Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 12 May 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 20)
2003-05-12
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 12, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 20
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to take this
opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly today, thirty students from
Grade 7 to Level III from the following schools: All Saints All Grade School,
Grey River, and St. Simon & St. Jude School, Francois. They are accompanied
by teachers: John Barter, Jim Cashen, Ken Benoit, Wilson Warren; teacher's
aid, Linda Dunford; and chaperone, Tina Warren.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, I like to welcome to the gallery, sixty Level I,
II, III students who are enrolled in Canadian Studies in the Foxtrap, Queen
Elizabeth Regional High School, and they are accompanied by teachers: Mr. Trevor
Rowe and Mr. Gerry Oxford.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 6, Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps
announced "Community Memories", a group of new exhibits available on
the World Wide Web through Virtual Museums of Canada.
More than twenty-one exhibits from museums in Newfoundland and Labrador,
Quebec and New Brunswick are currently on display, and that will soon grow to
forty Atlantic museums, all sharing their community stories to Web users around
the world.
I attended the launching of the Virtual Museum in Torbay on Thursday, May 8.
I am particularly proud to say that one of the exhibits that will be featured is
the Torbay Heritage Committee's exhibit entitled, "A Scrapbook History:
Voluntary Women's Groups of Torbay, Newfoundland".
Everyone out there with Internet access will want to check out www.virtualmuseum.ca
to see what is on display. Click on "Community Memories" and check out
the link to exhibits created by museums in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Right now, you will find exhibits from Carbonear, Gander, Corner Brook, Port
Union, Trinity, Bay Roberts, North West River, Bird Cove, Eastport and Newtown -
some very old photos and some very interesting stories.
There is much to offer here in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of history
and culture, much of it unknown even within our own Province, particularly by
our young people. I am thinking as well of young people around the world who
want to know something of their Newfoundland and Labrador heritage. We have a
lot of stories worth telling and preserving.
I would like to congratulate everyone involved in this endeavour and to thank
the Town of Torbay for hosting the ceremony for the launching of the Virtual
Museum in Torbay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 1993, the Governor General approved the creation of a Certificate of
Commendation to be issued to those who made a significant contribution by
providing assistance to another person in a selfless manner.
On September 23, 1999, Hurricane Gert struck Placentia Bay and caused major
damage to the port of St. Bride's. During the hurricane that day, Patrick
Barry jumped into the turbulent waters and high waves to save his father, Lar,
from drowning. Anthony Barry, Thomas White and Albert Young assisted in getting
Patrick and his father out of the water. For his
part in the rescue, Patrick
Barry has been awarded a Medal of Bravery that was presented last year at Ottawa
by the Governor General.
Yesterday afternoon, during the annual Blessing of the Boats at the harbour
in St. Bride's, Mayor Eugene Manning, on behalf of the Her Excellency the
Right Honorable Adrienne Clarkson, presented Anthony Barry, Thomas White and
Albert Young with a Certificate of Commendation. These awards were presented to
these three fishermen on the recommendation of the Canadian Decorations Advisory
Committee in recognition of their quick and decisive actions on the
once-in-a-lifetime day on September 23, 1999.
In a letter to the recipients, they were informed that their selfless actions
are an inspiration to others and represent a high form of citizenship of which
they can be very proud.
The residents of St. Bride's are very proud of these men and their selfless
action in risking their own lives to save another. It was a very happy occasion
in the community yesterday, despite the rain, especially for the families of
those involved.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me today in
congratulating Anthony Barry, Thomas White and Albert Young on a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St . George's- Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, both myself and the Minister of Health and Community Services
were pleased to recently attend the Stephen Awards Banquet in Stephenville; a
banquet that recognizes the citizens of the Towns of Stephenville and Kippens.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Gerry Murphy of Stephenville who was named
Citizen of the Year at the banquet. Mr. Murphy has contributed greatly to the
community of Stephenville through his work with the local Chamber of Commerce,
the Rotary Club, and he continues to be active and well-deserving of this honour.
Other winners at the banquet were: Nita Guron, named Youth of the Year; Ryne
Hepditch was named Male Athlete of the Year; and Adrienne Oliver was named
Female Athlete of the Year. Also, Mr. Speaker, a number of individuals,
including: Melinda Alexander, Kay Brenton, Fred Cluett, Mary Forsey, Karen
Gallant, Gary Gilliam, Austin Lane, Winnie Marshall, David Murphy, Noreen
Murphy, Milicent Penton, Betty Rumbolt, Rosemary Ryan-Forsey, and Russell Tulk
were also honoured for their outstanding volunteer work in the community.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate these
individuals, along with the rest of the nominees for their contributions to the
Stephenville-Kippens area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer congratulations to the school community of
All Hallows Elementary, North River, on their hosting of the Provincial Finals
of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge on April 5 of this year.
