CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION - VOTE GREEN???

ARE THESE TWO NEW ELECTED LIBERAL MLA'S LOST IN THE CAPITAL???

CHARLES TO THE RESCUE!!!!! FOR THE POOR FAMILIES OF COURSE!!!

This nice girl has been trying to fill up this bottle for the food bank. She has been at it for close to two months now! She's a little down because the bottle isn't full.

Well? Charles with one of his ADHD minds came up with an idea. On Thursday, I'm going to put that bottle at the corner of Regent and King Street and stay there till the bottle is full. Cold winds, rain or snow? I'll make sure the bottle is full!!!

Hey? I may as well make my day useful except driving those MLA'S and bureaucrats crazy! I wonder if someone will call the Cops on me? ...lol....Should be an very interesting day! It could turn out to be a good blog?

Hey? It's Noel right??? Got some pennies? Drop them over!

NEW TRUCK ON THE WAY IN PLACE OF BERNARD LORD SPOT????

QUESTION PERIOD AT THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE! < WEDNESDAY >

ORAL QUESTIONS 4 QUESTIONS ORALES
December 14, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 14 décembre 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\06 2005-12-

Health Care Services

Mr. S. Graham: My question this morning is for the Premier. Members of the public have known about changes to integrate public health and mental health for three years, and this government has
waited until the 11th hour to manage the transition. Now, services have been transferred to the regional health authorities as of November 28.

Recently, it was reported in the Moncton Times & Transcript that Fonda Kazi, Vice-President of Community Health with the South-East Regional Health Authority, has raised some concerns,
stating that not only is the transition truly challenging, but offering services via the RHAs will prove equally tough, as they will have to do so with no additional funding or staffing.
The Liberal team has been emphasizing the need for a better process of interregional cooperation as one of our health care system priorities for the future.

In fact, it is evident in the investigation that the Minister of Health is undertaking right now that there are discrepancies in the system. This was highlighted by the recent problem in the Tracadie area, with the Thomas incident as an example.

My question to you this morning, Mr. Premier, is this: What is your government doing to coordinate and emphasize interregional cooperation among the regional health authorities, to prepare for public health and mental health services?

Hon. Mr. Lord: I welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I must say from the outset that he is wrong in the premise of his question. It is really a trend that we see every day.

The government did not wait until the 11th hour. In fact, we have made it very clear from the time we set up the RHAs that they were a very different model from what was there before, and a better
model.

Since 1999, we have worked to implement a health system in New Brunswick—one health system for the province that would be community-based and focused on the patient. That is what
we have, and it is different from the eight very independent corporations that were set up by the previous Liberal government.

Because of the structure we have put in place, we have been able to give a community focus to our health care system, to deal with the needs of patients and their families far better than we could with
what was there before.

Mr. S. Graham: Maybe the Premier cannot answer the question because he does not understand the complexity of it. My question for the Premier today is very simple: Your government has recently received correspondence from the Nurses Association of New Brunswick. That
correspondence states that provincial Ministers of Health have agreed to make public health a top priority by improving public health infrastructure and by increasing provincial capacity. The
ministers also agreed that health human resources must be assured in order to strengthen capacity to respond to regional and national public health emergencies.

The association also said, in a letter to your government, that our public health system must be prepared to respond to emergencies in
a predictable and coordinated fashion where accountability and authority are clearly delineated.

Influenza

This is the document that the Manitoba government has on its Web site with regard to dealing with pandemic influenza. It is a comprehensive 24-page document dealing with interregional cooperation.

This is the document that our government has on its Web site today—a one-page document.

In fact, in its speech from the throne last week, the Manitoba government clearly indicated that legislative changes were going to be coming forward to strengthen preparations for a pandemic influenza outbreak.

Why are we not doing the same in New Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Lord: I hope that, when I grow up, I can be as smart as the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to work very hard.

Hopefully, someday, I will be able to grasp the issues that he can grasp.

Hopefully, someday, I will be able to understand the things that he understands.

I will work very hard to be as smart, as bright, and as intelligent as the Leader of the Opposition.

Come on, give me a break. The arrogance coming from the Leader of the Opposition, trying to lecture us on how smart and how complexly he understands things, may come from his staff that he hired from Ontario, but it is not fooling anybody.

The fact is that when the Liberals left office in 1999, a lot of things were in disarray in this province. We put in place a health plan to deal with them.

Mr. S. Graham: I know that the Premier is worried that his throne speech did not mention the important issues of public health and, at the same time, did not deal with the challenges pertaining
to a pandemic influenza outbreak here in New Brunswick.

Other provincial jurisdictions are preparing for such an outbreak, because it is not a question of if, but when. Whether it is an avian
flu outbreak or some other influenza outbreak, New Brunswick must be prepared.

Today I am telling the Premier of New Brunswick that in a province such as Manitoba, they have coordinated a regional approach, coupled with businesses and community groups, to be prepared
for such an eventuality.

Here in our province, correspondence that your government has received clearly states that we are not doing enough.

My question to the Premier is this.

Coupled with the national medical association, which is saying
that provinces must be prepared, because it is a provincial responsibility, what legislation is your government bringing forward, similar to what they are doing in Manitoba, to make sure that we are best prepared for such an outbreak here in New Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Lord: The Leader of the Opposition says that is not mentioned in the throne speech. I heard that from a few members yesterday. I would invite them to read the speech from the throne
again. It makes reference . . .

(Interjection.)

Hon. Mr. Lord: Well, go to bed earlier at night. Maybe that will help you.

The speech from the throne makes references to the provincial health plan. It makes references to the Quality Learning Agenda. It makes references to the Prosperity Plan, and there are a lot of
details in those government plans in terms of what the government is doing. Not everything needs to be written in the speech from the throne. In the provincial health plan, public health is front and
centre. The Department of Health and Wellness has been working with the officials in public health on strategies to protect the public from such outbreaks.

Mr. S. Graham: The Manitoba government has outlined it as a priority in its throne speech. It has also announced that it is bringing forward legislation to strengthen the plan to deal with a pandemic influenza outbreak in that province.

In New Brunswick today, we have a one-page document on the
government’s Web site versus a 24-page comprehensive document on the Manitoba government’s Web site.

My question to the Premier is this.

You have downloaded these responsibilities onto the regional
health authorities. Let’s take, for instance, the Moncton area, where we have two regional health authorities that will be coordinating a response to an outbreak in that region. What processes and protocols are put in place to make sure that there is no duplication of services, while at the same time making sure that the best level of attack on an outbreak is coordinated in that region of the province? Who is responsible?

Hon. E. Robichaud: As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is a very complex issue. I surely hope that the Leader of the Opposition was sincere when he said he understood the issue. When you
talk about a pandemic in New Brunswick or anywhere else, you would be talking about a strategy that would affect the whole country. We have a plan in New Brunswick, and our chief medical officer for public health is sitting on the national committee that is developing a strategy for the whole country.

I can assure you that if a pandemic were happening anywhere in New Brunswick, it would be dealt with not only by the region, but also by the chief public health officer of New Brunswick, and probably, there would be a Canadian team to help us out.

Mr. S. Graham: It is actually refreshing to get a straightforward response from the Minister of Health this morning, as opposed to the political answers from the Premier.

That is the point we are making today, Mr. Minister.

In Manitoba, they have produced a comprehensive, coordinated document to show the protocols and the level of authority of who is responsible for what. At the same time, they have also put legislation in place to deal with a pandemic outbreak to strengthen the protocol system, to make sure the system is there to protect the public.

What changes are going to be required here in New Brunswick? Health care is a provincial, as well as a federal, responsibility.

Hon. E. Robichaud: If there was a need to change any legislation in New Brunswick, we would definitely be doing that. As I have said, the chief public health officer for New Brunswick, Dr.
MacDonald, is sitting on a national task force. There are things that we already have in New Brunswick.

For instance, as Minister of Health, I could quarantine people. We already have an Act that permits this, whereas jurisdictions, Nova Scotia, for instance, were enacting the same thing last year.

It is already in place in New Brunswick. New Brunswickers can be assured that if there was to be a pandemic, New Brunswick would be as ready as any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Yes, we have a plan, and we would be dealing very efficiently, as we usually do, when we have any urgent situations with which to deal.

