that, I consider it shameful. I would never in my lifetime inflict something upon an individual that I thought would be incorrect. I think for anyone to do that is despicable, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk to seniors who are seventy-two years old, I want to reassure them. I do not want to upset them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: It is incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to members opposite, if there is one message all of us should be sending to the parties that are involved in this – this will be the fourth time: get back to the table. The difference will be made in negotiating. Put your points forward.

This is not going to be the end of pharmacies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not going to happen. I have the individual that is in my district that I have heard over and over. I have seen him on TV. Then, like I said, that is fine. It is wonderful that we are in a democracy, that everyone can get up and make their point; but, also, at a certain time, the next step has to be arrived at. I would encourage the individuals who are advising to advise them that way.

Whenever I sit here and I have to look at the people in the gallery, I have to recognize these are residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, just the same as I am. They are parents of children, just the same as I am a parent of children. I want to do what is right for my children and I want to do what is right for my profession. I do not think they are any different.

My final point this evening, Mr. Speaker, and this will be my fifth one: Get back, get your place at that table, and let's get on with the business that needs to be done. This is a good piece of legislation for all of our residents, and I have absolutely not trouble in supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. I agree that we certainly need legislative change to this act – and the member opposite have referenced the NDP policy. The NDP policy on pharmacare is that we believe we need a national pharmacare plan where we can see that the consumers are certainly benefiting. Right now, with what is being presented, I have my doubts that this bill will benefit all of the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by the non-chain and the people who are not being served by big box stores. I would like to see how the government is really truly going to save $30 million because the Minister of Health and Community Services has not provided us with that information.

The Minister of Education, the member opposite, had just provided that 86 per cent is going to come from generic drugs, from the cost, and 14 per cent when it gets implemented a year later. Have they factored in all of the other factors when you look at – there is so much still on the table, where they are negotiating with the big box stores, the independent pharmacies, and the people with PANL, to see how much of this $30 million is going to go back from the system into these pharmacies so that we can prevent having excess cost to consumers.

Are we really saying $30 million? Why are we saying $30 million? Isn't this maybe a $20 million, or a $15 million, or a $5 million? We have no idea what the savings actually are.

The Minister of Finance had started in the earlier debate, he talked about the Foundation Plan and if the dispensing fees are going to go up in the Foundation Plan. This is a plan where the government currently pays these fees. There is no mention of a cap on fees. We have seen in British Columbia when the bills, and when this legislation had changes and got amended, that the dispensing fees have gone up. There is nothing preventing these pharmacies all across the board from increasing their dispensing fees. Some of them undoubtedly will, so those cost savings are not going to be realized – of the tune $30 million – if there are not other preventative measures implemented by the government. How can they factor in these savings? How are they doing it?

The 65 Plus plan, where there are dispensing fees – who is going to pay if these dispensing fees go up? Will it be passed on to the consumer, on to the senior citizen? There are other people; on the everyday person, when it comes to dispensing fees, there is no cap, so there could be X number of dollars that are passed on to any consumer.

This amendment to the pharmacy services act does not help small independent businesses. They really do not when it comes to the pharmacies that are there, these small independents. Small independent businesses are not like the big box stores. Big box stores, like the Walmarts and Dominions of the world, that have pharmacies – those pharmacies are not in it to make money. Those pharmacies lose money generally. They are generally lost leaders when it comes to what they are selling. They have lower dispensing fees. They are in it because they can sell so much more. It brings people in the doors and it takes away competition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: When you talk about the chain stores – let's talk about the chains, the bigger chains across the country, when we look at Shoppers, Lawtons, and these places. When we look at these companies, the chains, they are much different because they have a wholesale business where they can group buy and buy in the masses of these generic drugs, or in the brand-name drugs, and they are going to be able to absorb additional costs even if there are decreases made. Those are going to be significant to them. They are able to do it because they have a business model. Not only that, the chains have more power; they have more buying power. Some of them are producing their own generic over-the-counter drugs that they can produce and sell at a rate where they are able to absorb additional revenues. This is not something that the small independent pharmacies can do to absorb cost savings.

The only way small independent pharmacies – these pharmacists who are in small independents do not have salaries. They get paid through their dispensing fees. This is how they are able to recoup some of their costs and be able to pay themselves. They need to be able to generate revenue. They have a lot of high overheads and they have a lot of costs. They are not able to go and negotiate on the same level as the big chain stores. They are not going to be able to bring down their costs when they go looking at generics. This is why they have been able to get rebates when they have been going in. Now, the act is noting that these rebates are professional allowances. To make them sound nicer, I guess, in terms there – but the fact is they were given rebates. We have to call things as they are and what they are doing.

Large businesses are going to go to the chains. This is going to give them much more power, the big box stores will, because they are able to absorb these additional losses. The small independent, the community business and the community store that is selling drugs – the pharmacy there – does not have the same opportunity. It is very upsetting to see, because when you look at a bill that we brought in earlier, when it came to reduce small business tax, this is something that the government did not want to do right away. If you want to give back to consumers, give back to the community. We need to have a more progressive option; we really do, when it comes to these stores. Because what we will start seeing, these smaller, independent pharmacies are going to have to increase their dispensing fees. It is going to happen. It is not fearmongering. If you are in business, you have to do things to make sure that you stay in business. They will increase their fees, but they will increase them in all. Will the government have any savings whatsoever on this $30 million? That is quite questionable.

We have to look at, what are these small independent pharmacies going to be able to do to recoup these costs? Will it mean they are going to start having to charge for the additional services, the consulting services that they provide? They do a lot of services to the community that they provide for free. Now, there are other professions, such as doctors, who get paid a fee for their service, but the small pharmacist certainly does not do that. Will it come to a point where they are going to have to charge people - charge them to get their blood pressure taken, to do all sorts of preventative things, because it is very, very important to have that consultation in the community, to be able to do preventative care. For example, if fees are increased and seniors and other people cannot afford their drugs and their medications, they may end up having a heart attack and then end up having to go into emergency care, and this is going to be increased cost to the health care system. Is this something that the Minister of Health and Community Services has taken into account? We need preventative care; we absolutely need better preventative care and we need to be able to ensure that costs are being able to be saved. We need to keep the small independent community pharmacies open. We have a significant number in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If they are closed, they are going to have to look at other ways to service these people and it will be an increased burden to the health care system, because we already have the highest per capita cost in the country for health care.

We need to find better ways to have preventative health care, and this is not a way to do it, if it is going to mean increased fares at dispensing fees. There has not been any consideration looking at what is going to happen. If we have the dispensing fees go up on any of the plans, or to the everyday consumer, it means that the everyday person is less well off. That is certainly something that is not acceptable. It is not a way to be able to promote good health care and good health communities. We really need to look at finding ways to have better cost savings.

The new model is no doubt going to reduce revenues to the pharmacies. The big box stores and the chains can absorb these costs because they can build it into their model. I have explained how the big box stores and the chains can save these monies; they are wholesalers of drugs –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

If we look at how we are going to save costs for consumers, the model needs to look at the impact of dispensing fees and the increase that could have on consumers, people who are very vulnerable in society, and just the everyday person with all the other costs that are going up.

I am telling the Minister of Health and Community Services that the big box stores, the big business model can sustain a lower reduction in these pharmacy fees, to look at the generic costs of drugs being reduced, but the small independent pharmacies simply cannot build this into their model without passing it off to either the consumer or passing off a higher dispensing fee to government plans, and the government is going to have to pay for it.

If the consumer cannot afford their drugs and they end up in the hospital in emergency care, or if they do not get the consulting services, or if independent pharmacies have to start charging for their fee for service, and the consumer cannot pay for these valuable things that the independent rural pharmacist is doing in the community, then we are going to see escalating costs to health care and certainly not savings. This $30 million number that is being thrown out – we have no idea really where the cost savings are going to be; we have not been provided the information or the numbers, and I would really like to see those so I could give a much better scrutiny and do more research on this.

I want to get back to another factor that is happening internationally, and that is through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that is happening between Canada and Europe. One of those factors is with health negotiations. I hope that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the minister, Mr. Speaker, will be present for these negotiations with the counterpart in Canada, so that when these negotiations are taking place, we get the best benefit for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If Europe, and with the large pharmaceutical companies that are there, if they are able to extend and use their power and might to extend brand life on this, then that means that generics will take longer and longer to get on the shelf, so they will still become a greater cost to the consumer.

These are things that we really want this government to be proactive in when we come to international trade negotiations, but we really do need to see savings at the doorstep. I do agree that we need to have change; we need to have change to the pharmacy act so that we can see savings for the consumer, for everyone. Right now, I do not see where this is benefiting the small independent consumer, the value that they add to the local economy. This is something that is going to have to be worked out.

They talk about negotiations, but we really need to look at, we truly need to look at where the impact is going to be, because the independents will have to increase their dispensing fees. If they increase their dispensing fees then you are going to see some consumers that are not going to be able to pay for that. The trickle-down effect is that they will be non-competitive with the larger big box stores and the chains. If they are not looking at being competitive, or the other price of products having to increase, then they are going to see businesses close. If that is the case, then we are only going to see pharmacies in larger urban centres. That is going to have a significant impact on the delivery of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, I will end.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to stand in this House and to speak on this bill, Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, particularly to speak to the amendment here. The amendment that has been proposed is to delay this, to delay the implementation of this bill by six months. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what it means to delay this by six months. What it means is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to pay higher drug costs than most people in Canada; that is what the parties on the opposite side of this floor want to do. They want to see to it that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to pay more for their generic drugs than the rest of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that is not where we are; that is not what we want to do.

What we want to do is we want to provide for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We want to be creative. We want to be innovative. We want to find a way to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: we hear your concerns, we understand what you have been saying to us, we have found a way to reduce your drug costs here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are going to move forward with it. That is where we are.

When I hear the Opposition House Leader stand tonight to say that what she is proposing is where we should be, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disillusioned, absolutely disillusioned. When I hear the members of the Third Party talking about wanting to keep the prices of generic drugs up, I am absolutely amazed. This is the same group, Mr. Speaker, who talks constantly in this House about caring for those who are most vulnerable in society. These are the same people who say to us all the time, we have to be concerned about those in poverty, we have to be concerned about those who have difficulty paying their bills every month. Well, Mr. Speaker, what they are telling us tonight, and what they have been telling us all day, is that they want to keep the prices of generic drugs up for those same people, Mr. Speaker – shame. That is not where we are, that is not what we are proposing, that is not what we will do.

Our intent is to reduce the cost of generic drugs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Speaker, it is that, that we will do. The overall intent of this particular bill is to see to the sustainability of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to see the cost of generic drugs reduced for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there were some accusations made around what this is going to cost and the fact that drug costs were not going to come down; they cannot come down, apparently, because of what it is that we are doing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just happened to have worked out a couple of examples to show people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they need not fear, that they need not hear the words that the members of the Opposition and the members of the Third Party have issued here tonight. Here are some concrete examples to demonstrate exactly what will happen as a result of the implementation of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador hear some real examples, so let me just give you two. For a thirty-day supply of the lowest cost generic equivalent of Singulair, ten milligrams for asthma – fairly common – the monthly drug cost will decrease from $57.99 to $27.06 once we go to that 35 per cent of brand. Now, are you going to still tell us that it means we are not doing anything for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it means we are not going to be able to reduce the prices, because there is a concrete example. In order for people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have to pay more, the dispensing fee would have to be somewhere in the vicinity of $30 or $31. Mr. Speaker, that is not on, that is not happening. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador need to be reassured that is not what we are proposing here. That is not what is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Let's give another example. For a thirty-day supply of the lowest cost generic equivalent of Pantoloc, forty milligrams for reflux – some of us on this side might need it tonight for what we are listening to. Anyway, the drug cost will decrease from $44.80 to $23.14, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: A savings again of $21 on that particular drug. I wanted to give those examples, Mr. Speaker, because I know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been listening for a while to some of the fear mongering that has happened from the other side, some of the incorrect conclusions drawn by members opposite about what it is that this particular bill and this legislation is going to do. Mr. Speaker, that is so unfair.

I heard a member opposite say that there is a senior out there who might be concerned that they are not going to be able to get their drugs, and I say to the member opposite: I hope you can sleep tonight. I hope that the fear that you probably created in somebody out there tonight who thinks that they are not going to be able to afford that drug is going to allow you to sleep tonight because if I had said that, Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to sleep tonight. That is not the fact, Mr. Speaker. We have said time and time again that in terms of our NLPDP, when it comes to looking after our seniors in this Province, we will do that. Seniors need not fear that their drug costs are going up, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how we can say that any more clearly than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine why anyone would think that we would want to be in power on this side of the House, to stand on this side of the House and say: What we are doing is we are going to try to make things worse for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; we are bringing in a plan that does not work.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are doing. We have researched this. We have learned from the mistakes made from some of the other provinces. We have learned best practices from other provinces, and we know that what we are doing is we are providing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They have asked where we got the $30 million savings number. My friend, the hon. Minister of Education did a good job of explaining the $30 million number, Mr. Speaker, and we took our time to be able to ensure that the calculations we did were accurate. Eighty-six percent of that $30 million savings comes from the drugs that are actually on the formulary right now. We were able to look at that. We were able to see exactly what those savings would be. That is where 86 per cent of that $30 million calculation came from. The other $14 million of that calculation came from the drugs that we see in terms of new entries onto that formulary over the next year, Mr. Speaker. We are very, very insistent that the numbers we are presenting in terms of that $30 million savings are accurate.

I heard somebody saying yes, but the numbers in New Brunswick were different all together. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not know how New Brunswick calculated their numbers. We have no idea what they did, but some of the factors could be that their programs are different than our programs. For many of our clients we pay 100 per cent of the cost. We pay 100 per cent of the cost for our foundation clients, Mr. Speaker. We do not know if they do that in New Brunswick; therefore, there may be discrepancies in their numbers as a result of that.