This challenge began earlier in the year with classroom competitions
throughout this Province where school winners earned the right to qualify for
the provincial championship. The contest is designed to generate an interesting
geography among school age children and to do so in a fun and interactive
fashion.
Mr. Peter Laracy, the coordinator for the Provincial Challenge and Principal
of All Hallows Elementary indicated, "While literacy development in the
areas of math and language is important, the development of geographic literacy
is essential in a world where modern technology provides students with access to
the world at the click of a button... Students must have a keen understanding of
the geographic and historical nature of their country and the world as a
whole."
The winners of this competition - and I would certainly like to offer
congratulations to Oliver Winstanley of Holy Trinity Elementary, Torbay, who
captured top honours; Miss Christina Price, of McDonald Junior High, St. John's,
who took second place; and Andrew Harvey of Mount Pearl Intermediate School, who
finished in third place.
The winner joins thirty-five students from across Canada who will compete at
the same time in this year's National Final via the Internet. All finalists
will be linked to a secure environment on the Geography Challenge Web site where
the competition will take place on Saturday, May 24.
The Challenge is organized nationally by the Canadian Council for Geographic
Education with the help of hundreds of local teachers and volunteers.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this Assembly will join with me in
congratulating all the participants in the Geography Challenge and wishing the
winner success in the upcoming national competition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned what the government strategy, and the
Liberal Party's strategy really is to win the next general election. It is not
about talking about rural revitalization. It is not about how we are going to
grow revenues for the people of the Province. It is not about improving health
care and education. It is not about improving municipal infrastructure in the
Province. It is about one person. It is about the government honing in and
strategizing to tear down the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this question: Isn't it a fact that the
strategies revealed this morning is nothing about improving services to the
people of the Province but, in fact, represents you and the Liberal Party's
view that the only way you can win the next election is by spreading fear,
uncertainty and doubt about the Leader of the Opposition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind hon. members again to direct their questions to the Chair, not to
individual members.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the record shows quite clearly that our strategy for Newfoundland and
Labrador has been laid out over the last fourteen years but, most particularly,
in the last two. Our strategy is to make definitive commitments in a whole range
of areas, economic and social, and to keep the commitments.
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador does, as a
political organization, is not the work of the government. The government is
focused on helping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Believe me, I don't think
the people of the Province need us to point out the abundant and ever increasing
shortcomings of the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to hear the Premier talk about that his government has laid out a
plan. Let's talk about that plan exactly, or the lack of one, Mr. Speaker.
Last week in the Legislature, in debate in this House, the record of Hansard
clearly shows, and I can quote directly from it, when talked about when the
issue of the deficit came up, the $666 million deficit, the Government House
Leader said that we have a plan to reduce the deficit but we are going to reveal
it in time. He did not reveal it then. He has not revealed it now and nor is he
going to in time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier this question: Does he share the
Government House Leader's assertion of not laying out a plan of how they are
going to reduce the deficit, that they will reveal it in time? If he does, can
he tell us when he will reveal that plan to reduce the deficit in Newfoundland
and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the people of the Province are very impressed today that the lead
question by the Opposition House Leader is about speculation, about an election,
with all the issues that we are trying to resolve on behalf of the people of the
Province today. They are consumed by the whole notion and concept of an election
to the point, Mr. Speaker, that they are even causing some difficulties for us
in the work we are trying to get done for the people who are without EI
extension, that some members opposite talked about this morning on Open Line
programs - not worth raising a question in the Legislature about. The question
in the Legislature is about what is going on with electioneering. We are not
interested in electioneering, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in doing what is
right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier's answer demonstrates clearly what the thrust of
my questions are today. Last week in this House members opposite had talked
about EI extension. Last week in this House members opposite had talked about
licensed buyout and early retirement. The only person in this House who would
like to see the Opposition not talk about it is the Premier. If the Premier
believes that a deficit of $666 million, which his government will not reveal
how they are going to deal with it, is not important to the people of the
Province then he may think again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question. The Member for Ferryland, the
critic for Finance and Treasury Board, asked the Minister of Finance this
question. The Minister of Finance has talked publicly that over the next four
years this government is going to reduce the Budget by $300 million.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question, quickly.
MR. E. BYRNE: She will not tell us where that is going to come from.