Mr. S. Graham: I am asking the minister today whether there is a plan that exists and whether he is willing to make it public, as the Manitoba government has done.

My second question to the minister is: What processes need to be brought forward to bring forward legislation to incorporate nonprofit community groups, as well as businesses, in the plan, as the province of Manitoba has done.

The SARS outbreak, such as the one we saw in Ontario, was a provincial responsibility. It comes down to having faith in the system. We recently saw a patient who was bounced from one regional
health authority to another. This government is now investigating that as an isolated case. We want to make sure that this does not repeat itself on a provincial scale. That is why we are asking the
government to make its plans public. It was not included in the throne speech. You stated that you have a plan. Will you table that plan today?

Hon. E. Robichaud: Evidently, I do not have the plan in my pocket. It is in the department. There is a plan. I would not have any problem sharing it with the public. The Leader of the Opposition has
to understand that this plan, and any plan in Canada, is being updated, lets say, on a weekly basis.

If, for instance, there are any changes, or any strategic directions being taken at the national level . . .
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition also understands that we now have a public health institute in Canada, which was not the case before 2004. Our Premiers and our Prime Minister sat
together and made sure, after the SARS situation in Ontario, that we are better prepared to face those instances.

There is no problem. We have a plan, and I would be happy to make it public. If there was to be an outbreak, for instance, whatever the source, it would be the chief public health officer that would
be in charge of the situation, as has been traditional when there has been such a situation in the province.

Mr. S. Graham: What makes our province unique compared to other provinces is that we are experiencing a transition of authority, which occurred on November 28. Because of that, some of
the regional health authorities are saying that there are problems in the transition of authority.

If this government has a plan and if it is similar to the Manitoba health plan, then my question to the minister is as follows. We recently saw that an individual was bounced from one regional health
authority to another. Does that plan, then, clearly define inter-regional cooperation? That was one of the top priorities, stated by us on this side of the Chamber, to be included in the plan. That is why we are looking to you today to take the same leadership role taken by the Manitoba government.

I will read to you from their press release:

Emergency planning for a pandemic is a high priority for the Manitoba government. The recent throne speech announced that new legislation will be introduced to enhance the capacity to deal
with emergencies.

If you are saying that Manitoba’s priority list is the same as New Brunswick’s, then why was it not included in the throne speech, and why have you not brought legislation forward to strengthen it?
Hon. E. Robichaud: I will start with the last question, because there were three questions in the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition.

First of all, we did not need to put it in the throne speech, because we already have a plan. We do not need to create another plan. There is already a plan for New Brunswickers in the event of a
pandemic.

Regarding the question of how the regional health authorities would deal with those situations, first of all, it is the same staff. If the Leader of the Opposition was here in 2002, when I introduced the
Regional Health Authorities Act, he will understand that we are moving from a medical model to a more community-based approach.

The intent has always been to put public health and mental
health under regional health authorities, while the general direction of public health would stay at the department level. Therefore, we have the same staff everywhere in New Brunswick. There is no reason to be concerned, because it would be the same people dealing with those situations.

St. Anne-Nackawic

Mr. Targett: My questions are for the Minister of Training and Employment Development, based on her announcement of this morning. The first question I have is: Given the fact that she has stated
that these are private issues and that the redistribution and the pro rata approach to this will have to be dealt with on an individual basis, will the minister be going to Nackawic today? Has she already arranged to meet with these individuals, so that the facts get put in front of them immediately, as opposed to uncertainties and rumours about what might be taking place? If the minister is not going today, when will she be going to meet with these people?

Hon. Mrs. Blaney: I know that the member opposite is very well aware that my department has been in Nackawic, helping with the situation for quite some time. In fact, when the announcement
first came, we were there. My staff were there. We set up shop there, so that people could come in and get the information that they needed and so that families could get help. We will continue to do that. We are not saying today that we are going to leave lock, stock, and barrel.

Absolutely not.

We recognize that this has absolutely been a difficult time for people. However, all hope is not lost. This is a community that is seeing hope. We see a mill that is going to start up again, so it is not completely, one hundred percent bleak in Nackawic. However, are we going to abandon people there because we have made this announcement?

No, we are not. We are going to continue to be a presence there, and if we can continue to help mitigate any of these circumstances, we will do so, as we have been doing since the beginning. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Targett: The question was really simple, and maybe the minister could consider this as a question coming from the people who are affected today by this announcement. This is not a
question of abandonment.

I am not questioning what has been done. I am saying this very clearly:

Those people have now been told publicly that there is going to be a redistribution. These individuals who are affected, whether positively or negatively, need to have concrete, very specific
information given to them right away about what that means. The minister did not answer that question. Is she going to meet with those people, so that all of these questions can be answered in
an organized, formal, and professional setting, as opposed to allowing these people days, hours, or weeks to wonder how that is going to unfold?

My next question to the minister is this: In her
response to a question on December 16, 2004, with regard to the pension plan review, she stated: “I have undertaken to do a thorough review of the Pension Benefits Act”. At what stage is that
review?

Hon. Mrs. Blaney: The member opposite has definitely left an impression that my department and that this government do not care about the people of Nackawic, and that is absolutely, categorically,
not true. In fact, the announcement that we made today is, I believe, responsible and reasonable, and it is as fair a decision as can possibly be made. Morneau Sobeco is the administrator of the plan, and Morneau Sobeco will be, as it has been, in contact with the employees who have been impacted by the plan. It will be in contact with the employees, and my department will continue to be in contact with employees.

That dialogue will continue. It does not stop as of today. It has been going on all along, and it will continue.

Mr. Targett: I can tell you this: The people of our province expect more from ministers in charge of their departments than that answer.

The third question I have goes to a response that the minister gave us on December 17, 2004. I will read it. In response to whether there would be pension benefits reduction or redistribution, her
answer was this: “I would not mind at all reiterating that it is not our intention, and it has not been our intention since we started looking at this, to further deplete the pension plans of the people receiving pensions.

It is not our intent. I certainly do not mind stating that for the record again.”

How will the minister answer to the people to whom she has just announced today that she will be redistributing their pension funds?

Hon. Mrs. Blaney: First of all, I want to be absolutely clear. People will be informed of the status of their pension plan by Morneau Sobeco. I want to be absolutely clear about that. Morneau Sobeco is the plan administrator and will be in contact with the people who are involved in this plan.

When we went into the Legislature last spring to amend the Pension Benefits Act, it was at the express request of the people in Nackawic who have been impacted as the result of the bankruptcy
of this mill, so that we could work with them to see if there would be any option to keep the plan going.

You know that as well as I do. That is what we have been doing over the past number of months. We have been looking at options. We have been looking to see if there is any way that
either the company that has bought the mill would be able to take over that plan or the employees themselves would be able to continue on with that plan. That was the express purpose of going into the Legislature last year—to see if any of those options would be available.

Prescription Drugs

Mr. V. Boudreau: My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Wellness. I cannot help but come to the conclusion every time I sit at my desk and start looking at reports that the race to
the bottom continues for this government. I was reviewing the Common Drug Review report, which takes into account all drugs that have been reviewed by this committee from May 2004 to October 1,
2005. Once again, New Brunswick is tied for second last in terms of the number of drugs that have been approved by the province once they have been approved by this Common Drug Review.

The only province we are beating is Prince Edward Island, which ranks at 0%. We come in at 13%.

Could the minister explain why we are at the bottom of the list once again?

Hon. E. Robichaud: To start with, the Common Drug Review is a committee of experts—pharmacists and people who know about drugs. They make recommendations to me, and usually I accept all the recommendations that are made.

If the member for Shediac—Cap-Pelé is asking me, on my own judgment, to bypass a committee of experts, I am not ready to do that. I have to ensure that the safety of New Brunswickers is my first concern.

Mr. V. Boudreau: A supplementary. I find it odd that since May 2004, the Common Drug Review has approved 30 products. So far, this province has approved 4 of those 30, or 13%. Not only are
we at the bottom of the list in terms of the number of medications we approve, but it takes us the longest in the country to make a decision.

It took the province of New Brunswick 549 days to accept
these 4 products, compared to Nova Scotia, which has double our total and did it in half the time—258 days. Why is it that it takes . . . The minister just said himself that he is the one who does this.