We factored growth into our numbers, Mr. Speaker. New Brunswick might not have done that. We do not know what New Brunswick did. What we know is what we have done here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that our numbers are accurate, Mr. Speaker. Again, what we also know is that the members on the other side of this House want to delay this bill. They want to ensure that we take another six months of not allowing the people in Newfoundland and Labrador to reap the benefits of lower drug costs. That is what they are asking us to do in this House tonight, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know anyone on this side of the House who wants to stand here tonight and say we want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador paying more. Does anybody on this side of the House want that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS SULLIVAN: I do not think so. We are not doing that. We are much more responsible. It is absolutely irresponsible to wait six months and say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Never mind what other jurisdictions have learned, never mind what we have learned, never mind the research that we have done, we want you to pay more. So what odds, we will just wait another six months. That is what they are asking us to do, Mr. Speaker. That is what this amendment is saying. It is precisely those words, wait six months before implementing. Do not allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to benefit. I fail to understand it, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea where they are coming from.

Mr. Speaker, the other piece I have heard some comment around has to do with how much money the insurance companies themselves are going to make on this. Mr. Speaker, the insurance companies are the conduits here. They take money from the employers, they collect the premiums from the employees, there is an administration fee involved and then they pay out the claims. What we are hearing from those employers, Mr. Speaker, many of them who are small and medium-sized businesses - the people that you were concerned about a few days ago in this House. Many of those small and medium-sized businesses are saying we are having trouble trying to keep up with the cost of our drug plans. What this does for those small and medium-sized businesses, Mr. Speaker, is it gives them the opportunity to reduce their costs. Somehow that is not important here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Somehow small and medium-sized businesses are no longer important. I just do not understand that particular aspect of where they are coming from either, Mr. Speaker. However, we will continue to try to put the facts out there. We will continue to try to make sure that people have the information so they can perhaps change their minds and make the vote that counts here; make the vote that counts for those vulnerable people out there that some members in this House profess to be so concerned about; make the vote that makes a difference in their lives, that reduces their drug costs, Mr. Speaker. Let's think about doing that here tonight. Make the vote that makes the difference for our small and medium-sized businesses, Mr. Speaker. Let's make that vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: This is not about being condescending. This is trying to dispel the fearmongering that has gone on in this House for half of the day here.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the minister know that I am not fearmongering when I made the amendment. I was trying to give the government the opportunity to protect seniors, which in their own -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to talk about is the Dr. Wade Locke report where he suggested paying pharmacists for their cognitive services. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I have been talking about in this House for the last two days. I have said time and time again that one of the things that we want to do is we want to recognize the importance of pharmacists in the health care chain, because we do recognize that, Mr. Speaker. All of us here understand that. I have heard speaker after speaker from both sides of this House stand here in this House and say how valuable pharmacists are to all of us, to us as individuals, to the health care chain itself and so on. We recognize that, Mr. Speaker. What we have said we want to do is we want to find some way to reinvest and to compensate for those cognitive services. Voting against this, I guess, means that you do not want to do that either? I do not know, but we are concerned. We want to make a difference there and we have committed to doing that, and I have said this in this House on at least three or four occasions now, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to make the point again because I believe that it is an important point to be made and it is a point that people here need to hear about tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the other things that I have heard in this House this evening around closing of rural pharmacies, closing of remote pharmacies and so on. Again, it is suggesting to the people of the Province, without any information that has been presented here in this House for me to see, that is what the result of this generic plan is going to do. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have said that we recognize that the loss of those professional allowances may well be significant to some of those pharmacies. We have also said, in the same breath, that we are intent on reinvesting in those rural, remote pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. That is our intention. We want to do our part to help out with those pharmacies to see that they remain open and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story with you as well. When I was in a former portfolio, when I was the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, I had occasion to meet with CICPO – happy to have met with them. When they came to meet with me, Mr. Speaker, there concern was about rural and remote pharmacies. They had very definite concerns about the fact that rural and remote pharmacies might close. Their concern about them closing had nothing to do with this, Mr. Speaker. Their concern was around the fact that no succession planning had happened, that they were not able to attract people to come to rural Newfoundland and Labrador to take over those particular pharmacies. Those were the concerns that we heard at that time. It was not very long ago either, Mr. Speaker, maybe two or two-and-a-half years ago. At that time I said to them – and I am sure that the current minister would say the same thing – we will sit with you, we will try to help work through that, we understand what that issue is around succession planning. It is a big issue. I committed to them at that time, Mr. Speaker – I do not know if they have forgotten, but I committed to them at that time the support of my staff in Human Resources, Labour and Employment, at that time. That was the concern around rural pharmacies at that point. Now, some of them are up there nodding and shaking their heads, Mr. Speaker, but I remember that conversation. I remember exactly what their concern was, and it was around succession planning and the fact that there were not people who wanted to stay in rural Newfoundland. Many of them were getting older, were getting ready to let go of the reins, and they did not know where to go with that. I had committed staff to sit with them and try to work, through our LMDA monies and so on, to address that particular issue.

So, when I see now a little twist when we are trying to do something different, I just want to remind them that was not their concern then. There was a concern about their rural pharmacies, Mr. Speaker, but it was certainly from a different slant, and I think it is important that we note that in this House, as well.

Mr. Speaker, what this government is about is two things, primarily: we are concerned about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we want to make sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get the best health care that they can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in doing that, we also need to know that we have to be responsible into the future. We have children, we have grandchildren that we want to ensure are going to have a sustainable health care into the future, Mr. Speaker. When we see opportunity to make savings in the health care system, while providing a lower cost to our consumers of that health care, it would be irresponsible of us not to do that. It would be irresponsible of us not to take those actions, and that is precisely where we are. We are about taking action that makes the difference; that helps in terms of the sustainability of our health care system; that helps the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to receive the drug coverage that they need in a sustainable fashion; that reduces the cost of those drugs for them; and that sees us moving in a positive, innovative, creative step forward for the sake of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

To delay this bill, Mr. Speaker, as the amendment proposes, is something I cannot support. I cannot support saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: yes, we see a way to lower your costs, but we are going to wait six months to do it. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that. It is irresponsible, and I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House that wants to do that. We understand. We hear what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying. We heard it loudly in October when they returned us to this House in great numbers, when they knew then what our position was on this particular issue. They knew very clearly where we stood in terms of generic drug coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they elected us to do the job. We are not going to shirk that responsibility, Mr. Speaker, in any way, shape, or form. I do not care what the lobby is; we are not going to shirk the responsibility of providing for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, while members opposite might want to delay, we are not prepared to do that. While members opposite do not support the most vulnerable in our society, while the members opposite do not support lowering the cost of drugs – because that is what they will say when they vote against this bill; that is what it means when they vote against this bill – we will do something different. We will take our responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker. We will stand up and we will be counted among those that are saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Your concerns are our concerns. Your concerns – yes, I am certainly speaking on the amendment – your concerns are concerns that we have here, because we are not going to delay six months. We are going to go and we are going to do this for you in Newfoundland and Labrador, here and now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Any further speakers to the motion?

The hon. the Member for Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been listening most of the afternoon and this evening to all of the commentary that has been made on both sides of the House, and I want to take a few moments to speak to the amendment. I just want to say and reiterate, it has been spoken about a number of times this evening, but I think that the importance about this bill, and the amendment in the bill, and the bill itself – is that this is a consumer bill. This is about the people that on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis, walk into the pharmacies, deal with the pharmacists, and purchase drugs on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education spoke earlier and actually stole one of my lines. He opened by saying that his mother is a senior. My mother is a senior as well, Mr. Speaker. My in-laws are seniors. My aunt is a senior. We believe that this bill will reduce the cost of drugs in this Province for all residents of the Province and, in particular, seniors in this Province, and that is important.

New generic pricing in Newfoundland is similar to that of other provinces. We have heard this afternoon and tonight that it is in at least six provinces, most recently to be announced in New Brunswick, to be implemented by June. It amazes me and it has amazed me all afternoon and tonight, in particular, to hear from the Third Party that since this House opened, Mr. Speaker, almost four weeks ago, on a daily basis, the members, especially of the Third Party, have stood in this House on a number of bills, on a number of debates that we have had in this House, and they have talked about comparing Newfoundland to our sisters provinces, to the provinces in Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick. They have always said, when we have been debating other issues: Well, they do this in another province. They do this in New Brunswick. They do this in Alberta. They do this in British Columbia. Why don't we do it? Yet, today, when we are bringing in legislation and looking at legislation that is similar to at least six provinces, they stand on the other side of the House, especially the Third Party, and say: No, do not go there, stay away from it, let's not move down that path. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. This will reduce generic drug costs for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially seniors, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about closing doors to pharmacies. This is not about closing pharmacies in rural Newfoundland. This is about dealing with drug costs for residents of all Newfoundland and Labrador. I grew up in rural Newfoundland. I still have family in rural Newfoundland. I have seniors who are neighbours in my district in Humber West. We all know seniors, we all have parents, and this bill is about them. This bill is about reducing the cost, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for pharmacists and pharmacies. We deal with them on a daily basis. We all deal with pharmacists. They are front line and we all respect pharmacists. This is not about closing doors to pharmacies in rural Newfoundland. This is about, again, as we said all day, reducing the costs of prescription drugs for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate again, and it is important that we reiterate this for the people who are watching. We have heard a lot of debate that has been taking place, especially during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker. I have received e-mails as well during the election campaign signed by residents or so-called residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been ongoing for a long period of time. There is a chair – it has been said numerous times today – awaiting representation from pharmacists in the Province, from independent pharmacists in the Province. It is important to know that empty chairs cannot negotiate. Empty chairs cannot negotiate for anyone. People need to sit in those chairs and discuss across the table so that everyone walks away with a good deal. We have put that offer out there, yet that chair remains empty, Mr. Speaker. That is important that we reiterate that here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that the change will likely reduce the amount of professional allowances that is afforded to independent pharmacies, but as the minister just alluded to, to address this and help offset potential loss in revenue, this government will reinvest a significant portion of the estimated $30 million back to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, back to pharmacies, and back to people in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That will help again to alleviate some of the questions that some of the people have brought to the floor here today, Mr. Speaker.

This government is at the table with PANL, as I just said. Again, I want to stress that it is important that the independent pharmacies get to the table and negotiate along with everyone else, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone on this side of the House would wish to see that happen.

This government is discussing the professional services provided by the pharmacists at these negotiations, for which they are not currently paid. Investments we make will be for the benefit of our beneficiaries and the health care system – all of us, Mr. Speaker.

The savings is in the area of $30 million and that is based on price reductions of the current generics and savings from brand products expected to come out of the patent, Mr. Speaker. That was alluded to again earlier today.

The provincial government, our government, will reinvest a significant portion of savings to assist pharmacies, all of the pharmacies – and some of them are sitting in the gallery – in adjusting to their new market. Again, that is why it is important to be at the table and negotiating with everyone else, Mr. Speaker.

Other savings will be used to ensure seniors are not negatively affected. That is seniors like my mother, seniors like my aunt, seniors like the seniors that are in my district, Mr. Speaker. Some residents with private insurance coverage may see their employees choose to decrease premiums or increase benefits. On average, all residents of the province will benefit from this policy. That is what this government is about, making it cheaper for generic drugs for all people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, as was alluded earlier, and I believe the Minister of Finance spoke about it, we are committed to providing low-cost, quality prescription medications to all residents while protecting seniors from paying more.

Other provinces have realized savings, and we are moving ahead with a similar plan in Newfoundland and Labrador.

To all seniors out there – and I know it has been spoken about numerous times today – to all seniors out there, this is not about raising the cost of drugs. This is not about raising the cost of drugs to you on a daily, or weekly, or monthly basis. This is about reducing the cost of drugs to you when you go to your drugstore on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, and that is what is important to remember. Let's get away from the fear mongering, that is what it is about.

I would not stand in this House, Mr. Speaker, knowing that I have a mother out there that has prescription drugs, and an aunt out there that uses prescription drugs, and seniors in my district, if it was otherwise. I do not think there would be anyone on this side of the House who would stand here and debate this issue if it was any different than that, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the members opposite: Do you think that people in Newfoundland should pay more for their generic medications than other counterparts across the country? Do you think, do you really think and believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should pay more for their drugs than what their counterparts pay in other provinces, like the ones that I listed? Answer that question. Just answer that question. Stand to your feet and answer that question to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that are watching on television.

If you really believe that, that is absolutely shameful that you would actually believe that your moms and your dads and the residents that you represent in your district, that they should pay more for the drugs than someone in Nova Scotia, someone in British Columbia, someone in Saskatchewan, someone in Alberta. It is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Our model will save our residents money, it will save our residents and protect seniors, and it will provide reinvestment to pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. That has been talked about a number of times here this afternoon and tonight.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker – and I am not sure if the Minister of Health and Community Services used this example or not – but just to use the example of the generic equivalent of Singulair, which is an asthma drug: $57.99 would go to $27.06 for a thirty-day supply – from $57.99 to $27.06. Now, how can someone on the opposite side of the House stand up and say this bill does not support that, and they cannot support a bill like this. Everyone on this side of the House can agree that is a good direction, a good move to make, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying higher prices for generic drugs than those provinces who have already implemented generic drug pricing policies. So, how can we not support a bill which will, at the end of the day, reduce the cost of drugs for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and in particular – since the Opposition keeps bringing it up – seniors in this Province? How can they actually say that this bill is not important for them?