Let me ask the Premier this question: In reducing the Budget over the next
four years, if you get the chance to do it, how do you plan to reduce it by $300
million? Will we see more layoffs in education? Will we see more layoffs in
health care? Premier, tell us exactly what your plan is to reduce the Budget by
$300 million?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
People of the Province do understand that we provide solid, straightforward
solutions and a plan. We have indicated, and a large part of it is working -
they do not like the news, unfortunately. I do not know why it is that the
Opposition does not like good news.
Mr. Speaker, we will reduce the deficit by 25 per cent in the first year, by
50 per cent in the second year, by 75 per cent in the third year, and back in
balance in the fourth year. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the bond rating agencies
are so confident that they reaffirmed our A credit rating as a result of that in
just the last few days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we might point out as well, it is the group
opposite that always ask for more spending, even though there is already a
deficit. They will probably be up again today with petitions looking for more
money for roads, more money for health care, more money for education. In the
meantime, they are suggesting they might be going to reduce and do away with all
kinds of taxes. So, they are going to take in no money but spend a lot more, and
they won't tell anybody what any of their plans are, Mr. Speaker, but our
plans are certainly there. It is so confused that on an issue that is current in
the Province today - the deficit issue, Mr. Speaker, is one that is under
control and has reaffirmed an A credit rating -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - for the Province for the first time in seventeen years.
That is how good the financial circumstance is.
On the issue of the day, the Opposition does not know if they are for
changing the Terms of Union, for an administrative arrangement or for some kind
of council -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - mentioned by the Premier of Manitoba. Their leader, Mr.
Speaker, mentioned about ten different versions of what he might support in one
five- minute interview with Don Newman just a few days ago.
They have to make up their minds what they stand for. We know what we stand
for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows it is not true. We have been
the party over time, including the last election, that advocated for
constitutional change. I will say to the Premier: Welcome to the party, Premier,
it is about time that you and the government got there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier this question.
According to the strategy outlined this morning about the personal malicious
attacks on the Leader of the Opposition, let me ask him this: Does he share the
Member for Port de Grave's view, who said in this Legislature last week, are
there any potential conflicts of interest in relation to the position that the
Leader of the Opposition has taken on business holdings? Does he share the
member's view, for example, when the member questioned whether he was in
conflict or not? Finally, does he share the view of the Commissioner for Members'
Interests, Mr. Wayne Green, an independent officer of this House, who has ruled,
Mr. Speaker, that all members, including the Leader of the Opposition is in
compliance?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Does the share the Member for Port de Grave's view, that
report of the Commissioner for Members' Interests on all members, including
the Leader of the Opposition, really is not worth the paper it is written on?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe, rather than chase after red herrings, like the Opposition House Leader
is trying to do today, because they don't want to talk about the current
issues in Newfoundland and Labrador - he suggests that their position was clear.
Well, I might remind everybody, Mr. Speaker, that their leader, in his interview
on this matter, as to whether or not he supports a change in the Terms of Union,
in an interview with Mr. Newman on Friday evening, said: Of course, I support
the issue. If we had been elected in 1999, it would already be implemented.
However, I question the timing, it is pretty tricky, it might be Meech Lake all
over again. Maybe we should do joint management. It is really an awareness
issue. It is not about the Terms of Union. Perhaps we should have an
administrative solution or a joint management council, suggested by the Premier
of Manitoba, and we will certainly support it however it comes to the House, but
we should not have a rigorous debate about it.
Now, Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?
PREMIER GRIMES: What is that in terms of a position -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: - about the most dominant issue in Newfoundland and
Labrador today? I am sure, at the rally that I will be attending in a few hours,
they will be interested to know that the Official Opposition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - did not want to talk about this issue today. They did
not want to talk about EI extension. They did not want to talk about licence
buyout. They did not want to talk about an older worker adjustment program. They
did not want to talk about getting the decision reversed. They wanted to talk
about red herrings, about an election that may or may not happen some time this
year, Mr. Speaker. That is their only concern. They do not want to deal with the
issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier should stayed tuned. There is only ten minutes gone in Question
Period, and twenty left. You will have lots of opportunity to talk about what
you have done or failed to do with respect to the issues that you just
mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, my next question for the Premier is this: He talked about and he
said, earlier in this House, that what the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador does and what the Liberal Party does are two different matters.