It took him 549 days to approve 4 products. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. E. Robichaud: We have more than doubled the budget for prescription drugs in New Brunswick. I am sorry, but this is not a race or a contest between jurisdictions. I could not care less
if you showed me all the stats in the world. The first priority here is the safety of New Brunswickers.

The first concern of the Common Drug Review is to make sure that any drug we approve is safe for New Brunswickers. This is the way it will be done.

Mr. V. Boudreau: Last night, many of us were at a dinner organized by the Canadian Diabetes Association.

It pointed out very clearly that the cost savings in some of these drugs for New Brunswick would be incredible. From 2005 to 2016, our health care system could save over $60 million in direct costs
for treating diabetes. Yet, again, there is another list where New Brunswick is at the very bottom.
Of the 17 diabetes medications approved as safe and effective for Canadians, New Brunswick only has 6 on its list. It is tied for the bottom again. It is the worst province in the country. Why do we
continue to strive to be the worst in the country?

Hon. E. Robichaud: We have been adding millions and millions to the Prescription Drug Program.

I have in hand the report of the Canadian Diabetes Association. The first recommendation that it made was to create and appropriately fund a national catastrophic drug plan. It says that the creation
of a national catastrophic drug plan, with a national formulary, is the first of a number of critical steps. This is exactly what my Premier and other Canadian Premiers brought to Mr. Martin in 2004.
The federal government was not ready to step in and provide the proper funding to make sure that all Canadians, wherever they live, will have the same treatment.

If the member for Shediac—Cap-Pelé is honest, he will tell New Brunswickers that there are only four provinces . . . If you look at your stats, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,
and Newfoundland . . .

Mr. Speaker: Time, minister.

Home Care Workers

Mr. R. Boudreau: This summer, unionized home care workers ratified an agreement with the government of New Brunswick and the Red Cross after having had to take up strike action. My question to the Minister of Family and Community Services is as follows. Can you assure this Legislature that all home care workers, unionized or not, anywhere in the province, will receive the same salary and working conditions?

Hon. Mrs. M Alpine-Stiles: I am very pleased to answer the question of the member opposite. As ac he knows, we work very diligently, as a department, to ensure that the conditions that were required
and the changes that were needed were put in place. We continue to work with the home care support, because it is such an important entity in New Brunswick. Home care workers provide a
tremendous service to the clients of this province who require their assistance, and we are working with them. We will ensure that the raises that are in place are best used in the best locations in the province to ensure that those rates are maintained across New Brunswick. We have done that and will continue to work with those workers and with the union on this very important issue.
Mr. R. Boudreau: Part of the problem is the fact that the rates are different at the present time.

Some have very basic salaries and pitiful working conditions.
My second question is this. Our at-home elderly patients suffered during the strike, but so did the home care workers and the working conditions. Can the minister tell this Legislature whether a
strike contingency plan will be put in place in the event of any future work disruptions?

Hon. Mrs. M Alpine-Stiles: I would be happy to do that. There is a contingency plan in place. As ac I said before, we are working with the union and with the home support workers to ensure that the
needs of both the patients and workers are met. We will continue to do that. In fact, later this week, I will be meeting with members representing the union with regard to the steps that need to be taken to ensure that all of these options and problems are covered once and for all.

CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION - WE NEED MY HERO IN OTTAWA!!!!

GOD'S MINUTE!!!

Jesus said, "HE WHO HAS MY COMMANDMENTS AND
KEEPS THEM, IT IS HE WHO LOVES ME. AND HE WHO
LOVES ME WILL BE LOVED BY MY FATHER, AND I WILL
LOVE HIM AND MANIFEST MYSELF TO HIM."
( JOHN 14:21 *NKJV )

Dear Charles ,
When we lovingly obey God's Commandments, and
study
His Word we begin to experience a more intimate
knowledge
of our Heavenly Father. It is through that
knowledge that we
become closer to Him as well, for it is written
that if you; DRAW
NEAR TO GOD AND HE WILL DRAW NEAR TO YOU.
( JAMES 4:8 )

Now isn't is a pity that so many in this World
today feel
unloved and alone, when all they have to do is
reach out
to God? For it is also written; GOD IS LOVE. (1
JOHN 4:8)
Why not pray for them tonight, and always tell God
how
much you love Him when you pray. For God has said;
"I LOVE THOSE WHO LOVE ME, AND THOSE WHO SEEK
ME DILIGENTLY WILL FIND ME."
( PROVERBS 8:17 )

So Charles, LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART,
WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.
( MATTHEW 22:37 ) AND HE WILL LOVE YOU AND BLESS
YOU in return. ( DEUTERONOMY 7:13 ) He will also
fill you
with His Great Love, a love that the World does not
know.

Have a wonderful day Charles, and may God's
Blessings
be with you always! Amen.

With My Love & Prayers,
your servant Allen
[ Prayer Requests---Contact Us---Bible
Study---*Donations* ]
[ Audio---Subscribe---Change of
Address---Unsubscribe ]
at: http://www.godsminute.org
Apostle Paul Ministries, P O Box 55996, Hayward, CA
94545
(c) Copyright 2005 by Apostle Paul
Ministries

ANDY SCOTT REPLIES TO ANOTHER READER'S QUESTION??

Ask why he voted against bill C-278, the employment
insurance bill?

Bill C-278 was tabled by BQ MP, Paule Brunelle, and
was defeated by a
vote of 170 to 77 on April 6, 2005. Andy is well
aware that the EI program
is not perfect.

This is why he continues to work on policies which
would
see EI become a better program than what currently
exists. Bill C-278 tried
to offer policy changes however these proposed changes
would not have
benefited Canadians.

Below is a speech that was delivered by Peter Adams,
who at the time
was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources and Skills
Development, on December 4, 2004. I believe Mr. Adams
clearly outlined
the reasons why the government could not have
supported Bill C-278.

"...EI plays a key role in providing temporary income
support for
people coping with job loss and for employed people
who cannot work for
reasons of sickness, childbirth, parental
responsibilities, or the need to care
for a dying family member. Also, for those Canadians
who have lost a job, EI
provides skills development opportunities, that is,
training so that
they can return to work quickly.

EI is a program for people when they need it most, but
this was not always the case. Before the introduction
of EI in 1996, there were aspects of the old
unemployment insurance system that caused some to
question the very sustainability of this vital
program, a program which is vital for social reasons,
for reasons of humanity, and for reasons of keeping
our economy going.

Those features included the encouragement of people to
become dependent on program benefits, and it
emphasized unemployment rather than employment, in
some cases actually acting as a disincentive to work.

There were parts of Bill C-278 which threatened to
return us to the situation that confronted us in the
past. For example the Bill's proposed to relax
entrance requirements.

Four successive monitoring and assessment reports, the
reports which review the program regularly, have
stated that overall access to EI benefits is strong:
88% of employees would be potentially eligible for EI
if they lost their jobs. Among those working full
time, 96% would be potentially eligible for EI if they
lost their jobs.

Among part time employees, 57% of women and 41% of men
would be potentially eligible for EI if they lost
their jobs.

For example, on average, regular beneficiaries receive
benefits for less than two-thirds of the weeks for
which they are eligible, which means that the benefit
duration is already more than enough for most clients.
Even people living in areas of high unemployment
typically do not use more than 70% of their
entitlement. Add to this the fact that benefit
exhaustion rates have steadily declined since EI's
introduction, from approximately 37% in 1995-96 to
about 31% in 2001-02.

What about the bill's call for the government to raise
the replacement rate and maximum insurable earnings?
In my opinion, this also is unwise given that the
current 55% replacement rate serves as a balance
between income adequacy and ensuring that work
incentives are maintained. In addition, individuals in
low income families with children can get additional
support through the family supplement, which allows
these
individuals to receive as much as 80% of their insured
earnings.

I might add that at the time of EI reform concerns
were raised about the fact that the level of maximum
insurable earnings at that time was substantially
higher than the average industrial wage and so was
acting as a disincentive to work. To address this, the
level was reduced to $39,000 a year with the
understanding that it would be reviewed at some later
date when the average industrial wage increased to the
equivalent of that level.