Mr. Speaker – and I notice my time is starting to run out – we do not agree with our residents paying more for pharmaceuticals than our Canadian neighbours and counterparts. The provincial government is committed to ensuring that the people of Newfoundland obtain quality prescription drugs at reasonable prices, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what member spoke about this earlier on, but it was comparing two different kinds of ketchup earlier this evening, one kind of ketchup compared to another kind of ketchup. I tried to read into what the member was saying, whether he was referencing the quality of one drug, the generic drug, compared to the brand drug. It is absolutely foolishness to compare the production of two forms of ketchup in this country to a generic drug and a brand drug, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, we all know the production of these drugs in Canada is safe. I am not a pharmacist, but they have the same kind of chemical makeup and they provide the same kind of effects on the body for the prescription that the brand name would have, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this House and I support the bill. I am glad I had the opportunity to speak to this, this evening.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I recognize the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House tonight about the amendment to Bill 12, an amendment that I certainly will not be supporting; an amendment that I am actually shocked and surprised that the Opposition would actually put to the floor of the House.

Day in and day out in this House we always hear the Opposition members talk about cutting taxes, cutting the costs to which people of the Province have to pay. We hear about business taxes are too high. In fact, there was a private member's motion in the House just last week by the NDP where they talked about taxes for businesses should be smaller and we should be reducing the payroll tax. We hear time and time again about thresholds and how they are not high enough when it comes to drug programs, how they are not high enough when it comes to subsidies and child care and so on and so forth, Mr. Speaker.

Here we are today, and yesterday, bringing in a bill which speaks to exactly that, finding savings and transferring those savings into the pockets of taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, and to see an amendment to delay that by half a year is actually unspeakable. It is unbelievable that they would do such a think when we are trying to do a good thing in this Province for the taxpayers of the Province to reduce the cost on drugs. We are talking about something at a very critical, vulnerable time in people's lives when they need drugs. We are trying to reduce those costs and you are trying to delay that. It is absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here over this past forty-eight hours and I do not think I heard anybody argue the fact that we are paying more than other jurisdictions in Canada for generic drugs. I do not believe I heard it from the Opposition, I do not believe I heard it from the NDP. In fact, it is a fact that we are paying more for generic drugs than at least six other provinces and we know there is going to be a seventh, Mr. Speaker.

Time and time again in this House we are always benchmarked when it comes to other programs in government. They always compare us to Canada when it comes to other funding programs that we have. Why is it that they are not using this one as an example? Why are they not on their feet, saying: Six other provinces in Canada have done this for the benefit of their residents; why aren't you doing this?

We do not hear that, do we, Mr. Speaker? Currently, as you know, when buying generic drugs, residents pay 60 per cent of the brand-name drug. This new proposed generic policy, once it is fully implemented, will see that cost go from 60 per cent to 35 per cent. That will be implemented over one year. Again, these savings will translate into direct savings for the consumers.

Now I heard the Member for The Straits – White Bay North – no, sorry, I take that back; it was the Member for St. John's North who said: I do not understand why we are only doing this over a year. Why not extend the time to longer than a year? In effect, what the member is saying is: Why not let the taxpayers of the Province pay more for their generic drugs for a longer time than they have been, Mr. Speaker. Now for a party that professes, as the Minister of Health spoke to earlier, to be out there as promoting reducing the costs for vulnerable populations in the Province, and reduce this, and reduce that, and to hear him say that we should be doing this longer than a year – I got the sense that he agreed with it to some degree, but he does not agree that we should be bringing it in within a year time frame, that that was too soon, and that we should be allowing the people of the Province to pay more for their generic drugs for a longer time and let the pharmacies continue to pay the rates that they are paying for generic drugs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, on average, for all residents of the Province, can expect to pay less for the prescription medications; certainly, that depends on the type of drug that a particular person is on. It also depends on the type of drug coverage that a person has. As we have heard, there is a potential here to save $30 million.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that we can all speak to, that the people of the Province have seen for the last eight and a half years, is that this government has demonstrated time and time again that we are a fiscally responsible government. We make tough decisions every day when it comes to health care, when it comes to education, when it comes to child care, when it comes to roads, and so on and so forth; we have demonstrated time and time again that we are fiscally responsible. Part of being fiscally responsible is reviewing the programs, reviewing the policies, reviewing the legislation that is currently in place, and implementing changes to those policies or implementing changes to the legislation such as we are doing here tonight. By doing this, there is potential here for savings of $30 million.

Now, to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, I did hear him say: Where is the $30 million coming from? He said: This $30 million – that could be $25 million. That could be $20 million. It could be $15 million. It could be $5 million. Well, what I would say to that is it is still savings, but it is your own report that you endorsed as part of your platform that speaks to where the $30 million. What I did not hear him say was – it was kind of funny, they went on the other side: Is it $20; is it $25; is it $15? They did not say; is it $35 million, is it $40 million, is it $45 million, is it $50 million? Did not go that way; you went the other way. It just demonstrates time and time again how frustrating it is for people listening, because you often see the opposition parties – the Third Party included – opposing for the sake of opposing. You put the example out there that it could be $25 million or $20 million instead of $30, but you do not go the other way, so it is always a very self-serving way that you tend to go.

The reality is the $30 million is based on research, as we heard, with 86 per cent of the drugs already in our formulary, and with 14 more per cent to come on. It is based on a report that your party endorsed, your party used as part of their platform. So, it was convenient for you in October, but it is not convenient for you when this bill is coming into the House, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate; here is a great opportunity now for the opposition parties to stand up with the government and say: We agree with what you are doing, we support the bill, do not see amendments that are putting off savings to the people – but again, we see opposing for the sake of opposing, Mr. Speaker.

We understand that there will be $30 million in savings, and this is based on research; exactly how that money will be reinvested, Mr. Speaker, will be done through negotiations. That is where this type of work needs to be carried out, is at the negotiating table. Now, this was certainly an issue during the election, Mr. Speaker. I do have independent pharmacies in my district and I certainly heard from the independent pharmacies back in August and September and October. I heard from the residents as well, and I had a lot of phone calls, individual meetings with residents. The one thing that they heard every time they went in to get their drugs, they were handed a pamphlet saying, you should vote for your Liberal member because this government is going to close down rural pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. The fear mongering that was done at that time has continued in the House here tonight.

I try to explain it in the easiest form possible, in that there are opportunities for government to save money; six other provinces have gone there. When there is an opportunity for us to save taxpayers' dollars, particularly when it comes to something as sensitive as drugs, Mr. Speaker, then we are going to do the same.

While, yes, some of the pharmacies will see less professional allowances, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of the Province are the ones who will benefit, and the seniors – I remember the fear mongering at the time for the seniors. So I explained to the people that this will be more dollars in your pockets, but government will not forget the independent pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. We understand, especially with the demographics of our Province, with the geography of our Province, these rural independent pharmacies are critically important to all of the people of the Province. They are critically important to the government.

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side of the House that these independent pharmacies are opposed to this, so I do not think six months will certainly satisfy as the amendment that we see. Certainly, the independent pharmacists are opposed to this. While I did hear from some independent pharmacists in my district that were opposed to what it is government is trying to do, I also heard from independent pharmacists who said let's get on with it, let's get on with the negotiations between government and PANL. I have had independent pharmacists – small businesses – say to me that we are not part of a splinter group of CICPO. We want you to get on with negotiations, Mr. Speaker, because this splinter group – and this is their words not mine – is eroding the process. We realize that six other provinces have gone down this path, and there is a seventh. We know what is coming. We are not naive. We know that if government sees an opportunity to save money and translate that savings into taxpayers, and we know that is coming, so let's move on with it, let's negotiate, and let's get the best deal that we can and move on.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that there are independent pharmacies in my district, but some of them certainly will be against this, others are saying come on, let's move on and get on with it because we know it is coming, so let's negotiate the best thing we can, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition, she talked about the amendment and she said she wanted to hoist this bill off the floor for six months. Mr. Speaker, I think she should stand in her place and explain to the residents of the Province why she wants residents to pay more for their generic bills over the six months.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I want to correct the member of the term.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS: It was just a misstatement by the member, but it is the Opposition House Leader as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to put that out there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is really hard to tell from this side of the House from one day to the next who is the Leader of the Opposition, so pardon me for my confusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, pardon me, said that she wanted this bill hoisted off the floor for six months. So I challenge the Opposition House Leader to stand up in her place, and I challenge the party and the Third Party to stand up in your place and explain to residents why you want them to pay more for their generic drugs for the next six months. They have already been paying enough. Other provinces are miles ahead of us on this. We are trying to do something good for the people of the Province. That is why we are all elected, is to want to do things good for the people of the Province. I would expect the same from the people opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a prediction now for the Opposition House Leader, because we see her in fine form. I make prediction that in May when this is gone through and residents in the Province are actually seeing the dollars in their pocket and saying, government this is a good move on your part, we are happy that we are paying less. I predict at that time the Opposition House Leader and the Opposition parties will try and take credit for this legislation that we are bringing in here tonight. I can just hear the Opposition House Leader saying now: Sure, we said they should have done that months ago. Can you hear her now? I can just hear the words coming out of her mouth, saying: Sure, we said you should have done that months ago. Again, we see it time and time again talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Mr. Speaker, another comment she made, and I know another member, the Minister of Education addressed this, but it is one that really strikes a nerve. It struck a nerve with me and I am sure it struck a nerve with other members here, is that the Opposition House Leader said we are cozying up with the brand companies. Now, Mr. Speaker, how absolutely ridiculous is that. It just goes to show they make it up as they go. When things are not going well, they do the personal attacks and make it up as they go; to say that we are in bed with the brand companies. Where does she get off on saying something like that, Mr. Speaker? Just you watch, in May or June she will be saying: Sure that was our idea. My God, sure we told them they should have done that months ago.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I cannot support the amendment. I cannot support asking people to pay more than they have been paying for the next six months. It is a burden at the best of times paying for medication and it can be really overwhelming for people, especially in desperate times when they are going through difficult times with health issues and so on. We do not want to prolong that any more than we have to, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard our Minister of Health very eloquently time and time again say that we will protect the seniors of the Province, not only the seniors of the Province but the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: In particular, Mr. Speaker, the beneficiaries of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

Mr. Speaker, we would never download the cost of our savings onto our seniors. That is not what we are about. We have demonstrated time and time again how much we do for the seniors of this Province. She has said it in this House – whether or not the Opposition want to believe that is up to themselves – but this is a time for the Opposition to stand in their place and support something good right now for the people of the Province, so that they no longer have to be gouged, that they no longer have to pay more for generic drugs than they have been doing in the past.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other point of interest. I am not sure if it is mentioned much here tonight – and I am certainly sure the Opposition Party did not attribute any positive to this – but in time I believe we will see some of the residents with private insurance coverage. We will also see their employers either decrease their premiums or increase benefits due to the cost. That is another benefit that will come out of this for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

The other people asking for this to move on are some of the independent pharmacists, Mr. Speaker. We cannot lose sight of the fact that not all independent pharmacies are part of CICPO. As I said, I have heard from some in my district that are opposed to this, but I have heard from others: Let's move on with it; let's negotiate. We know it is coming. We understand where the government is coming from, rightfully so. Let's move on; let's negotiate. If CICPO wants to be at the table, there is a seat there for CICPO at the table. Let's all parties get together and work together.

At the end of the day, as a government, we are tasked with being fiscally responsible for the taxpayers' dollars in the Province, Mr. Speaker. We have demonstrated that for eight and a half years. We are going to continue to demonstrate it for eight and a half more, with any luck.

We are tasked with trying to find savings where we can, making the right investments where we can, doing what is right by the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker. We do not get elected to put our hand up to say we want to do something bad by the people of the Province. We do not put up our hand to say we want to continue status quo, we want to continue with the pharmacies getting the professional allowances that they are getting, and continue for the taxpayers paying the high rates that they are paying for their drugs, Mr. Speaker. That is not what we are about.

It is time for the Opposition members to stand up, pull back this amendment – this ridiculous amendment – to put off savings for the people of the Province for the next six months, Mr. Speaker. Stand up. Stand up for the people that you support. Stand up for the people that you represent in your districts, support this bill, and allow people in this Province to pay less fees for their drugs.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the legislation that is up for debate today. The reason I am doing that, we have a responsibility in this Province, as the government elected, to represent the people of the Province, to do what is in the best interest of the people of the Province. That is what we have done since we have come to office and that is what we are going to continue to do. We have a responsibility to ensure if there is a way of reducing the cost of drugs for individuals in the Province, that we seize that opportunity. We are not blazing a trail here, Mr. Speaker. There are six other provinces in Canada who have taken similar measures, and the evidence speaks for itself. The residents in those provinces have seen a reduction in drug costs. There are people adversely affected; I understand that. The pharmacies are adversely affected, and I will get to that in a moment. I will speak to the pharmacies in a moment.

Our responsibility is to represent the people of the Province as a whole, and that is what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: We are taking measures to decrease the cost of drugs. Right now, generic drugs are about 60 per cent of the cost of brand drugs. Under this legislation, we will see that reduced to about 35 per cent. That does not go as far as some other jurisdictions. I know in Ontario they are looking at about 25 per cent of brand drugs through their legislation. We are only going to 35 per cent. It does have an effect on pharmacies, not as drastic as Ontario or other jurisdictions.

We recognize that the new pricing will affect the pharmacies. The Minister of Health, other ministers, and government has said that some of the $30 million in savings that we will realize through this legislation will go back to the pharmacies. That commitment has been made. Some of the savings will go back into health care. Some of the savings, Mr. Speaker, will go directly to the people of the Province who incurred the expense of purchasing prescription drugs.