Not the question, Mr. Speaker, because today we find out that the Consumer
Advocate, who is also Director of Candidate Recruitment for the Liberal Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador, is espousing a policy that the government is looking
at seriously going towards.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that a good friend of the Premier -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also know that a good friend of the Premier, Mr. Saunders, the Petroleum
Price Commissioner, is also recruiting candidates.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Isn't it a fact, Premier,
that what you are doing with your own friends is politicizing institutions of
government to ensure that you have a stronger hold on the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the kind of questioning that we have today is why I am the
biggest proponent in Newfoundland and Labrador for fixed-term elections.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is no election ongoing in Newfoundland
and Labrador. There is one in Manitoba. There is one in New Brunswick. There
recently was one in Quebec. There will be one in Newfoundland and Labrador some
time this year, and we should take the twenty-one days of the election and have
a great debate about those political issues.
What the people of the Province are looking for, from all of us today, is
some leadership as elected representatives about the issues of people today who
cannot fish because the ice is there, who cannot get their EI extended either.
They are not interested in who supports what party today. They are interested in
the people who are elected today doing something on their behalf, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: And it shows, obviously, that the Official Opposition has
no real concern for it. They are confused about their position on this issue, as
they are with many, because they do not have a policy platform. They say they
have one, but "trust me" is their real position. We will show you
something some time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Well, when they were asked to show something about this
issue on Friday, Mr. Speaker, their leader gave about fifteen different answers
in about a five-minute interview, because they do not know what their position
is on any item of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Province
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know members opposite, in particular the Premier, would like
that to be so, but just because he says it is so does not make it so. The fact
of the matter is that our party has been a long-standing party who has talked
about constitutional amendment, who has talked about shared jurisdiction in the
fishery, and we support that today.
What people want to know is - today in The Telegram it was reported
and quoted by the Premier, for example, he says: We are going to talk to federal
officials first and then determine if we are going to need a constitutional
amendment.
So, it is not our position, Mr. Speaker, that needs to be cleared up. It is
the Premier's position.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this question. The Premier
accuses this party, and in particular our leader, about flip-flops. We have
talked about the privatization of health care in the Province. In Corner Brook,
he talked about a long-term health care facility, and what they are trying to
do, yet today we see, and over the weekend, the government completely turning
around on the issue where they were over two weeks ago about the private-public
partnerships.
What people want to know, Premier, is this -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the member now to get to his question quickly.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what the people what to know is this: Where
does the Premier stand today? Is he for privatization of health care and
private-public partnerships, or the complete reversal now? Is he on the side
with what the Leader of the Opposition talked about, about no privatization of
health care in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest to the Opposition House Leader, he will probably be back as Leader
of the Opposition again some time soon, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: In any event, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he
should read the full story that was in The Telegram , because the
commitment that I gave to the representatives of CUPE was this: that we would
gladly have a meeting with them and make sure they fully understand our position
before we proceed with a 3P proposal, a private-public partnering proposal, in
Corner Brook because, Mr. Speaker, we never -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - ever have been and are not for privatized health care.
It is only a misrepresentation of our publicly funded health care proposal in
Corner Brook that involves some private partners that is being put about the
Province by the Official Opposition for political mischief purposes, Mr.
Speaker, that is confusing the issue.
We are not for private health care, but we do believe in consulting with
people and giving them a full opportunity to say their piece before we proceed
with an Expression of Interest, or Request for Proposals, to put in place the
much-needed long-term health care facilities in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, that
I understand - maybe I am wrong again - the Opposition believes -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - we should put in place in Corner Brook.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary for the Premier.
Isn't it a fact that this misguided, unwarranted and unjustified attack
strategy on the Leader of the Opposition reflects a desperation of a government
trying to hold on to power? Is this strategy not really made up of the stuff
that comes from the south end of a north flying goose?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a word used in the public in Newfoundland and
Labrador in the last couple of weeks - usually used by the Leader of the
Opposition - a word called desperation. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,
there is a great deal of desperation involved in a line of questioning that
suggests that because someone stands up in a democratic society where we have
freedom of speech and reminds somebody of what a person has said, that they
would characterize that as an attack on a character.
A reminder in the public of what someone has said is not intended to be an
attack on anyone. It is just exactly that: reminding someone what the publicly
stated views of that person are. Others decide whether or not that constitutes
any kind of a basis on which they can made a judgement about that person. We do
not believe in attacking anyone. We believe in dealing with issues, doing things
that are in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, like trying
to make sure we do something with the fishery issue today instead of spending
the first twenty minutes of a Question Period talking about an election that
will be called some time in the future, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question today would be to the Minister of Human Resources
and Employment or to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Obviously, I
guess, they are both working on this file.