Such a review has not occurred because the maximum
insurable earnings figure is still 10% higher than the
average industrial wage. It is important to note that
70% of all paid employees have earnings below the
$39,000 level, which means that the majority of
claimants have their employment income fully insured
by the EI program at its current level.

This level seems to be set properly as well.

Finally, there is the proposal to increase the premium
refund threshold from $2,000 to $3,000, while also
lowering entrance requirements to 360 hours.

This recommendation is also ill-advised since it would
effectively result in
some workers being in a position to qualify for and
receive EI benefits without having paid premiums,
something none of us would wish to see happen.

It is clear that the bill contains a number of serious
flaws. That brings me to the heart of the matter,
namely, that given the vital importance that EI plays
in our social safety net, it is critically important
that any changes we make to it be well thought out in
advance to avoid unintended negative consequences that
could damage the whole program and its ability to help
workers.

Of course, this is not to say that EI is cast in
stone, never to change.

Some fine tuning is required from time to time, and
when evidence indicates that such changes are
necessary, the government has acted. For example, this
happened when we removed the intensity rule, when we
adjusted the clawback, and when we made the small
weeks provision a permanent and national element of
the program and subsequently increased the threshold.

We have also commenced a pilot project to test labour
market impacts in areas of high unemployment by adding
five weeks of entitlement to address the needs of
those who go without income for a period of time prior
to the resumption of their work.

However, rather than make rash, badly thought out
changes as this bill would have us do, we instead need
to pursue a balanced approach that takes into account
larger issues such as the likely impact of changes on
the labour market as a whole, on the financial
sustainability of EI in the future and on the EI
program as a whole.

Because EI is such a complex program, involving
employed as well as unemployed people, that impacts
many aspects of our economy and the lives of millions
of workers and their families, we need to get it right
for their sake and for the sake of
future generations who will need to call on this
program for assistance.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the bill.

That being said, I do want to commend the member for
her commitment to helping workers cope with job losses
and the difficult task of balancing workplace and
family demands, a commitment which I share and which
the government shares.

I particularly share her concern about balancing work
and family and particularly about the return of women
to the workplace.

Those are two areas in which I personally would be
glad to work with her to
maximize the benefits of this program.

I would urge her and other members to work with the
government as it seeks to pursue a balanced and
thoughtful approach to fine tuning the EI program so
it can continue to help Canadian workers for
generations to come.

It is only by getting the full range of ideas and
insights, such as some of those the member has put
forward this evening, that we can make this important
program even better than it is.

I regret to say that I cannot support the bill."

I hope this answers the reader's question.

BERNARD LORD RULES!!!!

This site always puzzled me. This picture was taken last Satuday. The parking lot is empty and Bernard still demands that his parking spot stays free! Come on???? Give me a break!!!!

WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE IRVINGS GROWING ANYWAY???

STEPHEN HARPER IS GOING ALL OUT!!!

QUESTION PERIOD IN THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE!!!! < TUESDAY >

ORAL QUESTIONS 3 QUESTIONS ORALES
December 13, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 13 décembre 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2005-2006 55-3\05 2005-12-13 BL\05 2005-12-
0
Child Protection

Mr. S. Graham: We are all proud to be New Brunswickers here in this Chamber, and I think when we enter into the public service, we should put aside partisan politics and work to represent all New Brunswickers. That is why I have to say it is a concern when we see a headline in a national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, that reads “Abuse cases scream for advocates: New Brunswick still hasn’t acted despite years of complaints and a new law”.

It is these types of headlines that reinforce the “can’t-do” attitude here in New Brunswick. That is why today, we have an opportunity to debate an important motion to put in place a tangible deadline for the creation of a Child and Youth Advocate Office here in the province of New Brunswick.

My question for the Premier today is this: The amendments that your government is proposing are looking to limit the scope and responsibilities of the Child and Youth Advocate as adopted in the law that has already been passed in this House. My question to you, Mr. Premier, is, Why would you want to confine the responsibilities of the Child and Youth Advocate to two departments—Public Safety and Family and Community Services?

Hon. Mr. Lord: We are all very proud to be New Brunswickers. There are other headlines out there that are very positive about New Brunswick, but I know that every time those come out, the opposition Liberals are very disappointed. They like days when things go badly for New Brunswick, because they think it makes them look better. We like days when things go well for New Brunswick—when New Brunswick has record low unemployment, when we are leading the country in investments in health care, when we are leading in reducing the number of people on social assistance.

Our government is committed to helping the families and children of this province, and there is more than one way to do that. The most important way to do that is to make sure there is a strong environment for growth in the economy and in jobs. That is what will help children and families the most in the province, and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. S. Graham: In the rhetorical answer that the Premier has provided today, he has not answered the question. I very clearly asked him a question, and I know the Minister of Justice is going to brief him now.

I am asking him this question very clearly: Mr. Premier, in the amendments that you are proposing, why are you looking to limit the scope of the Child and Youth Advocate’s responsibilities simply to the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Family and Community Services?

Hon. Mr. Lord: We supported the bill that was brought forward by the opposition. When we supported that bill, it was indicated very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition himself, by myself, that the government would, in the upcoming session, make modifications to clarify the scope of the Child and Youth Advocate. That was in the legislation that was tabled last session, which did not pass because it was not brought in for third reading proposed.

It is our intention to appoint a Child and Youth Advocate in 2006. It is our intention to bring in modifications to clarify the scope of the Child and Youth Advocate in this session.

Mr. S. Graham: Again, for the third time, my question to the Premier, explaining the process . . .

I am asking why the government wants to reduce and limit the responsibilities of the Child and Youth Advocate to two departments, the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Family and Community Services. This is the third time. I am sure the Minister of Justice has briefed the Premier fully by now. Please answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Lord: If the Leader of the Opposition wants a full briefing from the Minister of Justice, we can certainly provide that. In the legislation, there is advocacy for individuals, as there is advocacy for the system. What the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is only for individual advocacy.

We want to make sure the scope is the right one for New Brunswick. There are different models in Canada. We are looking at those models, as well, and that is why we want to clarify the scope of the Child and Youth Advocate that we will appoint in 2006.

Mr. S. Graham: The Premier is indicating today that he does not have a sound answer as to why the Child and Youth Advocate, which mirrors the Child and Youth Advocate’s office that was created in Newfoundland as a template and a model for all other jurisdictions to follow . . . Why does this Premier want to limit those responsibilities to two departments pertaining to individuals?

It begs the question, if an individual in New Brunswick is not receiving services that he or she should receive in the Department of Education, the Child and Youth Advocate would be powerless to make recommendations to the government. My question to the Premier is this: Why do you want to limit those powers of responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Lord: There is more than one model of Child and Youth Advocate in the country. In the specific case raised by the Leader of the Opposition, in the case of education, the Child and Youth Advocate, under the legislation that we tabled last year, which is no longer before this House, could still make recommendations with regard to the system in education. There are other means in the education system, as there are other means in the government today, to protect every child. It is
incorrect for the Leader of the Opposition to try to suggest, and to create the perception, that some children are not protected in New Brunswick.

Mr. S. Graham: I am reminded of the Charles Dickens classic entitled A Christmas Carol. When Scrooge was asked to contribute to the relief of the poor at Christmastime, he said: Are there no prisons? Are there no poorhouses? I have to say that it is very fortunate today that Tiny Tim did not come from New Brunswick, because if he were looking for government help, he would likely have
been out of luck if this legislation were passed as the government proposed.

The Premier wants to limit the scope and the responsibilities pertaining to the Department of Health and Wellness. Today, we have many issues pertaining to obesity in New Brunswick. A Child and Youth Advocate could make many recommendations on how to improve the wellness of young children in New Brunswick and on how to prevent obesity, but he could also do it on a specific case, on a needs basis where individuals in New Brunswick may not be receiving the necessary services.
That is where the shortfalls of this legislation exist today.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. S. Graham: I am asking for the fourth time, because you have not answered the question. What you are saying is that we want to be at the bottom of the pack . . .

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. S. Graham: . . . rather than at the top of the pack. That is not good enough for the children of this province who are at risk.

Hon. Mr. Lord: When the Leader of the Opposition talks about these examples, he is really stretching. When it comes to obesity, it is not the Child and Youth Advocate who will make a difference for the children in the province. Parents can make the biggest difference in obesity in children.