Government will reinvest part of the savings back to the pharmacies, I think the Minister of Health has made that very clear, but the main benefit of this legislation will be the people of the Province, will be the seniors of the Province, the people who are utilizing the prescription drug program in this Province and others. The $30 million in savings that will be realized by this is significant. We have seen our budget grow from 2003, which was the last budget of the former Liberal Administration - was $1,603,415,800. We have seen that budget grow, Mr. Speaker, from 2003, from $1.6 billion, to almost double under our Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Almost double. We do take the health and providing health care for people of this Province very seriously.

Our budget in 2011, and we have the 2012 budget yet to come, but our budget for 2011 in this Province was $2.9 billion, up from $1.6 billion, which was the last budget of the former Liberal Administration. In 2011, the health care budget was $2,952,071,000. It is a significant increase. Forty percent of every dollar we spend in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is spent on health care; 40 per cent of every dollar.

We still have an obligation to provide education. We have an obligation to provide social services. We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to provide transportation and infrastructure services to the people of this Province. When you take forty cents out of every dollar that we spend in this Province goes to health care, we have an obligation not only to continue to provide the best health care possible to the people of this Province, but we have an obligation that if we can do it and do it better, and save people money, and save government money, we have an obligation to do that.

We have seen how the budget has increased since we came to office in 2003. Just to give another example, Mr. Speaker. The drug subsidization in the last budget of the Liberal government, the last Liberal budget in 2003, the drug subsidization in this Province was $47,554,500. That is what they put into subsidizing drugs. Under our government, Mr. Speaker, we have almost tripled that amount in eight-and-a-half years, in eight years really, because it is the 2011 Budget that I am referring to. We have gone from $47 million in drug subsidizes for the people of this Province to $141,954,300 in last year's budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Do we take seriously providing prescription drugs to the people of this Province? I was Minister of Health when we brought in the prescription drug program in this Province, something that I am very proud of, something that this government is very proud of, something that we thought was important enough to deliver to the people of this Province to ensure that there are more people getting drug subsidization in this Province than ever before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: We take it seriously. We do take seriously our obligations to the people of the Province. If there is a $30 million savings can be realized through this legislation, where we have gone from $47 million to $141 million – if we can realize savings, that is our obligation.

The Opposition has accused this government of spending like drunken sailors, yet when we try to find savings, the same people who point their finger across the floor will point it again and say: What are you doing? You cannot have it cut both ways, Mr. Speaker. You cannot have it cut both ways.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in this Province a substantial increase in the health care budget. We have seen an increase all across the board in what we are spending. Our Budget in this Province between 2003 and 2011 has almost doubled; yes, we have seen good times. We have seen oil revenues increase. We have seen revenues generally increase. We have seen the economy improved. That did not happen all by fluke, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the policies and the initiatives and the hard work of the people on this side of the House.

Through our obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and through our obligation to ensure that we provide good government, part of good governance is trying to find better ways of doing things, trying to find better ways of delivering services. If we can do that and save money, Mr. Speaker, that is a huge accomplishment. That is what this legislation will do for the people of this Province. That is what this legislation will do for seniors. That is what the legislation will do for people on lower incomes who take advantage of the provincial drug program. It is what this legislation will do for anybody who has to purchase prescription drugs in this Province, because if we can make generic drugs cheaper, it is the people of the Province who benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to improve the delivery of health care in this Province in whatever way we can find. We will continue to try and provide prescription drugs in more efficient ways to the people of the Province. It is our obligation to do so, and we need to be able to do all of these things, Mr. Speaker. Yet, just as anybody with a household, anybody who has a mortgage, anybody who has to put groceries on the table and pay their heat bill and pay their light bill, anybody who has to budget to go from one month to the next and ensure they can keep the lights on, we have an obligation in this Province as government, as the people elected by the people of the Province to ensure that we keep the lights on, that we pay the mortgage. We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the decisions we make today not only benefit the people of the Province today, but have a benefit for my children and for their children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if we can save money for the people today and ensure that our budget does not grow beyond our means, then not only are we benefiting the people of the Province today we are benefiting the people of the Province tomorrow, and that is our responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not going to take part in the debate here tonight. There are certain bills that you do speak on and certain bills that you do not, Mr. Speaker. I guess it came to a point here in the debate where it gets to you after a while and you feel like you have to get stuff off your chest, and that is the way I have been feeling here. Besides the flu, I have to get a few points off my chest, Mr. Speaker.

Before I start, I want to be very clear, any small business – I operated a small business myself at one time and I encourage people to make money. People who I know, people who I do not know, anybody who is a resident of Newfoundland, or Canada for that matter, Mr. Speaker, can make as much money as they like, and it makes me happy for every dime and cent that they make. I support small business and encourage people to be in small business.

In particular, pharmacists, Mr. Speaker, many of them I have grown up with. You run into them every day. You meet them at the pharmacy. They do give you advice. They look after you when you are in some of your worst times, Mr. Speaker. So this not a personal thing for me, none whatsoever, but I think it is important for me, as a resident of Conception Bay South, and the member, for me to have my say on this.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 12 is quite simple, actually. Of some of the bills that we go through in this House, Bill 12 is not a big, complicated bill. It is a five-page bill; it is titled, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. Actually, if; you take off the front cover and the back piece, Mr. Speaker, you are talking about a bill that is three pages long. By the standards of this House, it is not a significant bill. The main piece of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. Section 23.(1) of the bill, for example, says: "The price for a generic drug listed on the formulary shall be no more than the maximum price calculated in accordance with subsection (2)". Mr. Speaker, section 2 says: "The maximum price shall be calculated as a percentage of brand price…".

Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about here today. That is what this bill is all about here today. Currently, the people of this Province are paying about 60 per cent of a brand drug. For the generic drug we are paying about 60 per cent of the cost of brand drug, which is the number one drug. Mr. Speaker, in many other provinces it is quite less than that. I think we are one of the few provinces that do not have a generic pricing model right now, and it is something that I think is important that we do have. Right now, we are hoping to bring that price down to 35 per cent of the brand price. That is something we are looking forward to. It is going to save the people of this Province about $30 million and, Mr. Speaker, it is going to save seniors in this Province money; for the majority of people who buy drugs in this Province, it will save them money.

Mr. Speaker, what I would really like to point out here today is what is really happening here. I think there are about 195 pharmacists in this Province, if I am not mistaken, of which probably one-third are members of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners, Mr. Speaker, CICPO. That group there are also members, or most of them are members, of the Pharmacy Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is PANL. Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happen is that a group is branching off from the major organization and trying to do their own negotiations with government. We go through an awful lot of groups in this Province – all kinds of sectors, all kinds of interest groups – and as a government you have to rely on dealing with the one group. You cannot be out negotiating with multiple different groups, Mr. Speaker. It does not work like that. You have to have one voice that speaks for the whole.

Mr. Speaker, this is a group that went off on their own. Fair enough, they have every right to do whatever they want, but when it comes to government and negotiations, we have to concentrate on a certain area, Mr. Speaker. We cannot be out negotiating with everybody.

Mr. Speaker, what this is about here tonight, this is a special interest I see happening right now. Anybody who follows politics throughout North America or throughout Canada, especially in the States, you hear of special interest groups. Special interest groups are groups that get involved with a particular party –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Now, I hear the member over there. She is warming up. She is not hoarse again now, Mr. Speaker. She was just cooling herself off with the fan, but she is coming around. That is good; I am glad she is paying attention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are special interest groups. As the hon. Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair said earlier, I look up in the gallery and I see former candidates who ran with her party and ran on her tag. During the last election, I was appalled at some of the commercials I saw on TV that were clearly blatant, trying to convince seniors in this Province that we were about to harm them, Mr. Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth – absolutely unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, they were cuddled up with the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair; they were holding hands with that side of the House the whole way through.

I am not sure it was the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, so I do not want to say it was her, but what happened here earlier was somebody on the other side of the House was pointing out people on this side of the House that they had given money to, that pharmacists had given money to people on this side of the House, and that somehow that should affect them making a decision on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I take exception to that, because it was that side of the House that had TV ads running for them, paid for with tens of thousands of dollars to try to defeat people on this side of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, where I come from, that is certainly a special interest group, and a special interest group that is paying into the coffers of the Opposition on the opposite side of the House, trying to get to this side – and that is unfortunate. So, when the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair starts pointing the finger and talking about money to people on this side of the House, I think she should think back to the tens of thousands of dollars that this special interest group invested in trying to get her elected and get us defeated. That is a special interest group, and that is exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker, in this case.

Now, I will bring the special interest group to the next level. I will bring it to the next level. In the confines of the House of Assembly here, Mr. Speaker, we have caucus rooms, out and about in our different zones. Mr. Speaker, I was told that there were paid staff from this interest group out circulating in secret corners of the House of Assembly, holding meetings, educating the crowd opposite how to debate this side of the House. So, election time they were out coughing up the cash. Now they are out telling them what to say, Mr. Speaker. So, that is a special interest group in the confines of the House of Assembly interfering in debate. I take my hat off to the people on this side of the House for making that happen, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am hearing from the hon. member is that special interest groups have no bearing, no priority for representation within their government and, Mr. Speaker, people who have concerns with regard to legislation in this Province should not be in the confines of the House of Assembly or be in the galleries of the House of Assembly. Is that what I am hearing the member say?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I go back to the minister.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, you have to understand something. Special interest groups occur and meet with government every other day. They are involved in making things happen. They speak on behalf of their members in some cases. Some cases they just have problems and come – it is not about that, Mr. Speaker, but it is about the effect that special interest groups are having with the parties opposite. The reason we are here tonight is because a special interest group – the amount of money they have contributed opposite, the secret meetings in the confines of the House of Assembly telling them what to say, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here tonight, no other reason, because we all have grandparents, and families, and mothers, and fathers, and brothers, and sisters, who buy drugs on a regular basis. We are not against – we want to lower the drug costs. We do not want to keep them artificially high. That is what this crowd opposite are trying to do with this stuff. That is exactly what they trying to do.

I will give the Opposition a bit of credit, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes they like to keep – they try to be fiscally responsible. This Third Party, I do not know what we are going to do with them. Someone should be here, we should hire someone from the Department of Finance to sit in this House, and every time that the Third Party says anything, we should start running the tally. We should get the calculator out and start the NDP calculator, Mr. Speaker, because everything – they commit to everything. They give millions of dollars to everyone. All I keep thinking about is in Ontario a number of years ago, they did a lot of crazy things up there in the mid-1990s. They elected a Third Party like we have here. They lasted three years. They threw them out of office; they just about bankrupted the province, Mr. Speaker, and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier in this legislative sitting –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: As I pointed out earlier, the New Democratic Party, when it has been government in provincial governments across the country – figures according to the Department of Finance, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – show that we have a more fiscally responsible record than either the Dunderdale-Harper Party or the Liberal Party when they were in government. I just want to point that out for the record, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

We will go back to the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the NDP calculator a little bit because that is important. It is important that the residents of this Province start adding it up. So, every time you hear one of these members up speaking, start writing it down: a million here, extra stuff for schools, a couple of million here, a couple of billion in some other places, Mr. Speaker. They are everything to everybody. They want to be everything to everybody. I say to the hon. member: He is right. They did elect them in Ontario, and they did the smart thing. The people of Ontario saw the light, Mr. Speaker. When they went to the ballot box the next time, they threw the works of them out, because they just about flattened the economy of Ontario, the biggest Province in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to try to bring his comments back around to the principle of the bill, please.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about saving people money. Everybody on this side of the House is about saving the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, this is not about special interests. The special interests on this side of the House, this night, are about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not big money, big dollars, big investments by other people trying to defeat this government while this government stands up for the Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Janes and Joes of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, this is about being a voice for everyone. Sometimes in government it is very difficult, you have to make tough decisions. This is not about bringing businesses down; this is about creating fair play for the people of the Province and businesses besides, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about brands and generics – and I know the way it works a little bit. You go into certain stores and you will see certain things quicker than you will see some others because the shop owner – this is not a bad thing – get more back when they sell that versus some other brands, Mr. Speaker. That is a good thing. I do not take that away from anybody. That is smart business and that is what you do; however, when it affects the seniors of this Province and the people of this Province then, obviously, government has a role to play. This is about bringing the cost of generic drugs down from currently 60 per cent of the brand down to 35 per cent. There are other provinces that have even been lower.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this is about, nothing more, nothing less. It is about the people of this Province; something that I am proud to say that this party always stands for.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up this evening and speak to Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

I had an opportunity this afternoon and this evening to listen to debate on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, all members of the House in speaking to this piece of legislation - a progressive piece of legislation in terms of looking at overall how we deliver service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador related to health care and related to our drug program.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I just want to comment on an earlier speaker from St. John's Centre, who earlier today referenced in regard to the amendment and to the piece of legislation, spoke to the initiatives of this government referencing bashing small business. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We, as a government, certainly since 2005, have worked hand in hand with small business and economic development. Mr. Speaker, expenditures of over $130 million since 2005 directed to small businesses, all businesses all over Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not what this legislation is about, and to say that is certainly not accurate. As I said, this is about health care. As was mentioned earlier by some of our speakers, $2.9 billion we spend now on health care in the Province, in terms of an overall Budget of almost $8 billion.

Mr. Speaker, all jurisdictions are struggling with health care and how we provide for the future. Certainly, drug costs are a huge component of that. As I said, all jurisdictions are challenged with that and working towards how we bring it in line in terms of our population, the population of this Province, the demographics, how we meet those needs of today and certainly into the future, and what we do in that regard.