I wonder if either one of those ministers could give the people out there
today - I am talking about fish plant workers and fishermen who are going
through hardships, not being able to put bread and butter on the table - if they
would give us an update today and tell those people if they can expect to see
the EI rules and regulations extended so that they might collect benefits?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I said last week in the House, we have made representation to the federal
government on this very serious issue. It is very serious to the fisherfolk
involved. We have impressed upon the federal government how important this is to
the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, all of our federal MPs, on both sides of the House, are aware of
this issue. They have made representation on behalf of the fishermen of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I can say
is that this is a prime example of how the federal government operates, how in
tune they are with seasonal work here in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially
in the fishing industry.
I am at a loss as to why the federal government has not responded. I guess it
is the lack of knowledge of the central government, that thinks only of
themselves -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - when they live on a street corner in Toronto or
Ottawa, that is all they see about the country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I agree with the member opposite, that the time
has come for the federal member to make a decision about a very, very critical
issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we are asking for, I say to the minister, is not new. It was done in
1974 and it was done again in 1992.
Minister, your federal cousin, the minister in Ottawa, is talking about
putting a package together, coming back and making another announcement. I say
to the minister, the need is now. Those people cannot wait two weeks or three
weeks to put a package together. Those people need funding now.
I ask the minister if he can give fishermen and fish plant workers any
information today as to when they can expect to see this package, and what has
he done as the minister responsible to make sure that this benefit is extended?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, government has made
representation to the federal minister on behalf of the fisherpersons of this
Province. The question of when can we expect an answer, Mr. Speaker, I cannot
speak for the federal government and I believe that most of us in this House, I
would say all of us in this House, are beginning to believe that they cannot
even speak for themselves.
MR. WALSH: I wish you could speak for them.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Yes, you are right. The hon. Member for Conception Bay
East & Bell Island says, I wish you could. I wish I could too, Mr. Speaker,
because this is a very serious issue in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. These people need the help of the federal government. These people are
responsible for EI. These people are responsible to control or to manage or to
implement the program of EI that they have. Certainly goodness, Mr. Speaker,
with all the fuss that has been on the go for the last few weeks about the
problems with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, certainly goodness,
somebody in Ottawa would recognize that we need help down here for the
fisherpersons of this Province.
MR. WALSH: And need it now.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we need it now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of
Youth and Post-Secondary Education.
Mr. Speaker, this government has repeatedly and loudly, I might add, stated
in this House, in the media, through Budget press releases, that tuition fees in
this Province are indeed the lowest in the country, implying our students have
the least amount of student debt. They have the most accessible and affordable
post-secondary education in the country.
This same government, I would say, Mr. Speaker, are rather silent in
admitting it was they, in their tenure of over fourteen years in office, that
have forced increases in tuition well over 300 per cent.
In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to explain the
different analysis presented in a recently released document, Missing Pieces
III, which clearly ranked this Province fifth on the scale of tuition fees. Isn't
this, Mr. Speaker, further truth that this government is not giving the people
of this Province the full story, conveniently cherry-picking statistics to paint
an inaccurate picture?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted, after your third attempt this week and last week, you have
asked this question. In fact, you have left out the very most important part of
the Missing Pieces document. What they did say is that Newfoundland and Labrador
has shown the most significant gains in post-secondary education across the
country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric that was brought forward by
your colleague, the Member for Ferryland, we do have the lowest Canadian tuition
in the country.
Mr. Speaker, we have made aggressive gains in our post-secondary education.
What we are doing, as a government, is listening to young people. Young people
are the users of the system, and we have made four cuts to our tuition. This
September we will have the lowest -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer quickly.
MS THISTLE: - Canadian tuition right across the country, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This same report pointed out the hidden cost of post-secondary, namely user
fees, which are not included in tuition rates, I say to the minister. These user
fees, under the tenure of this government as well since 1993 have risen by 500
per cent and since 1998 by over 200 per cent! Doesn't this independent study
show that while government claims to have lowered tuition modestly it has
allowed user fees to go up dramatically, with the effect that students actually
are paying more?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know where this member opposite is getting his information. He is
definitely not getting it from the correct source. There are absolutely no user
fees - absolutely no user fees. The student union dues - we have Canadian
Federation of Students' fees, and we have Newfoundland and Labrador Federation
of Students' fees. The only fee there is, is $40 per semester and that is for
the university's recreation complex Field House. There are no fees, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
Federal Fisheries Minister Thibault continues to talk co-management with the
crabbers of Shippagan, New Brunswick, with respect to the prosecution of the
crab fishery. Has the Premier yet been able to convince Minister Thibault, or
even ACOA Minister Gerry Byrne, that co-management with the people of this
Province is a good idea, starting with showing some respect for the
recommendations of the all-party committee of this Legislature and the House of
Commons?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the people who are impacted throughout Newfoundland and Labrador
are pleased to hear the thoughtful question about the fishery issue in the
Province today.