Parents are the number one people responsible for the education and safekeeping and security of their children. I know that the Liberal view on parents is that they are only there to buy beer and popcorn for children and their families, but that is not the view of the government of New Brunswick. The view of the government of New Brunswick is that we are there to support parents in the education of their children and to protect their children. However, that responsibility falls on
the parents, first and foremost.

Mr. S. Graham: I am not going to get into the gutter politics that the Premier wants to play this morning, because I do believe the parents of New Brunswick . . . Today his government is falling far short of the national average that the Canadian Medical Association says we should be entertaining in physical education in our school system. The Canadian Medical Association says we should be averaging 150 minutes per week. Our Francophone system is averaging less than 40 minutes per week, as your own deputy minister stated in the public accounts committee. The
Anglophone system is attaining less than 100 minutes per week. The same Deputy Minister of Education stated this clearly in the public accounts committee.
That is where a Child and Youth Advocate can help move the government in a direction to deal with changes that are necessary to help children who are at risk in New Brunswick. What your government is proposing today is to put it simply on the mandate of two departments.

We are saying that this is wrong. That is what I am asking you. Why do you not adopt a law that will allow the Child and Youth Advocate to review all government departments to better serve the children of New Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Lord: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is talking about phys ed classes, keeping in mind that it was the government of which he was a member that cut phys ed classes. That is part of the problem. They do not want to look back to the past, because they say that is the past.

Every once in a while, I hear some of them say: You guys have been there for six and a half years. Stop talking about the years between 1987 and 1999. However, I remember the last day that I was in opposition. Sheldon Lee was talking about Richard Hatfield 12 years after the fact.

The fact is that the opposition, when it was in government, cut phys ed, and it had an impact on our children—absolutely. When they cut the number of medical training spaces, it had an impact on wait times 10 years after the fact. That is why, when the member for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak today criticizes another 10-year plan, it is because these people do not know what it means to plan ahead.

Mr. S. Graham: I am sure the Premier will have all kinds of time to do his planning in Quebec after Christmas. My question to the Premier today pertains to the issues here in New Brunswick. Very clearly, the Child Death Review Committee has been under the spotlight recently for conducting only partial reviews of a number of child deaths in New Brunswick. You yourself committed to an investigation of why this was occurring. Yesterday, unionized employees in New Brunswick stated that, with respect to the 143 required child protection social workers needed in the province, as
identified by your government’s own report, Children Come First, we are still far short of that benchmark. In fact, only 48 social workers have been hired for child protection services versus the 143 that were needed. There are shortfalls in the system today. That is why we are saying that a Child and Youth Advocate with a clear, broad mandate will be able to protect children at work.

My question to the Premier is this: Can you update us on the review that you were personally undertaking pertaining to the Child Death Review Committee? We hope that you will take into account the recommendation we are making today. This could be a process and a mandate followed under the Child and Youth Advocate’s office. Is this something that you are willing to entertain?

Hon. Mr. Lord: The Leader of the Opposition, with his staff, I am sure, is very good at twisting information and taking statements and creating a different perception. I am not undertaking that review myself. I have asked . . .

(Interjections.)

Hon. Mr. Lord: They can insult us as much as they want, because that is all they have. I did ask the department to review and bring to us the situation in terms of why it is like this. Is it or is it not adequate?

One thing is certain: There are more social workers working in the province for the government of New Brunswick today than there were when we took office.
Anoter thing is sure: During the 12 years that they were in office, the current Ombudsman, who has these responsibilities, is the one who said that the previous government neglected the social side, which included the children of New Brunswick. We have been making significant investments and significant progress. We will continue to work for the families and the children of this province.
Création d’emplois M. Haché : On a appris récemment que l’entreprise canadienne, Research In Motion, allait s’établir en Nouvelle-Écosse, plus particulièrement, à Halifax. J’aimerais vous rappeler que Research In Motion recevra un montant de 19 millions de dollars pour créer 1 250 emplois. Si on veut comparer cela et juxtaposer les faits, on sait que ce gouvernement-ci a accordé 6 millions de dollars à Molson
pour qu’elle vienne s’établir dans la région de Moncton pour quelque 40 emplois seulement.

(Exclamation.)

M. Haché : Si ce sont 20 emplois, c’est encore pire. J’aimerais demander ceci au ministre des Entreprises Nouveau-Brunswick : Quelles démarches a-t-il
faites pour tenter de s’assurer que Research in Motion pourrait peut-être venir s’établir au Nouveau- Brunswick? Quelles démarches précises a-t-il faites auprès de Research in Motion?

Hon. Mr. Mesheau: I would be pleased to answer the honourable member from up the way.
Certainly, we have a number of files on which we are working. I would like to point out to the honourable member, who says that we do not do enough for the north, that, in the last six years, we have loaned over $200 million to over 140 companies in the north alone. I want to assure the honourable member across the way that we work hard every day with many, many files, including some in his area. I want to assure him that we will continue to do that.

M. Haché : Je pense que le ministre des Entreprises Nouveau-Brunswick a attrapé la maladie du premier ministre. Il ne comprend pas les questions et ne peut donner les bonnes réponses. Ma question est celle-ci : Le ministre a-t-il été en contact avec Research in Motion dans le but d’apporter ces emplois ici, au Nouveau-Brunswick? De plus, j’aimerais lui demander s’il est d’accord avec son agente de communications, Sarah Ketcheson, qui dit que le Nouveau-Brunswick n’était pas sur le radar de Research in Motion.

Hon. Mr. Mesheau: I can assure the honourable member that, indeed, a lot of companies are on the radar, including Molson, including Moosehead, and including a whole raft of companies in the north and in the south. I can assure the honourable member that, if there is any opportunity to bring 1 250 jobs here, we would certainly play a role in convincing a company to come to New Brunswick. Are
we involved in every file going on in North America and in Canada? I doubt it, but I want to assure the honourable member across the way that, when we are on a file, we rarely let go.

In fact, recently, the contact centre industry of Canada rated New Brunswick in the top three jurisdictions in terms of procuring contact centre jobs in this country and, in fact, in North America.

M. Haché : J’aimerais citer l’agente de communications de son ministère qui dit :
Even the provincial government admits the company’s Maritime headquarters could have drained New Brunswick’s high tech job market and employees with the required skill set.

Elle continue en disant : “There’s a fear of - the term is called cannibalization - of the workforce.”

C’est incroyable. Vous pouvez blâmer l’ancien gouvernement libéral tant que vous voulez. Il y a une chose, cependant : McKenna ne se gênait pas pour aller chercher ces emplois-là. McKenna croyait dans les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick. Il croyait dans les gens d’affaires du Nouveau-Brunswick,
ce qui est le contraire de votre gouvernement. De ce côté-là de la Chambre, ces gens ne croient pas
aux capacités du Nouveau-Brunswick, ils ne croient pas aux talent des gens d’affaires du Nouveau-Brunswick et ils ne croient pas que, au Nouveau-Brunswick, nous avons le talent nécessaire pour faire venir n’importe quelle entreprise. C’est le problème…

Mr. Speaker: Honourable member, your time is up.

(Interjection.)

Hon. Mr. Mesheau: You sit down.

Asseyez-vous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Take your seat. Order.

Hon. Mr. Mesheau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He can cannibalize the truth all he wants, and he can pick away at his old bones, but I want to assure the honourable member across the way that we have consistently, over the last 13 months, kept our unemployment figure well below double digits.

That, McKenna failed to do in 10 years of government.

(Interjections.)

Highways

Mr. Allaby: Perhaps everyone could regain composure in the House. This past September, following a lot of pressure from industry, road builders, truckers, CAA, and other advocates of better highways, the federal government agreed to add some 12 000 km to the National Highway System.

This should be very good news for northern New Brunswick, because Routes 8, 11, and 17 were added to the national highway system. The Minister of Transportation was absolutely correct in calling this an important victory for the people of New Brunswick. However, it is not important enough for the Premier even to have mentioned the words “roads” or “highways” in the throne speech. My question to the Minister of Transportation is this: Will the minister explain to this House
how the policy direction of the throne speech could completely ignore such a significant expansion of the National Highway System in New Brunswick.