This is an attempt, as I said, Mr. Speaker, to deal with that. It is about fiscal management. It is about being innovative, looking at other jurisdictions, evaluating what others are doing and reacting to what is available to us as a government and taking that initiative to act on it. As has been said before, there are a number of jurisdictions that have looked at this in terms of how we do a drug pricing policy. Six jurisdictions already are engaged with it. We have gone through the process of taking the time of consulting with all the stakeholders in terms of trying to get this right and doing what we need to do to, to collect that information, to collaborate, to learn from what has happened in those jurisdictions that have brought in a pricing policy, what has worked, what has been good, what is effective in terms of a public policy point of view, and how we adapt this public policy for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the important point is in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, on how we move forward.

In doing that, I have spent some time as Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Community Services, to the minister – I spent two years there, through that process – and I was engaged in consultations as well with many of the stakeholders in terms of this and listened to their concerns, as well, those who advocate for it and see the benefit in it as we move forward. Certainly, that is out there, too. There is a lot of support for it.

I know in my district, Mr. Speaker, going from the community of St. Shotts to Petty Harbour, all along the Southern Shore, a number of pharmacies – I certainly know, growing up in the region, how important pharmacy is and how important medical services are. It is a lifeline in terms of our community, in terms of people we interact we with, in terms of providing those services and what they mean. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those in the profession, the services they provide to the communities and to the regions, how important they are, what they give to the community, what they give back to the community, and what an important role they play in our regions in our Province – all over, Mr. Speaker – and especially more in those remote areas. I represent an area that takes in a portion of St. John's, but certainly down along the Southern Avalon very remote communities, rural communities, we know how important pharmacy is and the services they provide in areas like Trepassey, the Town of Ferryland, in Bay Bulls, again, pharmacies in Goulds – which is inside the boundaries of the city – certainly know how important that is.

It has been mentioned earlier, we all have relatives, and friends, our constituents, certainly seniors are so important – my mom is eighty-six years of age. She was a public health nurse for thirty years on the Southern Shore. I certainly know well how important that medical engagement is in rural communities, through pharmacies, through people like public health nurses, and we, as a government, recognize that. This policy about moving forward, in terms of doing what is best in terms of cost of generic drugs, following what is being done in other jurisdictions, to ensuring that we are being innovative, that we are being fiscally prudent; but, at the end of the day, we are getting the best price we possibly can get for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of a generic drug program, Mr. Speaker. That is so important.

As I said, we know how important this is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As we go forward with this and as it is negotiated, the point here is to ensure that our savings are reinvested. We have talked about that, Mr. Speaker. We have talked about reinvesting, per annum, $30 million to ensure whether it is through dispensing fees or other professional services portion that we can make sure that seniors do not pay more. That is the important part, Mr. Speaker. That we are progressive, Progressive Conservatives; we recognize that. Those who are most vulnerable in our society, we make sure that we can do what we can do as we move forward to make sure those are taken care of.

There was some discussion in debate about consultation. I know myself, last summer, when there was some information put out there in regard to seniors not being able to access their prescriptions and all of those kinds of things, I met with several seniors groups in my district who were very distraught in terms of that information, not being able to get medications approved and what this new policy may mean for them. I met with several groups. I certainly met in Trepassey with a group in my district, seniors, sat with them, spoke to them about what this was all about and how we were moving forward and what the benefits would be and assuring them that us, knowing the importance of pharmacies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly were not doing anything to restrict their access or certainly to make access to drugs more costly for them. That certainly was not the intent.

Again, I met in Calvert with a wonderful group of seniors, Calvert Gladgreeters – over sixty members. I sat with them and went through their concerns. I sat and listened to them in regard to issues they had or thoughts they had on it and assured them, once again, as a government we are very cognizant of drugs and those in society who are most vulnerable in terms of ensuring, at the end of the day, that a public policy change would not negatively affect them. We are certainly committed to that, as many of the speakers on this side of the House have spoken to. Certainly the Minister of Health and Community Services articulated very well on a couple of occasions here in the House in regard to how we are going to move forward with this.

That is always the fear, Mr. Speaker, in terms of not being accurate in what we are dispelling out there in terms of seniors. It is a concern to me, and all of our members, in terms that this is articulated in the context that we are trying to do this in regard to reducing drug costs so we can – if there is a need to reinvest, we have said that, we will reinvest a portion of that to ensure that seniors are not disadvantaged in regard to this.

Mr. Speaker, our government has invested significantly in the Newfoundland Prescription Drug Program over the years. I think we are up now to about $151 million, a tremendous investment in terms of taking care, in terms of drugs and access to those drugs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Again, Mr. Speaker, every year we go through a process, a budgetary process in looking at new drugs and what is required in terms of various illness, in terms of treatment. We continue to look at that, obviously, within our fiscal framework. That is important to us. That is involved in delivering health care, and certainly, this is one part of it, in terms of the generic drug pricing policy.

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward over a year, we will look at phasing this in; we will go from 60 per cent down to 35 per cent of generic drug costs. It has been eighteen months; we have gone through significant debate and consultation on this with all of the parties. I have spoken to pharmacists, seniors, middle class, everybody, in terms of in my region and even outside of that, in terms of this and indications of what their thoughts were on it. Collectively, as a government, it is about governance; it is about the bigger picture in ensuring what we are doing. It is certainly bringing public policy to the forefront that is to benefit all of our citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. This piece of legislation moves us forward, Mr. Speaker, in regard to health care and how we are moving forward.

The amendment, in regard to delaying it, as I said, we have gone through a process , a very lengthy process of collaboration and discussions. We have taken it here through the House – a number of speakers; I guess before this day is out maybe all of our side will have spoken to it, but very good discussion on moving this forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the amendment, but certainly will be supporting the bill as put forward. I think it is progressive, it is moving us forward and with it is the context of recognizing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador the important role of pharmacies and having access to appropriate drug care. All of the members here, or many, represent rural regions and understand that – elected by your district – and would not be in a position to support something that is not going to be detrimental to access to drug programs in those small rural communities.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my comments. Again, certainly, this is a good piece of legislation. It is directed to where we need to go and it is reflective of what is happening in other jurisdictions around the country. Again, I think it is where we need to go. I am certainly happy to be part of a government that understands that and I look forward to other debate as we move through the night.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DALLEY: Thank you to the House Leader.

I am informed I have a couple of minutes, but it is certainly a pleasure to stand and take a few minutes to speak about this important bill, an amendment to the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Mr. Speaker, I could debate and talk about a number of things that have been talked about in this House, and talk about our relationships, our parents, our seniors, and the importance of what we are doing. I think in just a couple of minutes, what I would like to do is just put it in some context, Mr. Speaker, of what we are trying to accomplish here, and how it fits in the mandate of this government and what we are trying to do.

I think the context I would like to put it in is the fact that we spend almost $3 billion on health care. We spend more per capita than any other province. We have made health care our top priority. Having done all of that, and continuously engaged in trying to improve our health care system, we know, and the public knows, the demands are endless, but we have a responsibility to try and meet those demands. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have the best health care that we can provide. Most importantly, we have to make sure that we have a health care system that is sustainable. The public expects it. It is not only today; it is next week, next month, next year, and so on.

We have to build a system that is sustainable, and because of that, we have to be constantly looking for ways, not only to save money, but to make smart investments to improve the system, to improve health care, to support our health care providers – including pharmacists – who are obviously a critical piece of our health care system. We also have to find ways to support our population, to support our seniors, recognizing there are multiple demands – long-term care, chronic disease; all of these issues have to be factored in decisions we make.

I will speak to that tonight in just a couple of minutes to reference the fact that what we are trying to do and accomplish – you have to build it into the greater context, as well, of our responsibility for health care in this Province and where we are trying to get to and build a strong health care system, but one that is sustainable. So, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time – and I certainly appreciate the House Leader giving me the couple of minutes to speak – with that, I will sit down and offer my support for Bill 12 as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there any further speakers to the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Shall the amendment as put forward by the Member for the Bay of Islands carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now go back to continue debate in second reading on the main motion.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

It is certainly very nice to stand up again this evening and speak to this bill. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to it again and to hear the different viewpoints that have been expressed by the members on all sides, because I would say that everybody here has the best interests of the citizens of this Province at mind. The government does not have a monopoly on that; as the Opposition, we certainly keep that in mind too. That is our job, to make sure that the legislation that is being passed is the best piece of legislation possible. Again, that is why I would say that – you could say that we are trying to delay this; that is certainly not the case here. We have to make sure that what is being done is right and is right for everybody here.

I just have a few points that I would like to bring up here. Certainly, I would say to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, when she spoke earlier she mentioned helping a constituent with their drugs. That is something that all of us have had an opportunity to do, or will have an opportunity to do. What I would say, when we talked about the story –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: The minister said she helped somebody with the drugs. What I would say is that from what I have reviewed, I believe the comment was that the pharmacist was going to bill for whatever the brand was and said no, I have a generic here; we will give you the generic. According to the code, you are supposed to offer the generic anyway. Again, that pharmacist was supposed to offer the generic up front at first. That is part of the legislation as it is anyway. I would make sure that is brought forward and put up there.

I feel the need the need to speak to the Minister of Finance's comments. I always enjoy listening to the Minister of Finance talking about fiscal responsibility, but that is my concern here. Let there be no confusion; we are not talking about not wanting the citizens of this Province to pay the lowest cost possible for their medication. That is hardly the case, and I think every member in this House is on the same page here; certainly, we cannot be accused of that.

My concern is that we have a law that is going to come into effect on April 1 and that law does not have regulations. The regulations are the teeth of this legislation. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty there. It is one thing to deliberately not want the best interests for your people – nobody here wants that; I am not silly enough to say it – but the possible unintended negative consequences here are the issue.

I was lucky enough to go to the Department of Health briefing. When I went to that briefing, sat there very diligently, and listened to all of the comments, one of the things was: most seniors will not benefit directly from a reduction in generic drug costs. That was the actual start to the paragraph. When I hear that – and then the second part of that paragraph, again, this is in the Department of Health briefing notes: government remains committed to ensuring this new pricing model does not negatively affect these beneficiaries.

What I am saying is that I would feel more comfortable if I could actually see what these regulations are going to be and how these people are actually going to be affected down the road. It is one thing to say: We remain committed. Of course you remain committed, but are you able to make sure that they are not going to bear the brunt of it? That is the crux of my argument. That is the basis of my questions. I think I need to ask those questions.

Again, we recognize that community pharmacies may suffer a financial loss. We say that we are going to make sure that we reinvest in community pharmacies, but the question is: how much? There is nothing there. What are we going to say, we are going to invest if we can? Are we going to be able to – we are going to mix lots back into it, we are going to put tons back into it; how much are we putting back in? That is a valid concern that independent pharmacies have. We say: the introduction of other targeted investments. Again, this is stuff from the Department of Health briefing, so when we say other targeted investments, I say: What are they specifically?

Again, I know that the government has negotiated this, they say, for six years, but I have to question, were they meaningful conversations? Were they meaningful negotiations? What has actually taken place? What is concrete? What is laid out and going to happen here? That is my concern, and again, we are about to pass a piece of legislation here; when that comes into effect, we do not know what the regulations are actually going to be.

So, again I come back to this, and we talk about a lot of great ideas, but these great ideas are not actually laid out specifically – I want the specifics. Again, I have had this same conversation with the Department of Health officials, and I said I would like to see what the specifics are going to be – the issues of rural and remote pharmacies will be discussed during negotiations.

Again, I come back to the point of the constituent in my district. Now, the constituent in my district – I will say it again – is not a pharmacist. She is not a pharmacist, she is a pharmacy owner. Now, just to give you a bit of history about this lady – she is here, because obviously this concerns her, this is her livelihood. These negotiations started back in December of 2007. Again, a lot of pharmacy owners, they were concerned, it was something new; obviously, they had to worry about it, how is this going to affect us.

This gentleman was worried because he used to do things, like he used to go to one client's house and put eye drops in her eyes three times a day – no charge on that – three times a day he would go and make sure that this was done for this senior citizen. It was just something he did. There were comments made earlier on T4s and vacation time. Well, when this gentleman opened this pharmacy in Port aux Basques, he was the only pharmacist. He did not take vacation; he worked six days a week. If he was gone, there was no pharmacist there; they had to go somewhere else. Not every other location has that. In our town we are lucky, we have a number of pharmacies, chains – we have a chain and we have independent – but a lot of places do not have more than one. So, if that independent pharmacist goes away, they have to leave their town to go get their prescriptions. So, this gentleman did not. He worked six days a week. His kids bore the brunt of that. If somebody called on Sunday, he was not going to see them stuck.

So, again, when this starts, he is worried about it. He is actually worried about: Will I have to lay off staff? Will I have to cut hours? Will I have to reduce the services, the stuff that I do for my clients that I do not get paid for, I just do? Again, I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he knows all about this, he has talked about it. You are not getting paid for this stuff; you do it out of the good of your heart and make sure it is done. He worried about it, because he worried: Am I going to be able to continue to do this if this all comes about? He got really worried about it. These were supposed to get brought in on February 1, 2008 – and that is the day he died. He died February 1, 2008. This was weighing on his mind. His wife is here. She would be more than willing to tell you this. This weighed on their minds. This was a big issue to them. They worried about whether they are going to have to let the other pharmacist go, or the pharmacy tech, or the stock clerk. That was stuff that they had to deal with.

When this young man passed, way before his time – she used to work there but now she had to run it. They had one other pharmacist. This pharmacist basically had to bear the brunt then. They had to go out and see if they could find someone else. This lady who owns the pharmacy, again, she cannot speak to a lot of it. She is not a pharmacist, she knew the business side. She still has those concerns now. So she is more than willing to talk about vacation time and poor pharmacists. This was nothing along those lines. These are people who did a lot for our community. These are people with the proceeds that they get they make sure it goes back into the community coffers. They give to the Junior Mariners, they give to minor hockey, and they give to figure skating. The fact is, unless they know the actual effects of the regulations, this is stuff you are going to have to pick a choice: Do I lay somebody off or do I keep giving to the community groups? That is gone. That is out. That is not going to happen.