Mr. Speaker, ever since the announcement was made just over two weeks ago, we
have been in regular and repeated contact with several of the ministries of the
government involved at the national level in Ottawa. The latest contacts were
throughout the weekend when both I, personally, and the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador were in contact regularly and
repeatedly with both Minister Thibault and Minister Byrne, our representative in
the federal Cabinet. As a result of that, there are some actual face-to-face
meetings occurring today because we did press the point, as the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would point out, there is a negotiation occurring in New
Brunswick with respect to crab quotas and co-management of their resource, and
why wouldn't there be a negotiation with Newfoundland and Labrador about the
cod quotas and the announcement that was made two weeks ago?
Again, what the outcome will be, I do not know. I know what our position is.
We take the position that the decision taken should be reversed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: We think there should be EI extension. There should be
licenced buyouts and there should be an early retirement program, along with the
longer term incentives that we all need. Mr. Speaker, where the discussions will
go, I do not know. I can report they are occurring today on a face-to-face
basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why should the issue of EI extensions be an issue of discussion with Minister
Thibault and the Minister of Fisheries here? Isn't this something that the
changing the rules and regulations immediately. Can this government not get a
response from the federal government on this issue totally separate from the
idea of negotiations with Minister Thibault? Why is this government getting no
to date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Those very questions, as well, are being asked by Newfoundland and Labrador
based Members of Parliament in the House of Commons to the federal minister
responsible, the Minister of Human Resources and Development Canada, because it
is a mystery to all of us, as to why it is that a very timely response can be
made to a serious issue - and rightfully so in Toronto - and we agree that the
right decision was made for the right reasons. What no one in Newfoundland and
Labrador can understand is why it is taking them so long.
The request, by the way - and it was acknowledged two weeks ago when we were
in Ottawa - was made some three weeks before that. So they have had the request
with respect to EI extensions in Newfoundland and Labrador before the Government
of Canada, with the right people, for some five weeks. We are including the
discussions with anyone who might support our cause, including Minister
Thibault, Minister Byrne and everyone else. It is the direct purview of the
Minister of Human Resources and Development Canada. We cannot understand why it
is taking so long to make that decision when - as it was pointed out earlier
today - there are precedents in Newfoundland and Labrador. Only the Government
of Canada can answer for why it is we do not have that part of this particular
issue dealt with and resolved to our satisfaction already.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this House to present a petition on behalf of the community
of Colliers. The prayer reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the roads in the community of Colliers, especially Harbour Drive,
have deteriorated to a point that the safety of motorists and pedestrians are
being compromised; and
WHEREAS access to residences, businesses, churches, postal facilities,
schools and recreation areas have been seriously affected; and
WHEREAS little, if any, maintenance and repairs are carried out on an annual
basis;
WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
make a commitment to include the upgrading of this road system in its annual
capital disbursements for the upcoming fiscal year, as is in duty bound your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by all the residents of this particular
community. In looking at this particular stretch of road, especially the Harbour
Drive, I just want to draw attention to the House that it is in a deplorable
state of disrepair. There have been some attempts down through the years to
patch it up, I guess, but have been unsuccessful. It is at a point right now
where the safety of the travelling public is at risk. Travelling over this road
- and this is the main artery in this particular community. It is a very
important artery because it connects all aspects of the community. It is a road
that needs to be used by school buses, by response vehicles, such as ambulances
or fire trucks. The various vehicles that are necessary to carry out the
business of that community are having difficulty in navigating this particular
road.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of senior citizens have their residences on this road as
well. They, in particular, find it very difficult to have access to the services
around them. The point is that the community is quite willing to see the
government partway on this endeavour. They have been petitioning government now
for a number of years to bring this road up to a standard which they would then
be able to, I suppose, take their own responsibility for that road. It is
absolutely necessary that this road be looked at, that it be taken into
consideration in this year. It cannot go on any further, the road has to be
repaired.