L’hon. P. Robichaud : Cela me fait toujours rire lorsque l’opposition me pose des questions au sujet des routes. On parle ici d’un parti qui a négligé les routes du Nord du Nouveau-Brunswick et qui veut maintenant devenir un champion en défendant ces mêmes routes. La réponse à la question du député est bien simple. Lorsque je rencontre les constructeurs de routes du Nouveau-Brunswick et tous les autres intervenants dans le secteur de la construction de routes au Nouveau-Brunswick,
ils nous disent tous, sans exception, que notre gouvernement est un chef de file dans la construction routière. Nous allons continuer de l’être. J’invite les parlementaires libéraux à regarder le budget que le ministre des Finances déposera. Encore une fois, nous démontrerons que nous sommes des chefs de file dans la construction de routes au Nouveau-Brunswick.

Mr. Allaby: Compared to the way that this government gutted road building in the first few years of its mandate, finally starting to restore a road building capital budget is, indeed, worthwhile news.

It is still not back up to Sheldon Lee’s budgets. For a great many years, successive Ministers of Transportation have talked about how much more they could do for Routes 11 and 17, if only the federal government would help. I am told that this minister told a group wishing to have the Marysville bypass extended to South Portage, as was done in the 1998 design, that they would be able to do this if only the feds would agree to a partnership. Now, the announcement has been made that the feds are partners, but there is not a word about road building in the throne speech. Why?

L’hon. P. Robichaud : J’invite le député à relire le discours du trône. Il se rendra compte que l’infrastructure stratégique et les routes font partie du discours du trône. Lorsque je suis allé dans la circonscription du député cet été, les gens m’ont dit que mon gouvernement investissait plus d’argent dans les routes dans Îles-de-Fundy que les Libéraux en avaient investi lorsqu’ils étaient au pouvoir. J’entends les Libéraux nous faire la morale au sujet des routes 8, 11 et 17 et je leur demande de convaincre leurs petits cousins à Ottawa d’être des partenaires financiers avec nous. Si nous avons inclus des routes dans le réseau routier national, c’est parce que le fédéral reconnaît qu’il a une responsabilité. Qu’il vienne donc à la table de négociation pour mettre de l’argent comme nous en mettons dans les routes 8, 11, 17, dans les routes 1, 2, 7, 95 et 15 ainsi que dans toutes les autres artères principales du Nouveau-Brunswick.

Mr. Allaby: I am glad the minister brought up Route 1. In early October, the U.S. Congress designated the East-West highway from Calais to Watertown, New York, as a high priority for funding from Washington. This is very important for trade and economic development for all of Atlantic Canada, especially southern New Brunswick, and also for industrial growth in Saint John..

This government has been asleep at the switch on Route 1 for five years. Only in the last year or so has the government started rebuilding it. There is not a word in the throne speech about how New Brunswick will shape our economic development road-building policy to take advantage of this enormous initiative that is taking place in Maine. We could really benefit from it, and there is not a peep about it in the throne speech. Why?

L’hon. P. Robichaud : Vous savez, si le député d’Îles-de-Fundy, qui est le porte-parole des Transports, et le Parti libéral au grand complet, veulent aider les gens du Nouveau-Brunswick en ce qui a trait à la construction routière, ce n’est pas compliqué, car nous avons des routes qui font partie du réseau routier national et une initiative pour les routes rurales. Nous avons un réseau routier qui comprend au-delà de 18 000 km de route, si ces gens-là veulent faire leur part ils devraient parler à leurs petits cousins d’Ottawa, qui nagent dans des excédents et ne savent plus faire avec leur argent, autre que de faire des promesses électorales à tout bout de champ. Ils devraient leur demander d’investir avec nous dans des projets stratégiques d’infrastructures qui sont les routes du Nouveau-Brunswick qui ont tellement été négligées lorsque les parlementaires du côté de l’opposition étaient au pouvoir.

Soins de santé

M. V. Boudreau : Le 21 novembre dernier, Donald Thomas, de Petit-Tacadie a été gravement blessé, lors d’un accident automobile, et a dû attendre 18 heures avant sa première chirurgie. Le 28 novembre, le ministre a annoncé qu’une enquête aurait lieu pour faire la lumière dans cette affaire.

Nous sommes maintenant à trois semaines depuis l’incident et à deux semaines depuis que le ministre s’est engagé à faire l’enquête. Nous savons tous que ce gouvernement est fatigué et ne fait rien dans bien des dossiers, mais cet incident est très sérieux et mérite une attention particulière.

Le ministre de la Santé et du Mieux-être peut-il nous confirmer quand, avec une date précise, il rendra publics les résultats de cette enquête?

L’hon. E. Robichaud : Premièrement, les questions de santé ne sont pas des questions de politique.

Lorsqu’il arrive des situations comme celle relatée par mon collègue, il faut regarder les raisons qui peuvent expliquer le délai. On a embauché un expert-conseil, le Dr Dubinsky Celui-ci est en train de faire l’analyse. Ce que j’ai demandé à mes employés est ceci : un rapport complet du temps où le patient a été admis à Tracadie-Sheila, jusqu’à ce que les traitements aient commencé à Saint John.
C’est l’information que j’attends, et je n’ai pas donné de temps précis. Lorsqu’on aura toute l’information, à ce moment-là, je vais sûrement regarder à ce cas, car mon intention est de m’assurer que, si on peut améliorer le système, on va le faire, comme c’est le cas depuis 1999.

M. V. Boudreau : En parlant avec des professionnels de la santé un peu partout dans la province, on doit sérieusement se poser la question à savoir si l’incident de M. Thomas en est un isolé au Nouveau-Brunswick ou non. Nous savons tous que le plan de santé de ce gouvernement n’a pas été bien intégré dans le système de soins de santé de notre province. Ce gouvernement n’a pas consulté les partenaires et a réduit par centaines le nombre de lits dans les hôpitaux avant de mettre des ressources additionnelles dans les autres secteurs.

Le ministre de la Santé et du Mieux-être veut-il nous avouer qu’il se cache derrière cette enquête, car ce n’est pas un incident isolé, mais plutôt un problème systématique qui existe en raison d’un manque de plan de coordination entre les huit régions régionales de la santé de notre province?

(Exclamations.)

L’hon. E. Robichaud : Évidemment, lorsque l’on parle de vérité, comme le député de Nigadoo- Chaleur le mentionne, il faudrait peut-être que ses collègues arrêtent de dire des faussetés.

L’incident dont il est question aujourd’hui n’a pas rapport du tout avec le fait s’il y avait des lits disponibles ou non. Je peux affirmer cela très clairement. Toutefois, nous allons regarder à ce qui s’est produit. Lorsqu’on parle de notre plan de santé, c’est bon d’en parler, parce qu’il y a à peine un an, il n’y avait pas de clinique de méthadone au Nouveau-Brunswick, sans parler du troisième
laboratoire de cathétérisme que l’on va établir à Saint John.

Un peu plus tôt, le député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé, faisait des commentaires à savoir qu’on n’investissait pas ce qu’il fallit, eh bien, selon les dernières statistiques de l’Institut canadien d’information sur la santé nous dit qu’on est la deuxième province au niveau d’investissement par habitant. En termes d’augmentation, l’année dernière, on était la troisième province au Canada qui a le plus augmenté ses budgets.

M. V. Boudreau : Selon certains spécialistes dans le domaine de la santé au Nouveau-Brunswick, l’incident de M. Thomas ne ferait même pas la liste des 100 pires scénarios dans la province. Alors, je pense qu’il y a des problèmes à régler dans notre système.

On sait tous que ce gouvernement cherche à concentrer tous les soins de santé dans nos centres urbains et ne tiennent pas compte des réalités rurales de notre province.

Mais c’est complètement ridicule d’aller aussi loin que d’embaucher un expert de Toronto pour évaluer les lacunes qui existent dans les régions rurales du Nouveau-Brunswick. Le ministre de la Santé et du Mieux-être peut-il nous expliquer pourquoi un expert de Toronto vient enquêter sur cette question, plutôt qu’un
expert de la Nouvelle-Écosse, par exemple, qui connaît sûrement mieux la réalité du phénomène de la ruralité dans les soins de santé dans une petite province comme le Nouveau-Brunswick?