Again, I have to bring that up. This woman is here. The other thing, going back to something I talked about earlier and it is not a concern with the legislation – well, it is a concern with the legislation, but really, she is not a member of PANL. I have to reiterate this concern. I do not think it is a fair practice. She is not allowed to be a member of PANL. She does have to have a pharmacist in charge, but the purpose of this pharmacist in charge is not to do anything at all with the business. They have to be there to sign for the narcotics. That is why they are there in a lot of cases. They work there, but they are not running the business, cutting the cheques, paying the heat, and doing all of that stuff. They had to be there because as trained pharmacists and members of PANL they need to be in charge to make sure they can receive the drugs and administer the medications.

This lady, who is not allowed to sit on PANL, has to abide by the decision that PANL makes for her, and I do not see that as being fair. She has not had an opportunity to make her concerns known. In a lot of cases – actually, I believe a lot of people had written but I do not know if they received a reply from the government on it how this going to affect them. We have these concerns, we have these suggestions, but they have not heard back on their suggestions. That is a concern obviously because we are about to put this through. It is getting very, very close to Wednesday morning. This is coming in on Sunday so they are right to have that concern and I am right to bring that up on their behalf.

Again, the Minister of Environment made some suggestions. I do not agree with them. It is pretty off base, I really think. The fact is these are members of our districts, and my job is to speak up on behalf of the members of my district.

If she does not have a say in this reinvestment, how can she control how her business is going to operate? That is not a fair practice. We can sit here and say CICPO has a seat, but to cut her out of this – she is a member of CICPO. CICPO has written letters to the department, but I do not know if there has been a response yet. Either way, I keep coming back to the fact that we have an association of pharmacists negotiating a contract that goes between government and pharmacy. They might not have anything to do with the pharmacy; she does, but she has no say in these negotiations. I have a problem with that. I think that is a serious concern.

I could talk about the other effects again. It is not just seniors. There are other things that community pharmacies provide to their members that they would not get elsewhere. I actually had a call from a lady in St. John's in the metro area, very concerned about this. This woman said: Look, I have to tell you my story. She is in very poor health, has had a kidney removed, has had both breasts removed, and is still going through a tough time. I believe she may even still have cancer, so she is on, I think, twenty-eight different pills per day. She is also a diabetic, so she has to take a number of needles per day. In situations involving special authorizations when it comes to her medication, she has had times, actually not long ago, where she went to her pharmacy on a Friday and the special authorization – without her knowing her dosage had actually gone up a bit; it had changed, so that special authorization was no longer valid. This is Friday afternoon. Without that special authorization, she cannot get her medication.

A lot of these big boxes, the big chains, they will not do special authorizations anyway. They say: Look, go to your community pharmacy or go elsewhere. Even if they do, there is a difference here, because a lot of these chains do not have that one-on-one – I know you from around town, I know you, I trust you. The problem was, in this case, they could not get the doctor back to reauthorize or get a new special authorization to make sure her drugs were paid for. She could not afford these drugs. The pharmacist at this community pharmacy had a choice: Do I send her home all weekend without drugs and let her suffer with the pain, or do I bear it, do I take it; I know that I cannot see her go home stuck. I have to make sure she has her medication. I am going to hold that cost until next week, hope that it all goes through, and hope that I get paid. I think that is a relevant concern here.

Again, we go back to the rural areas. I have an independent pharmacy down in Burgeo. Now, they are already at the point where they really have to look at, very creatively, how they can run their business, the number of hours, the number of staff. If they end up with this business model – which, again, I do not think is completely tested; it goes back to my major point here, I have concerns over the reliability of the numbers – this pharmacy has to make a decision down the road: Am I going to still be able to stay open? Maybe I have to cut my hours, maybe I cannot stay open on Friday; so, if anybody has an issue on Friday, well, you can just hop in your car and drive over the Burgeo highway and go on into Stephenville and get your medication, or go into hospital, which again is not a savings, per se.

So, yes, they are going to be affected; the problem is I do not know the level of reinvestment into these community pharmacies. I think that is a valid concern here. I saw some numbers – and maybe if my numbers are not accurate, please correct me on it; I am bringing these up as serious points. I believe New Brunswick has a higher drug cost – they spend more on drugs than we do, probably due to the amount of population – but after imposing their program, their amount of savings is actually lower than what we are saying ours is going to be. I find that hard to understand. I am hoping that that is going to be put to me and shown how I am wrong, or how these numbers are not the case.

Either way, the Minister of Finance stood up and said: Look, we are going to lower the cost of generics. Nobody has a problem with lowering the cost of generics. The problem is, with these savings that we say are going to be there, how much are the savings actually going to be once we talk about the reinvestment in seniors and the reinvestment in community pharmacies? That is my problem. There is no defined amount here.

So, I have to look at the fact that, again, this has been implemented in Nova Scotia. From what I am hearing over there, they have some issues; pharmacies are closing. Pharmacies are closing; it is a reality. It is not a thing that is going to happen right away. It is the five-year slow death, is what they are calling it. This is going to take some time, but a lot of these doors could be barred up in five years.

So, that is why I keep coming back to: this is not a thing of making sure that people do not get access to cheap medication. This is not a case of trying to prevent people from getting cheap medication; this is a case of making sure that if this goes forward, that the things that government is saying that they will do, do happen – that they do happen. That is what I want to see.

Again, I refer to the Minister of Finance; he said the lowering of the cost of generics will more than cover the increase in dispensing fees. Now, I would note that dispensing fees are not regulated. I know that the government could come in and regulate it after, but that is not a plan as far as I know.

Then, the second question was: What if they are? What if they do go higher than the savings? That is the problem I have. Again, I am going to sit now because I think I have put my concerns – and when we go to Committee, I have actually reviewed the legislation, the legislation itself is kind of minimal, but I do have some comments to make to that.

Certainly I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to speak to this very important bill and to outline my concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, she will be closing debate in second reading on Bill 12.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand again at this hour to speak to this bill in second reading, for the last time in second reading, and to close debate on second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it might be a good idea if we were to simply review some of what we did in the last two days because we have debated this bill now in this House for two days. On this side of the House, and I assume from the other side of the House, we are prepared to stay here and continue debating for as long as it takes. This is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

In second reading itself, Mr. Speaker, we had, I think, more than fifteen people on our side of the House alone who wanted to speak to this bill because we understand the importance of this to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I will offer to the members opposite that they find this a significant bill too, as they have all spoken to this bill.

It talks to all of us and it shows to all of Newfoundland and Labrador how significant this bill is, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about health care. We are talking about the provision of low-cost drugs to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were prepared to give it all of the time that it needed, and we have done that, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to go into Committee tonight to continue this discussion on this bill, and to look at third reading in the next day or so as well because it is such a significant bill to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like to do for a few minutes is simply to go through section by section, as we close second reading, so that we have a clear understanding of what each of these sections of the bill is about. It is a little mundane in some senses to do this, but I want to make sure that there is some clarity around it. I will use some of the time that is allocated to me here this evening to go through the sections of the bill so that we can, in fact, understand, from the perspective of each of these amendments that we are looking at, because this, after all, is An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Section 1, Mr. Speaker, of this bill, the term personal information is not used in the act; therefore, there is no need to have a specific definition of it in the act. What we are doing in section 1 of the act is we are actually repealing paragraph 2.(l) of the act, which defines personal information. There just is not any need to have that there any more.

In section 2, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is look at the components of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. In 2007, they were renamed, and a new component of that program, the Assurance Plan, was added after the act had come into force. So, Mr. Speaker, what we will need to do now is repeal subsection 14(1) of the act and replace that with a new section, which includes the proper names of the five components of the NLPDP – because we do have five different plans under NLPDP. So, we are simply making sure that is entirely reflected in the act. So, we are looking at the Foundation Plan, the Access Plan, the Assurance Plan, the Select Needs Plan, and so on – and in this case, we are adding the Assurance Plan to the list.

Section 3.(1) of the bill amends subsection 18.(2) of the act by adding criteria developed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review to the factors that will be considered when a request for a special authorization for drug coverage is considered for an NLPDP beneficiary. Section 3.(2) of the bill repeals subsection 18.(4) of the act and substitutes a paragraph that clarifies to whom a person can appeal the denial of a special authorization request. Clarification is necessary, Mr. Speaker, of that part of the act simply to reflect departmental reorganization that has happened within my department, as the former medical consultant title that we refer to in that part of the act is not reflected in the current departmental structure. We no longer have a medical consultant there, so I we will add the correct terminology there, Mr. Speaker.

In section 4 of the bill, we are repealing section 23 of the act, and we will substitute a new section 23 which specifies the pricing requirements for generic drugs listed on the Province's interchangeable drug formulary. So, it enables the introduction of a new generic pricing model in the Province, and that is what we have been debating for most of the last two days, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of that new generic pricing model in the Province to assure, or ensure, that people of the Province pay reasonable prices for generic drugs and to help ensure the sustainability of our health care system, Mr. Speaker – perhaps one of the most significant things that we are doing here with this act.

Section 23.(1) then, the new section, will establish that there is a maximum price for any generic drug listed on the formulary and that the calculation of that price is set out as in section 23.(2).

In subsection 23.(2), the new subsection will state that the maximum price shall be calculated as a percentage of the price of the equivalent brand drug in accordance with the regulations.

Section 23.(3) requires generic drug manufacturers who price the drug at less than the maximum price to guarantee that price. That is a really important thing, to guarantee that price for the period of time determined by the minister – a very important subsection of section 4.

Subsection 23.(4) will require that the price a pharmacy or dispensing physician pays for a generic drug will be the same everywhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker. We want to ensure that the prices that we are looking at for generic drugs in this Province apply to everybody right throughout the Province. That section, section 23.(4), will ensure that.

Section 5 of the bill will add a new subsection to section 24 of the act, which is subsection 24.(3). That section will clarify that a person who requests a higher cost equivalent generic or the equivalent brand name drug on the formulary rather than the lowest-priced generic drug on the formulary, is responsible for paying the price difference between the requested generic drug and the less-expensive drug.

Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions when people, we have been told, have come into a pharmacy and they have said: Yes, I understand that the generic drug is cheaper, but I want the other drug; I want the brand drug. That is perfectly fine. We have no issue with that, but we want to make sure that people understand that there is a cheaper drug that is available to them. We will state that here in the act in subsection 24.(3) to make sure that there is clarity around that, so that the person knows that there is a cheaper drug. The person can make a decision as to whether he or she wants the brand or the generic drug, but it is just incumbent upon us to make sure that people understand that the option is there for them.

The addition of this subsection does not reflect any change in policy, Mr. Speaker. That policy has always been there. The policy will remain the same, but it had not been explicitly stated in the act up to this point in time. We wanted to ensure that we put this clearly in the act so that people were aware of it and clarity could be provided – again, not changing policy, simply ensuring that it is stated within the act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 6 of the bill repeals paragraph 40.(2)(a) of the act and replaces it with a new paragraph. The original paragraph provided a right to request an internal review of a decision to deny someone participation in only the low income – what we call now our Access Plan – or income support – which we call our Foundation Plan – components of the NLPDP. So, since the Pharmaceutical Services Act came into force in 2007, the names of the components of the NLPDP have changed, and the Assurance Program has been added. So, this new paragraph now is necessary to clarify that anyone denied participation in any component of the NLPDP can request an internal review of that decision.

So, Mr. Speaker what I have done is I have just gone through all of the sections here to ensure that all members are clear in terms of the specifics of what this particular Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act is looking at. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I still want to take a few minutes to again express to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the overall intent of this – the three main messages, if you will, of this – is that we want to be very concerned about the sustainability of our health care program here in Newfoundland and Labrador, our health care system. We have spoken to that on a number of occasions.

We have talked about the fact that at $2.965 billion, Mr. Speaker, we have some of the highest costs for health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to ensure that the system of health care that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador is the best that it can be, but is provided to the people of Newfoundland in the most efficient and the most cost-effective means possible. That is part of what we are doing here, Mr. Speaker; we want a health care system that will be there for our children, that will be there for our grandchildren.

So, when we see opportunity, as we do with this particular bill, to find savings to invest in health care, and to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are still receiving quality care, then we want to take action on that. That is precisely what this bill is about. It is about taking that kind of responsible action that ensures sustainability of the health care system and that ensures that the beneficiaries of the health care system are receiving quality generic drugs at the lowest cost possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is a responsible thing to do. It is what we elected to do. We were elected to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to be true stewards of the treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is precisely what this bill is about doing. We do not want to, at any point in time, look at pushing this out, waiting another six months, as the amendment that was proposed earlier today asked us to do. We do not want to do that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that what we do is that we serve their needs in the here and now, immediately. Therefore, you can see what happened with the amendment; we defeated that amendment this evening because we want to move forward and meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned as well, though, and always have been, about pharmacists and pharmacies in this Province. We have never said anything different. What we have said is that we understand what it means to lose some of the revenue from the performance allowances that have been paid by the drug manufactures to the pharmacies of Newfoundland and Labrador. We understand that is a significant loss. However, with the savings that we are looking at, we have committed to reinvesting a portion of that into the pharmacies here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will look at a number of different ways of doing that, Mr. Speaker.

One of those ways has to do with identifying and paying attention to the great work that pharmacists do, particularly in terms of the cognitive services that they provide to us.

I have heard people talk, and I hear the member opposite from Burgeo – La Poile just a little while ago talk about a great service that a pharmacist that he knew had provided to a particular client, a particular patient. That is a wonderful service to offer, Mr. Speaker, and we applaud the pharmacists of Newfoundland and Labrador who give so freely of their time to do those kinds of services. We also want to, in our proposal with this bill, award them in the sense of paying and reinvesting in those pharmacists and pharmacies for those cognitive services that they provide in terms of medication management particularly – and even the example that he gave of having to say, look, there is not any way that you can get to a doctor this evening; let's see what we can do about helping you out.