I would ask this House to do everything it can to push this petition forward
and to have it actioned.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition containing between 2,800 and 3,000 names
from residents all across Labrador, from almost every community. I will read out
the
preamble of the prayer:
That due to the lack of availability of medical services in Labrador,
residents of Labrador are forced to travel to the Island portion of the Province
to access health care services, particularly when it deals with; and
That commercial airline flights between Labrador and the Island have been
reduced such that it is difficult to book flights, and the cost of travel
between Labrador and the Island is extremely expensive; and
That financial assistance made available to residents through the medical
transportation assistance program in our Province is inadequate for residents of
Labrador due to the extreme costs;
THEREFORE your petitioners call upon parliament to increase health care
funding to the provinces and territories so that adequate and appropriate
funding is available to residents of Labrador to offset the high cost of
commercial air travel from Labrador to the Island.
Mr. Speaker, this deals with a very serious matter. On Friday of this week I
put out a press release notifying the public and the media that I would be
presenting this petition in the House of Assembly today.
Mr. Speaker, there is a program in place but it falls far short of what is
needed or what is reasonable. I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker.
This, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is using a very modest rate and it is restricted
strictly to the patient involved, not any other family members who have to
travel. If you take into consideration air fares and if you look at the amount
that is allowed to be claimed for living accommodations and the amount that is
allowed for meals, if you take all of that into consideration, if a person had
to stay in the St. John's area for month, which is not uncommon, it is quite
frequent, the total cost, minimum, would be $5,500 of which only $1,000 would be
reimbursed.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that government play a greater role in
assisting the people who live in remote and isolated communities of our
Province, play a greater role in allowing them access to health care. This is a
classic example, Mr. Speaker, where, depending on where you live, your quality
of health care is totally dependent upon your ability to pay. There are many
people who live in Labrador who do not have benefit packages that provide for
travel. There are many people who work there making ten, twelve, fourteen
dollars an hour, and when they are faced with something like this it is
impossible. I know of cases where people have told me that they would not be
able to travel simply because they could not afford to.
I know of many other cases, Mr. Speaker, where people -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: I know of other cases, Mr. Speaker, many other cases, where
I and other people have become involved in raising money in our communities so
that people could afford to travel to this area to receive medical treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe for a minute that people in this Province should
have to depend upon the generosity of their friends and neighbors or
organizations within their community to make sure that they are able to access
adequate health care.
We are calling upon this government, Mr. Speaker, to improve the
transportation assistance program, to remove the cap that is presently in place
that limits what a person can receive in the form of a rebate, to increase the
allowable expenses. Where, I ask government, can you find a hotel room in this
city for seventy-five dollars a night? That is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker. The
hostel at the Health Science Centre is pretty well full all the time. People are
not able to get in there when they need to on many occasions. Where, I ask this
government, can a person live on fourteen dollars and fifteen cents a day when
it comes to meals with a monthly cap of $650.
I don't when this program was implemented. Maybe the rates are reflective
of the conditions at that time, but they certainly fall short now, Mr. Speaker.
This government has to do something to this plan that will increase what a
person is able to receive in order to access health care.
I would like to point out to government, as well: All of this subsidy, Mr.
Speaker, is presumed on the basis that a person has the money up front to pay
and get reimbursed later. On many occasions that is not the case, that is not
the situation, for a lot of people who live in remote areas of our Province and
work each and every day for a living.
I am asking government to review this policy, to increase the amount of
subsidy that is provided, particularly as it applies to the rebates and the
deductible of $500, to erase all of that and give people a chance to access
health care in the same way, in the same manner, and no more out of pocket than
somebody who lives in near proximity to the major health centres in this
Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if members would permit me to go back to
Notices of Motion, that came down a little fast. It is the Notice of Motion that
the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, nor at 10:00 p.m.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?
AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.
The hon. minister, I think, has given the notice.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) given notice, Mr. Speaker, the motion.
Orders of the Day
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before calling the particular business of the day,
I would like to move first reading of Motions 4 through 8, inclusive. That is,
Bills 13, 12, 11, 14 and 10.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City
Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999
And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000," carried. (Bill 12)
On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce
the following bills, carried:
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 11)
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 14)
On motion, Bills 11 and 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on
tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," carried.
(Bill 10)
On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, also we ask first reading of Motion 4, Bill 13.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court
Judges," carried. (Bill 13)
Motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 3, debating the Concurrence Motion - the Social Services
Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.
The hon. the Member for Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to start the debate on the Estimates of
the Social Services Committee. It was my pleasure to Chair this Committee for
the last month or so, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for
their hard work and their diligence on the conclusion of the Committee's work
that we are now starting the debate on today. There were some very interesting
questions over the weeks leading up to the conclusion of our work that, I have
to say, led to some very interesting discussions in the Committee.
The five committees that are covered under the Social Services Committee are,
the Department of Education, the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Department of
Health and Community Services, the Department of Labour, and the Department of
Justice.