L’hon. E. Robichaud : Lorsque le gouvernement libéral était au pouvoir, il apportait des toasts de Toronto à l’Hôpital régional de Saint-Jean. Le chef de l’opposition est sorti. Monsieur le président, vous m’excuserez si je fais un commentaire sur l’absence d’un député, mais cela le gêne, parce que c’est le même chef qui embauche des gens de l’Ontario pour venir décider de la destinée du parti d’en face.
Je trouve cela insultant quand les gens font de tels commentaires. Le député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé devrait prendre le temps de s’informer. On a vérifié avec une firme du Nouveau-Brunswick, mais ce n’était pas possible. On a vérifié avec une firme de la Nouvelle-Écosse, mais, dû à l’urgence de la situation, il fallait être sûr qu’on aurait une objectivité, on est allé chercher un spécialiste à l’extérieur de la province.

Premièrement, il faut vérifier les faits. Le député de Shediac—Cap-Pelé nous parle de 100 cas. Je l’invite à apporter ses 100 cas et je serais surpris d’en trouver une dizaine. On a des gens qui se dévouent dans le système de santé tous les jours. Je trouve honteux quand on fait des commentaires gratuits comme le député le fait actuellement.

BERNARD LORD ANNOUNCE NEW CHANGES IN NEW BRUNSWICK!!!!!

MY PROTEST IN FRONT OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATURE ENDED EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO TODAY!!!!

My God how time flies? It was exactly two years ago < Tuesday > that my protest ended.





Sure feels like the protest continues but on the information Highway?

Even thought Bernard Lord and Elvy Robichaud promised they would look at the issue but quickly told New Brunswickers after the protest ended that a committee was totally out of the question.

I know one certain fact!

If the MLA’s from both political parties would have known at the beginning of the protest that I would be moving to the Capital afterwards?

They would have made certain that my protest would have ended in days and not 6 months.

These days? They have to see my ugly face every day of the week…lol

The ombudsman Bernard Richard told New Brunswickers and the Senate that the Government should take a close look at the issue of drugging our kids but to no avail.



I could write many stories that happened to me since the protest ended but why bother?

I know if I was living in Saint John? I would show up at the Legislature for a one day protest but why bother?

I have been continuing the protest via the information Highway!



You can read a few articles by clicking in these website for more stories of the end of the protest!

target="_blank">Charles
Blog
target="_blank">Charles
Blog

target="_blank">Charles
Blog

I wrote a book of my protest and I truly believe it would be printed by now but it’s not. The title is - The last of the true protesters!

So maybe you can say that it can come out in years?

It’s a darn shame.

This is a story of my last days of the protest. In my own words-

In the evening of December 11th, I was at my tent for the last time, it began to rain.

I crawled in my tent to shut my radio off.

I just put my brain cells back to six months earlier when I first began my fight for the 10,000 kids with ADHD.

All those heavy rainy nights and the hot broiling sun.




My God? How time flies when you’re having fun?

I felt sad the protest was soon coming to an end I was going to return to Saint John and spend Christmas with my family.

I turned my lantern off for the very last time and I was a little emotional.

I had many comfortable evenings sleeping in that tent I am going to miss it.

I close my tent up and went walked to the James Joyce Restaurant across the street at the Beaver Brook Hotel.

I had to return the Lantern Julie MacDonald < Manager > lent me and the winter gloves that Kim Finnamore < Waitress > gave me a few months earlier.

Those people treated me with respect even though they knew I wasn’t a customer.

Once inside, I noticed two politicians enjoying a nice drink.

Donald Arseneault and Burt Paulin.




These Liberal MLA’s have been very good to me since the protest began it was nice to see them.

We had a chat for a final time.

They told me to order anything I wanted because we have to celebrate the end of my protest.

As a joke? I said- Give me a triple white Russian!

They insisted so I ordered a double white Russian it was a great way to celebrate the end.

Burt Paulin told me he’s very grateful he met me because his daughter’s child was told he would have to be on Ritalin.

If it wasn’t for my protest? He would have never known about Ritalin so he told his daughter that his Grandson will never be on Ritalin.

I’ve been hearing the same thing from a lot of other people who I educated about the use of Ritalin.

Yes, maybe it was time to end the protest.



The next morning, I returned to my tent and it was still all in one piece so I decided to go for a coffee at Tim’s.

Gary who drives for Trius Taxi beeped his horn and told me to look in the direction of my tent?



I looked than continued on but he beeped his horn again.

I walked over to him he told me someone was at my tent.

I glanced over and noticed a woman walking away she quickly disappeared between the two government building.

I walked to my tent and noticed an envelope with a ten dollar gift certificate from Quizno’s. It was signed by Le vent de L’Est!

In English it means - From the wind from the east or the eastern wind!

I wish I could have had the chance to speak to her because that Lady has been leaving Tim’s Horton coupons all summer long.

I might add that she also left a few religious items but as soon as I called her name?

She quickly disappeared with the cold winds.

Sure was nice of her because I need the coffee with lots of sugar in the morning to get myself going to confront the public with my petition. She sure knew what she was doing.

There’s a lot of nice people in this City.

What a day this has been. I was told to meet T.J. Burke at 9:30am on the front steps of the Legislature.



Sure enough? He was right on time.

T.J. Burke came to the scene he invited me into the Departmental building where the media was located.

He introduced me to everyone including the communication man for the Government –– Tim Porter.

I didn’t really want to shake the guy hand because he has always intervened during my conversation with the Ministers during the summer months but I decided to let by
gone be by gone.

By now? The media knew all about me I became good friends with a few of them.

Afterwards, we went to the front desk in the Legislature T.J. told Andre that I needed to register.

I was heading to the Gallery but they had something else in mind.

He arranged for me to be sitting on a sofa in the chambers.

I never expected that honor!

I expected to be in the gallery to watch the action from the top of the house.

This was a total surprise for this protester.

While waiting for the action to begin, a few MLA'S from different political party came to shake my hand and congratulated me.

They said- HEY CHARLES??? IT'S YOUR DAY!!

I answered- It's not my day!

It's the day for the 10,000 kids around this province who suffers from ADD/ADHD!

I noticed Dawn Bowie in the Gallery I waved at her.



She was a great help to me during my protest.

I sat down and looked at all the politicians inside the Legislature.

There’s many of them that I became good friends with during the summer months and of course there’s some of them I didn’t care for.



The ceremony began with the Sergeant At Arms leading the way I must admit that Dan Bussieres plays the part like a professional.

He had his fancy suit with his sword in hand.

We New Brunswickers should be proud to have a Sergeant At Arms with such class.



Roly McIntyre < Liberal MLA> stood up and said- Mr. MacIntyre: It is my pleasure to introduce Charles LeBlanc from Saint John, if anybody here has not met him.



It is a very special occasion today.

Charles has been here at the Legislature for 180 days, and he is going home today.



He always said he was here for the kids, protesting against the use of Ritalin for ADD and ADHD. It was not about him.

It was about the kids.

I will say to you, Charlie: You have some tenacity. I want to thank you for your efforts and for your tenacity, and I wish you well in whatever journey you take.

Goodbye from all of us.

After he finished his speech all the liberals stood up and gave me a standing ovation.

I was surprised the P.C.’s did the same gesture.

One person asked me to stand up I didn't really remember the next few seconds but I do remember I gave the whole House a nice good bye wave!

I was very emotional it sure was nice to be recognized for the battle that I've been doing for the ADD/ADHD during the past 6 months.

Elvy Robichaud quickly stood up and said – I also want to recognize Charles Leblanc.



Last week we sat down to discuss what has been accomplished about the issue of ADHD and what more can be done.

This morning, I want to assure Charles during his six months protest he has educated a lot of people about ADHD.

The petition that he collected shows there’s many more people in this province who are educated about this mental disorder because of Charles.

I told Charles I was going to help him set up a meeting with the representatives from the Medical Society.

My colleagues Mrs. Dube < Minister of Education> is making sure Charles meets the people from the Department who really understands the politics in the school system in the special education process in the school system.

So Charles, I want to assure you this morning that your efforts weren’t in vain.