Those are things that we identified, that we understand, that we acknowledge as well. We will find a way to reinvest and put some money back into the pockets of pharmacists for those kinds of services. We are committed to investing in that, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are ongoing now.

I stood in the House this afternoon – at least I think it was this afternoon or yesterday afternoon – and I said at that point in time that our negotiating team was actually seated in the room with PANL and those were some of the discussions that were happening. They are important discussions to us, Mr. Speaker. We want to see that moved forward. Dr. Wade Locke referenced that. We heard what he said, we understood what he said around that, and we have said: Yes, that makes sense to us; that is an area where we need to reinvest. That is an area in which we want to make a difference, and so we will, Mr. Speaker. It is a commitment that we have made.

Reinvesting in rural and remote pharmacies is also important to us, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to see pharmacies close; that is not our intent here. Remember how we started this. We started this debate by talking about the fact that what was important to us was the sustainability of our health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador. What was important to us was ensuring our residents were receiving the lowest costs for generic drugs and seeing that our pharmacies were protected as well, Mr. Speaker, and so we have committed to doing that. That is part of the negotiation that is ongoing now. I commend those who are at the table and are actively taking part in those negotiations.

I would, as others have here today, suggest to CICPO that their concerns really are best brought to that table as well. There is still a vacant chair there, Mr. Speaker. I find that really unfortunate that there is a vacant chair there that they could take, that they could sit in, and they could offer their points of view to the negotiations that are ongoing. They have chosen not to do that. There is not very much we can do except continue to offer that opportunity to them. There is a place for them; in no way are we denying them the opportunity to come and express their opinion, express their concerns, show us the innovation that they want to lead with as well.

Mr. Speaker, the chair is there. Nobody has taken that chair from the table. It still sits empty at the table – unfortunate – a decision they have made, not a decision that we have been particularly happy about. We would like to see them at the table. We have never once said: We do not want to see you at the table; we do not want to have this discussion with you. We have said, though, there is a place where we can do this. This is the table. Come sit with us. Come talk to us. Come tell us what your concerns are and we will address those concerns. Mr. Speaker, they have made a different decision, and that is all we can do, unfortunate as it is.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, those are the pieces of this bill that we have wanted to outline for you here in the House. I have taken it through section by section. We have talked about the general aspects of the bill and what it is that we hope to accomplish. We hope that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will understand this debate; that is why we have agreed to sit here and keep the debate going. Mr. Speaker, if it takes sitting here all night so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have opportunity to understand that bill, then so be it – not a problem for us at all.

We are here to do the bidding of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and that we will. I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have clearly heard that when they have spoken to us – the people on this side of the House – they have said: Do what you can to reduce the cost of our drugs in this Province. Do what other provinces have done, and let's bring down the cost of generic drugs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking in some cases about the most vulnerable people in our society; people who we come in here everyday to serve, Mr. Speaker, into this wonderful House. We have to, therefore, take very seriously the information that we have brought together that shows that we can find a way to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are not ignoring the concerns of other groups. There have been groups that have been sitting in this House who think that we have been ignoring their concerns. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We are not ignoring their concerns. We are saying we want to reinvest. We are saying that we hear what you are talking about in terms of cognitive services. We are saying that we understand your concerns about the performance allowances that have been lost. We are saying that we want to reinvest in rural pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. We are also saying that you have opportunity to come and talk to us. So if there is anything more that you need to say, come and take that chair and let's have that conversation. In the meantime, we still have to make that commitment to the sustainability of the health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We will never shy away from that. We spend $4,752 on every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Speaker, more than anywhere else in this country. That is the money we invest in our health care system.

Now, we are proud of that system but we also know that we have to find ways to do it better. We have to find that way to make it sustainable, Mr. Speaker. I have children. I have three children. I want to see them to continue to live in this Province and have access to good, quality health care, Mr. Speaker, and quality health care that can be afforded. It would be incumbent on me to do and irresponsible of me not to do what works best here, and what works best here is to support this bill that is entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to think about where we are going. We have to take off the blinders. We have to see the big picture. We have to understand where we are going. We have to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as best we can, Mr. Speaker. This bill is an example of how we can do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. (Bill 12)

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt second reading of Bill 12?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Kennedy, Ms Burke –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Granter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Osborne, Ms Perry, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Mitchelmore and Ms Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes thirty-seven, the nays five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I declare the motion carried.

Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Mr. Kent): Order, please!

I welcome all hon. members to Committee of the Whole, late night edition.

We are now considering Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act". (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

MR. A. PARSONS: I have a question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: As in clause 1 paragraph 2, I would ask the minister, personal information is being removed from the act. Is it just for the purposes of - it was not referenced in the act, so it is just a housekeeping measure? I would just like to confirm.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the term personal information is not used in the act at all; therefore, there is no need to have it specified within the act. It merely is a housekeeping item.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

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

I would ask a question as to clause3.(2)(4) to the minister, which states: "If, after consideration in an internal review the request for special authorization is again denied…" Will there be any timeline attached to this or will this be part of the regulations, and if so, is there a timeline?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in the area of special authorization for drug coverage, there is no timeline. If somebody is looking for special authorization then there is a process that can be followed and there is no timeline for them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the concerns that we have with regard to the special authorization of drugs is a lot of the paper work that gets done affiliated with those authorizations have been done by pharmacies and pharmacists, I should say, in the Province. We understand those services that are currently being provided by a lot of those independents could be marginalized as a result of this bill.

I am wondering if the minister has some other solution or some other format that she is bringing forward so that people who require special authorization has somewhere to go other than trying to rebook with their doctors to get the forms done, so that we do not see continuous delays in that process?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the special authorization process, if I could just give you some of the detail on that. On average, the department receives about 2,200 requests for special authorizations monthly. Our target response time is about seven to ten business days, Mr. Chair; however, for urgent requests, our turnaround time on those particular special authorization requests is twenty-four hours.

Mr. Chair, I recall having heard, I believe, the member opposite talk about this through debate as well, and talk about the amount of paperwork that was involved. I would just like to point out that whenever possible, the department has automated the special authorization request at the pharmacy level. What we are doing here is we are saying, if it is possible at all within pharmacies to automate that process, to speed up that process, then that is done as well, so we remove the necessity for having a written application, and the paperwork done.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The information that we have received through the Official Opposition Office under the ATIPP request, the Access to Information, tells us that the Department of Health and Community Services from May 2007 to March 2008, an eleven-month period, had 31,908 special authorization forms received. It is our understanding that 72 per cent of them were approved and 35 per cent of them were denied. It is our understanding that the average number of applicants received each month was around 2,901 and the average number approved was a little over 2,000, with about 810 being denied. That was from May 2007 to March 2008. The numbers from June 2009 to November 2011, that thirty-month period, are telling us that there were 52,998 special authorization forms that were received, almost 53,000; 79.1 per cent of them were approved and 20 per cent were denied.

The reason I am raising this is, again, we know that when you have those many out there in an eleven-month period, 32,000 special authorization forms, we know a lot of that work is being carried out by pharmacists in the Province. We are very concerned about what could happen here. We are not talking one or two forms; we are talking thousands of them, affecting thousands of people who are taking thousands of different kinds of medication.

We also know that thirty-five per cent of them on average are being denied; they are being sent back to the patients, then the patients still have to go somewhere else to try to appeal that process as per the clause that you are introducing, but they need help with it. So, again, I am asking the minister, because it is not clear to us, what that process is going to be in the absence of independent pharmacists providing for it as they do today.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, as I said in the earlier answer there, we do receive a goodly number of special authorization requests each month. We are looking at different years here, and I understand what she is doing in the sense of giving me the different numbers, and so on.

Mr. Chair, we are still very concerned about turning those around as quickly as we possibly can. We are not trying to avoid that in any sense whatsoever. We are committed to doing that. Seven to ten business days, regular routine special authorizations, urgent ones will still be addressed as quickly as we can. Our time frame has been, and will continue to be, twenty-four-hour turnaround.

We do have people in the department who look at that, and that is their job, Mr. Chair. They spend their time looking through these special authorizations and getting back to our patients and our clients as quickly as we possibly can. We are still committed to that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister likes to talk about what all the other provinces are doing with regard to generic drugs, and prescription drugs, and brand drugs, and so on, but many of the other provinces have already moved to an online adjudication system as well. So, what I am asking is when you are dealing with special authorizations, is this something that the government is looking at? Is this part of one of the things that your department is looking at investing in, or not – if you can give us some idea of where you are on the adjudication systems that are in place in other provinces already.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we are always concerned about doing the most efficient work that we can with regard to serving the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In terms of the automated system, Mr. Chair, we are doing more and more all the time, and we are committed to continuing to do that. That is a piece of work that is important to us. We understand the importance of being able to turn around special authorizations as quickly as we can, so yes, are committed to trying to do that as efficiently as we possibly can, moving to more and more automation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now, do not get me wrong; I have to quote my colleague from the Bay of Islands, when you are talking about automation. When he was up speaking on the bill in second reading, he alluded to the fact that we do not want a system like they have in Toronto, where patients have to go to a kiosk machine to find out what the interactions of medications are going to be that they have to take. We like the personal touch of pharmacy and pharmacists in our Province. We like to be able to go, look them in the face, and talk to them over the counter, have them explain to us how our health can be improved, how we can avoid chronic illnesses in the future and so on, and what drugs work best.

We are also very concerned about special authorization. This is something that has been written about in AG reports in this Province. It is an issue that came up in this House many times with regard to delays and special authorizations. We are very much afraid that removing revenues from pharmacies – independent community pharmacies in different areas of this Province that are currently providing this outreach service to patients – is going to compromise the patients' ability to access those drugs in a timely manner.

I am not feeling a level of comfort from the government in how this is going to be addressed. You say you are looking at some kind of an adjudication system online, which could potentially speed up the process for people who can use technology, have the ability to use the technology and access to it. It will not work for everyone. How far along are you at really looking at a system like this? How much will it cost us in terms of investments? In the absence of that, what are the other options that you are looking at or proposing?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, what we are referring to here is the system that is already in place in many pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are looking at an automated system where within the pharmacy this transaction takes place, Mr. Chair. We want to see that is extended to more and more pharmacies. That is our commitment around that piece. We are trying to avoid having to do all of the paperwork and do a paper trail kind of system. We want to ensure that the automated system within the pharmacy is the system that is happening and that will be in place.

Mr. Chair, I hear the member opposite, and I understand her concern about insuring the relationship between the client and the pharmacist is maintained. That is very important to us as well. We all understand that. That is why we continue to talk about investing in the cognitive services that these pharmacists provide. We will continue to do that. Certainly, in terms of medication management, it is exceptionally important. I think everybody on this side of the House would be able to attest to opportunities and occasions when they have been in front of their pharmacist asking questions, getting that kind of help, getting that kind of encouragement for whatever their particular problem was. We want to continue to see that happening, Mr. Chair, and we are not relenting on that piece.

Cognitive services and the very valued work that our pharmacists do for us are important. We have committed to investing in those cognitive services and we will honour that commitment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In second reading, the minister talked about investing in some of the pharmacy services. Can the minister clarify for me today that government will be investing in the online adjudication system in pharmacies across the Province to ensure that service is available, and that it would be done as part of the investments that you are going to make in pharmacy in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, that is a process that we started quite some time ago. As you know – and I have indicated this in the House several times as well over the last couple of days – we are continuing to negotiate with PANL around how these reinvestments are going to happen. It would be premature of me to say at this point in time where things are in terms of the actual negotiations that are happening with PANL, but rest assured, what we are trying to do is ensure that we have the most efficient, the most effective, and the lowest-cost option – it sounds like a statement we have heard somewhere else – in terms of the delivery of the generic drug program for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

My question to the minister is: The previous section, the section that is being repealed, was titled Requirements of manufacturers. It had three clauses in it and basically required the manufacturer to do certain things. However, in the new section, it is titled Pricing requirements. Are there any requirements still on manufacturers in this case as it was previously in the act?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, manufacturers will be required to live within the regulations that we set out here within section 4 of the act. When we are talking about setting up regulations within this section, what we are talking about is maximum prices for the generic drugs; so, yes, those requirements will be clearly stated within those regulations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

My question to the minister – I am looking through the previous act and there is no reference to the term "manufacturer" in the definition. "Manufacturer" is referred to in the old act; however, there is no reference to "manufacturer" in the new act. Will there be some section added or something put in the regulations to ensure that manufacturers actually are obliged to follow this or mandated to?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, as with any act, the regulations will provide the detail and that is what will happen here. The regulation will show the detail that you are looking for, and I know you are going to ask me when you can see those regulations. Those regulations will be available as soon as we are able to complete the negotiations and put that out there for you. At this time, we are not in a position to be able to do that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just going back, I guess I have some concerns over the omission of the term manufacturer not included. Will there be any changes to this to even include it in the definition sections to include the term manufacturer? Just to make sure that there is no loophole that can be jumped through here. Again, trying to make sure that the law as defined or as intended to will be followed.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not sure that I understand exactly, so we may have a little to and froing on this one. When I look at this section 23.(3), it states clearly: the new subsection requires generic drug manufacturers who price the drug at less than, and so on. So we are making reference to what the requirements will be for the manufacturers, even in this part of the setting out of the bill, Mr. Chair. The regulations will provide more detail around it, but we are certainly not leaving manufacturers out of this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: No, my confusion – again, this is in the intent of making sure that there is good legislation here. In the new section 23, there is no reference to manufacturer. It just says the price for generic drugs. Maybe I am missing it here, it is late. Is there a reference to the term manufacturer in the new section? I do not believe there is; however, in the old law it does reference the term manufacturer. I am just trying to make sure – we are talking generic drugs but we need to make sure that the people who invent, make, and supply new drugs is included and must comply with the legislation.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Understood; the regulations will ensure that there are no loopholes. We are not about providing loopholes for anyone to be able to move around this and accomplish that for which they purpose. What we are looking at here is, again, ensuring that everything that we do in the writing of these regulations will benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So if the word manufacturer needs to be in those regulations, the word manufacturer will be in the regulation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just to confirm, when the regulations are forthcoming they will include the term manufacturer, just to cover this off.