Because of you Charles? There’s thousands of people out there who are more educated on the issue of ADHD.

You can go home with your head high.

It’s not my style to get emotional but I was and I tried to keep my composure.

It was very difficult.

T.J. Burke stood up and said- For those of us around the Legislature, Charles LeBlanc and his tent became a familiar sight over the past number of months.

His protest lasted 180 days. This speaks to his commitment to the issue, and it also speaks to the fact that he is one of the last true protesters of this province——or at least campers.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder affects 3% to 6% of Canadians. Boys with ADHD tend to outnumber girls by three to one, although ADHD is under
identified.



In his article “ What’s It Like to Have ADD?”, Dr. Edward M. Hallowell describes it as follows: “It’s like driving in the rain with bad windshield wipers. Everything is smudged and blurred and you’re speeding along, and it’s reeeeally
frustrating not being able to see very well.”

He also describes it by saying: “ Or it’s like listening to a radio station with a lot of static and you have to strain to hear what’s going on.”

There is no conclusive cause for ADHD, and the debate over treatment rages on.

There is increasing debate over the treatment for ADHD.

Ritalin, a stimulant, is the most commonly prescribed treatment for ADHD, but
there is rising debate over the appropriateness of the drug in treating all cases, as well as over the long-term impact.

Charles LeBlanc has spent the past six months trying to bring about greater awareness of the issue.

I sat down with Mr. LeBlanc on Wednesday, and he said something I will truly never forget.

He said: Mr. Burke, when you present this petition, please don’t mention my name.

Just mention the kids.

I think that speaks volumes for what he has accomplished.

Today, I am tabling this petition, and I am so honoured to table it, with 10 000 names. It simply states:

I agree that Ritalin is over prescribed in this province.

Je suis d’’accord que le ritalin est sur prescrit dans cette province.

I would like to table the petition of Mr. LeBlanc.

He made a wonderful speech as I knew he would.

Afterwards I was directed back out of the chambers.

Around the MLA'S shook my hand to congratulate me.

Once outside, I was met by Nina Chiarelli a reporter from the Telegraph Journal she noticed I had tears in my eyes.



It was very emotional.

Before I left the Legislature? I saw Bev Harrison < Speaker of the House> I thanked him for not signing papers to deport me from the lawn of the Legislature
like they deported us Acadians in 1755!

Once outside, I was told to return inside the Legislature to meet with Elvy and Madeleine.



These two Ministers told me they’ll support me in front of the media.

They said a committee won't be in action in the near future but my petition is something to look into.

My god? Cameras all over the place with mikes in everyone faces. The television stations asked me if I would go to my tent and they’ll film me taking down my little home.

That Evening, all the television stations except CBC English television and the Moncton Transcript refused to cover my protest.




It was great to spread the word to New Brunswickers I was protesting and it was over after I collected 10,100 names.

It’s a darn shame I never received very much coverage from day one?


It sure would have made my campaign to collect signatures a little easier.

Allan White from CBC English radio did a very good job educating the people on my battle.

Lets not forget Charles Gagnon from L'Acadie Nouvelle. He really helped my cause in
spreading the word to my follow Acadians.

The hard job was yet to come.

I had to take down my tent and I didn't know that I had so much junk.

I came to the Capital with 2 pairs of pants, 2 shirts and a few blankets.

These days? I need a van for all the stuff that I collected during these past six months.

Danny Robichaud, he’s the guy who lent me his tent.



He came at 2:30pm.

I thanked Danny than he was on his way.

Before he left he told me I did a wonderful job for the kids.

I told Danny I appreciated his tent because it made my protest a lot easier and it was warmer.

Can you imagine if I had had my summer tent in the winter
months?

It would have been an impossible task!

During this protest?

I learned one valuable lesson!

What a person says and what a person does? Is two different things!

This guy came through with his promise and I'm grateful for his good gesture.

I had to pack all my things on the back of Roly's Truck.

I have a meeting set up with the officials of the Education Department on December 19th Friday morning.

Lets pray before then I can meet with the head cheese of the medical society.

That afternoon it was very cold on the front lawn of the Legislature.

I noticed someone walking towards the Legislature with a sign.

I couldn’t make out the writing but he had a long story to tell me about his concerns.

After five minutes of listening?

I told him I was the guy in the tent and he could take my place if he wanted?

He asked me if I was the Charles LeBlanc?

I answered - Yes!

He shook my hand and told me he was French and he has ADHD!

I told the Sergeant at Arms Dan Bussieres maybe one ADHD protester is gone but there’s another one waiting to plead his case….lol…



My God? Those people with ADHD are sure radical there’s nothing wrong with that.

Two staff members from the Legislature showed up holding a bag.

They threw the items near me and quickly left the scene.

At first, I didn’t know what it was? It was my old tent the Sergeant At Arms took from me on August 19th.



It wasn’t rolled up in one piece and there were many more items inside.

I totally forgot how much stuff that I had collected because he took my tent away.

It was very windy and cold so I never had time to separate all the junk.

I just rolled it in one bag and threw it behind Roly’s truck.

I was certain Dan rolled up my tent in one piece I didn’t think Dorothy Dawson would have been too pleased because it was her tent.



The first week of the session at the Legislature finished.

Roly took off to Saint John with my things and drop it off to my cousin home.

THE PROTEST IS OFFICIALLY TOUT FINI!!

You know something? This little experience was better than the one when I rode a ten speed bicycle across Canada and to the U.S.A.! It was great I'll never forget it.

I hope someone can help me with writing a book so I can put all my entire funny stories in it so future generations can read about my experience.

On December 13th, I must admit I was very honored. The Telegraph Journal and Daily Gleaner gave the 10,000 ADHD kids good publicity.

When a person is on the front page with the new Prime Minister of Canada then a person cannot really complain I guess.

It’s over but Charles has a problem?

The problem you ask?? CHARLES IS GOING NUTS!!!!

Every Saturday morning during the past four months, I was always at the Farmer’s market to confront the citizens with my petition it made my weekend very interesting. But now?

I just walk on the sidewalk like everyone else I say- Hello!

I never shut up for the past 6 months suddenly it comes to a complete stop.

There sure is a lot of people congratulating me for a job well done it’s nice to be recognized for your hard work.

On December 13th, I noticed that the Saint John River was beginning to build up with ice when that happens? It’s time for me to pack up my tent and leave I guess.

The cold winter months are officially here!!!

Little did I know that the drugging and the killing of our children will continue in New Brunswick.



Of course for me? I will let my ADHD take me where ever I land!! If you would have told me that two years later? I would be doing the same thing? I would have told you that you're nuts but the battle continues for Justice of the kids.

KITTY SURVIVES DEADLY FIRE - BY TIM SMITH!!!

Too bad that Tim Smith doesn't have a camera like mine.....two ADHD individuals in different Cities..lol...Politicians would be scared sh@tless!!!,,,lol

Here's his story -


Hey here's a little story for ya..

Nancy Kellar had gone back to her apartment on the corner of Duke and
Sydney street today dec 12th to gather a few personal belongings after 5
days.

The first thing she had to do is to look around and see if she could
locate her kitty as at the time of the fire she had only gotten her dog
out but not the kitty which had shaken her up quite a bit that horrible
day.

She heard a noise coming from under her bed and low and behold her
kitty had made it through the fire unscathed but a little shaken up.

It ran back down to the basement because she obviously was quite scared
but once nancy went down and talked to her and managed to pick her up
she then knew everything was going to be ok.

I'm glad I happened along when I did as nancy went in to her apartment
and got to witness this bit of happy news.

Of which I thought I would share with you readers.

She managed to get at her food and continued to use the litter box
which had been floating in the basement section of her apartment in about 3
feet of water until it receeded.

I wish I could say with all certainty that the kitty's name is Kipper
but I'm just not sure but I think she may rename her "LUCKY" now.

Charlie I think you should put the pic of the burning building back up
along with this good little story but I'm rushing it along to you
pretty messed up. if you can touch it up a bit to read a little better be my
guest.

I was going to send it to the paper but you can tell them there in the
fredericton office and maybe they can call nancy and do a little story
of their own. but for now through the mirical of freedom of information
and me being the amature reporter in the right place at the right time
you got the story first. and especially a nice little christmas mirical
story.