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

MS SULLIVAN: That is correct, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: The new proposed section 23.(2) references the manner prescribed in the regulations, so I am going to ask the question the minister anticipated: When are we going to see the regulations that are supposed to be forthcoming?

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

MS SULLIVAN: It must be getting late, Mr. Chair, when we are anticipating each other's questions and answers here in the House.

As soon as the regulations are ready for you to see, we will have them ready for you and you will get a chance to look at them, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: For the sake of easing my troubled mind, is there any anticipated timeline in terms of actual days, weeks, months, or years in terms of the regulations, to narrow it down?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, if I could quote one of my very eloquent colleagues on this side of the House: stay tuned.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

My final question on the section 23.(4) references that the price offered for the drugs to all pharmacies and dispensing physicians – this is meant to include hospitals as well, I would presume? Just to make sure.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that this does not include hospitals, but I would want to double check that for you and ensure – and I can table that at another point in time – that we can get that information for you. I do not think this includes hospitals.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: If that is the case, I would ask: Do hospitals pay a different rate than pharmacies and dispensing pharmacists?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, they will pay the rate that is dictated. That is not the issue here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Just one question under this section 23.(3): "Where a submission includes a price for a generic drug which is less than the maximum price of that drug calculated in accordance with this section, the price for that drug shall be guaranteed for the period of time determined by the minister".

Is that a period of time that is part of negotiations that are going on? Or, if not, could you tell me the factors that would come into play in helping the minister to determine the period of time?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, what we are referring to there is the period of time when the actual negotiated agreement is in place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: I am still not clear what the minister meant, Mr. Chair. The price for that drug shall be guaranteed for the period of time determined by the minister. I am assuming that it is either like a year, two years, six months. What are the factors that help determine that?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Through the negotiations, Mr. Chair. Through the negotiated time frame of that – we are all getting tired - the time frame that is negotiated at the negotiation table for this contract.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few questions under this particular section. First of all, I want the minister to confirm for me that the regulations which we are not seeing today will be the actual piece that outlines what the subsidy is going to be to seniors in the 65Plus program, and also what the investments are going to be or look like in terms of programs or services to pharmacies in this Province. We do not have that today. It is not part of this bill, although we are voting on the bill. Will she confirm that the regulations are what will indeed outline those particular factors?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The regulations will outline for you the kinds of reinvestments that we are going to put back into this system. We will outline for you, for example, in terms of cognitive services, the kinds of cognitive services for which we are going to invest. We will outline for you how it is that we are going to cover off the 65Plus Plan to insure that our seniors are protected through this plan and so on. So the regulations will be much more specific.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can the minister tell me how much money is being targeted right now for reinvestment into the seniors program and into the pharmacy program on an annual basis?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With any set of negotiations, I think the last thing that we would do is we would stand here in the House and say exactly how much money we are prepared to go in and negotiate. So, no, we are not prepared to do that here this evening.

We have said on a number of occasions that we are prepared to make significant reinvestment back into pharmacies, and to pharmacists as well for the cognitive services and also to ensure that our seniors under the NLPDP are protected.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We all know that one of the fees that seniors pay is the dispensing fee, and we know that the dispensing fee often varies depending upon the drug that they are taking. We have realized that from the many seniors that we have gotten e-mails from in the last few days in the Province, who are under that particular program, who have told me the names of drugs that they are taking – which I have never heard of before, of course – and what they pay as a dispensing fee for each different drug. That varies based on – I do not know if it is based on the drug or not; they are getting all of these medications at the same pharmacy, but they are not paying a set rate for every single medication. The rate varies.

Can the minister tell me, or confirm for me, that part of the fees that these seniors currently pay is called a dispensing fee, and that dispensing fee is currently set by pharmacies in the Province and not set by the government; if that is being the case, how do you plan to control that fee? Or if not, do you plan on subsidizing that fee over and above any charges that could be there that are not there today?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think some of the cloudiness around the issue is that we need to understand the three components of the drug program and, particularly, in the sense of the 65Plus program. There is a drug cost for the actual drug. There is a cost for the dispensing fee. And then there is, under the 65Plus Plan, the opportunity for a ten per cent up-charge, or surcharge, it is called.

Some pharmacies charge the ten per cent surcharge to our seniors; some do not. That is probably where the confusion is coming from in terms of how much they are paying for different prescriptions. So, on a drug over thirty dollars, the opportunity exists to charge that extra ten per cent. That accounts for differences that you are seeing from different people.

Some of our pharmacies, as well, for our 65Plus clients, charge a different – usually a lower – dispensing fee. We know that if we go to Costco, for example – not that I want to name places here – there may be one particular charge as opposed to going to another; there is a maximum in terms of the dispensing fee. Some charge lower than that, and there is also that opportunity to do the ten per cent surcharge within the 65Plus Plan. As I said, some of our pharmacies and pharmacists have decided to charge that ten per cent, and that is well within their purview to do. Others have made the decision that they will not charge it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I do not think I need to say this to the minister – I am sure she realizes it – but I will say it because it is important for the record: I do not think we can even make a comparison between the chain pharmacies and the independent community pharmacies in this Province. When you look at places like Shoppers Drug Mart, for example, they have their own generic lines of drugs. They are manufacturers. They are not just pharmacies. They are manufacturing their own drugs. They are putting their own medications on the shelf. They are making a lot of money as it is just off that piece of it. In addition to that, they have all of these other commodities that they sell through their outlets that bring in an extremely enormous amount of profit to them.

When we are dealing with community pharmacies, these people do not have the wholesale ability that Shoppers Drug Mart does, or the big chains like Costco and Walmart pharmacies, so they cannot bring in large shipments and orders on wholesale levels to keep their costs down. They are buying high to start with and they do not have the resale value in terms of commodity that a lot of these big chains do. In order for them to keep their doors open, pay their bills, keep their staff going and provide the services they do in communities all over this Province – of which we named dozens tonight, in debate, in second reading; almost every one of us have a district here that is affected by this – because of that, this bill will marginalize their revenue. As a result of it, I guess, our concern is they have only one avenue to recoup any of that money, and that is through dispensing fees.

We also know that people, Mr. Chair, who are low income or are on government programs, most of their dispensing fees are covered, or a portion of it, up to $7 or $8, whatever it is now; I know it is changing, whatever that fee is. There are seniors that do not have that ability, so we need to know that as these fees go up – because we know they will go up, they went up in every other province – how are you going to offset that to those seniors? You are not negotiating with them, so you must know now how you are going to make that happen so that they do not have to pay more money. That is where our concern is. That is why we could not stand tonight. Maybe all of your members know this, but that is the reason we could not stand up tonight and support the bill. It is because we do not know.

I would like to take your word, but you are the same government that expropriated a pulp and paper mill and did not know you expropriated it, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I have to have a little bit more to go on than the assurance that it is going to be done. I would like to know how it looks, what it is going to look like, and to ensure that once dispensing fees go up that it is not going to hit the pocketbook of seniors in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we are debating clause 4.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of different mechanisms that we can use to ensure that we get our negotiations to a point where our seniors are looked after.

Mr. Chair, again, this is a piece of work that is exceptionally difficult. I cannot stand here in this House tonight and tell you exactly what we are doing through the negotiation process. That defies logic, Mr. Chair. When we sit down to negotiate, we present our case, they present theirs, but we know that our ultimate goal is to protect the seniors on our 65Plus Plan. We are going to do that. We are not going to sign for anything less. We have committed to doing that. We have mechanisms by which we can reach that. Negotiations, I would hasten to point out, are going very well. We negotiated the MOU and signed off on that just recently, Mr. Chair. We have a very good relationship with PANL and negotiations are going very well.

I understand your frustration of not knowing exactly how it is that we are going to do that; I do. I understand that, but, Mr. Chair, I can guarantee you that through this negotiation process, our primary concern is to see to it that the 65Plus Plan is protected. As we committed to throughout the election campaign, as we committed to in the Blue Book, our seniors are not going to pay more.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister says that they are negotiating right now with pharmacists in the Province, the Pharmacists' Association. I guess one of the things that has come to our attention is the fact that many pharmacies out there are not owned by pharmacists. They are owned by ordinary business people who own all kinds of businesses in the Province. Therefore, they feel that as owners of pharmacies, they are the people that people should be negotiating with. I tend to agree with them. I support that.

I understand that there is a professional association of pharmacists in this Province. I have no problem with that, because as professionals, I am sure they have issues as well that they deal with regard to their profession and therefore, they have a professional association which brings those issues and problems to government. However, pharmacies in this Province do not have, as a pharmacy association, a professional organizational body which actually represents and negotiates for them. That is the reason we have continuously raised this issue, is we feel that government should be negotiating with the pharmacy owners because they are the people who are going to be impacted. They are the people, Mr. Chair, who will make the decision at the end of the day, as to what the services in the communities they operate in will look like on a go-forward basis.

I find it very difficult, Mr. Chair, when I have pharmacy owners saying to me that I cannot go and negotiate with the government or with the minister but I have to send my staff to do it. We also know that the pharmacy association is made up of a lot of pharmacists –

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I am asking questions. I am trying to get to my point. I am sorry. The Government House Leader and the Premier are very upset now because I am trying to –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that we are presently debating clause 4 of the bill, and I ask hon. members to confine their discussions and their comments to that particular clause.

I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, my question, of course, for the minister is: Can you provide an explanation as to why you are not going to negotiate with the pharmacy owners in the Province as opposed to the pharmacy association?

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can only assume that the minister is not –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I apologize to the hon. member. There has to be an intervening speaker while we are in Committee of the Whole.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

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

My question for the minister, if I could just refer to my notes very quickly; my question actually is relevant to this, minister. In the negotiations that have been ongoing, have there been any actual consultations or conversations, negotiations with generic drug companies so far?

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

MS SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is unfortunate that the minister did not want to answer my question with regard to negotiations with the pharmacy owners in the Province. I guess that brings me to my next question because it is also my understanding - and she would certainly know this better than I do - that pharmacies in the Province are not mandated to have to accept drug cards or other government issued drug cards. If for some reason they did not accept those cards, I do not know how that works. I do not know if she could explain that to us when she stands up.

The other issue, Mr. Chair - I guess I will keep going for my ten minutes because I do not know if she is going to stand up and answer that question or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: All right. The other question is one that I raised in second reading as well. It falls under this section, and that is the savings that are going to be seen by the private insurance companies in the Province. Mr. Chair, the private insurance companies, as we know it - like we are a member of Desjardin, we know that as a result of the new generic formula that the government is bringing in there will be some savings for the insurance companies. I do not know if there is any guarantee that those savings will be passed on in premiums to people who have insurance programs in the Province. That was one of the questions I posed in second reading and I just pose it again now in Committee to see if the minister is prepared to answer that, Mr. Chair.

I would say those would probably be the three questions that we still do not have an answer for. I do not know if the minister wanted to provide an answer for those three particular questions or not.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in terms of talking about profitability for insurance companies, I think it is a bit of a misnomer. Of course, I have answered this two or three times during the course of the last couple of days when it has been brought forward. I just want to pay some attention to it again for the last time.

When we are talking about insurance companies here, insurance companies are the conduits. What they would do for an administration fee is that they will collect the premiums from the employer and they collect the premiums from the employees. When a claim is put through, then they pay the claim. Mr. Chair, if there is anybody who has opportunity to save any money from this it would be the employers at this point in time. We have heard from many of our small and medium-sized businesses - those employers - that they are oftentimes struggling to meet the needs of their particular drug benefit plans, Mr. Chair. If there is a benefit anywhere, it would be to them.

The other option that exists, Mr. Chair, and what we anticipate will probably happen, is that the premiums will be reduced because employers and employees contribute. We anticipate that those premiums will be reduced, but to say that the insurance companies themselves are going to be the cash cows in here, that they are going to be the ones who are profiting from this, that is not where we are on this.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Clause 4 carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I have some questions as to the internal review process that is listed in section 40.(2), and I believe this to be a positive change. I believe I am correct when I say that the participation is increasing low income to all aspects of the new four aspects. Has the cost of the internal review, which now has to cover four sections, been calculated into the savings that were referenced earlier?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chair.

We have done a complete forecast on costing for this particular program.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I would ask the minister – again, this internal review now is being expanded from covering off one section of the drug plan to four sections, which would obviously increase the number of internal reviews that will likely happen.

I would ask: Will there be any timelines referenced in the regulations to cover off this internal review?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, there will not be any need to do anything there in terms of the timelines. We have been working with these same programs now for quite some time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

My question for the minister is: Can you confirm for us that the internal review times will not be increased or delayed given the fact that we are increasing from covering one section of the plan to four new sections, which would be an increased workload?

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, this has always been in place. This is not new; it has always been in place. We have internal staff that can look after this for us, Mr. Chair. It is not expanded. Timelines are in the act already, so it is the same.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 12.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 12.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 12 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask – no, the wrong section; the motion has been reporting progress – to report progress in the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bill 12 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted; bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I do move that this House now adjourn.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, Private Members' Day, at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.