I just wanted to make some brief comments on each of these departments and
some of the points that came out through the Estimates Committee. I think, in
particular, that several departments' work, and their analysis of what has
been done over the past year or so, is very important for the public of the
Province to hear.
As many people would know, the mandate of the department - I would like to
start with Human Resources and Employment - is to assist people, really, in
helping to find employment in our Province. I have to say that, as a government,
we are very proud of the fact that right now in our Province - and it has been
true for more than a year now, for several years - we have had the highest
employment levels ever in our history, the highest number of people working at
any time since Confederation. Of course, part of the mandate of the Department
of Human Resources and Employment is to make sure that people who are receiving
social assistance have dignified income support for all of those who are in need
in our Province. We are very happy to say that those numbers are decreasing on a
year-over-year basis for several years now. Of course, most of that is because,
as a Province, our economy is moving ahead and, because of that, more jobs are
being created.
I think one of the main highlights that has happened in the Department of
Human Resources and Employment in this past year that we were all so very, very
pleased about was the passage of the Income and Employment Support Act that was
passed in this Legislature just this past December. We all knew that there was a
lot of work to be done before that could be done. There were consultations
around the Province, and the staff of that department really worked hard over
the last few years to ensure that this bill was the best that it could be, and
outlining the circumstances that we are in our Province now, and what we are
able to do, and the improvements that we were able to make. I think this was the
first time that this bill has been renewed since 1977, so it was well over
thirty years and well needed to be done. I know that this act now is a great
tool for the staff of the Department of Human Resources and Employment to be
able to help clients even more in our Province.
One of the pieces that I was very pleased to be a part of in the past two
years, in my previous role as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women,
was the work that we did with Human Resources and Employment to help individuals
who are victims of violence. I have to say the work that has been done by this
department is some of the best that has been occurring anywhere in the country,
and that we are very pleased as a government to be able to have implemented many
of the recommendations of the working group for victims of violence, which were
brought to the department in February of 2002.
These measures specifically that were acted upon by the Department of Human
Resources and Employment were to help people who are receiving income support
and to be responsive in particular to their unique and sometimes very urgent
needs. I remember very clearly one of the items brought forward in the public
consultation was the fact that if a woman, for instance, happened to be a victim
of violence and needed to get to a safe house, to one of our transition houses,
under the old rules it was possible that you could call for help and that the
person at the transition house, sometimes their hands would be tied. They would
not be able to say, yes, we have the ability to pay for your transportation to
get you to these safe circumstances in a transition house. So, the new rules
that were put in place were enacted so that anyone who is receiving income
support, or anyone who is in urgent need, the ability is there to deal with it
immediately and then the next day to get things straightened out so that the
bills are all properly paid, so that the transition houses have the ability to
help anyone in need who calls and that no one will be denied the safety of a
transition house because of lack of financial resources.
Of course, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, we heard a lot
about their commitment for people who are living with a disability, that the
supported employment programs continue to be important. The community-based
employment assistance program, that provides the necessary supports for adults
with developmental disabilities to participate in employment.
The 2002-2003 budget for this program this year is $3.12 million, and that
really was to respond to the increasing demand on this program last year. I know
that an extra $300,000 had to be put into that budget to help provide the
supports for persons with disabilities. This year they are saying they will now
provide that enhanced support, the regular-based budget, but also to include the
extra $300,000 which was required towards the end of the fiscal year last year
in order to meet the demands there.
I know we were very pleased to hear of the success of the program that we
partner very well with. While many times we are often complaining about our
relationship with the federal government, we know that the National Child
Benefit Program continues to be a very successful program, which we partner very
closely with the federal government on. We know that over the years it has been
very successful in this Province in that many needy families are being greatly
assisted by it. For the past two years this government has reinvested the
savings that are resulting from demographic changes in this program back right
into the program.
For the coming year, I believe there was an extra $250,000 the minister
described as being extra money that is available. All of this has been
reinvested into a small increase for families in the rate structure. While it is
only $215,000, the point is being made here today that any money which can be
reinvested from the National Child Benefit Program into the pockets of needy
families, it is being done. At every opportunity, since 1999, we have been doing
this. When combined with the increase in the federal child benefits, families in
our Province now will receive a combined child benefit of approximately $2,848
annually for the first child and that will be effective July 1, 2003. So that is
a very significant amount of money for a low-income family to be receiving to
assist them in rearing their children.
For example, a low-income family with two children received a total of $2,040
annually in 1997 in child benefits. By July of this year, just a little over a
month away, this family will now be entitled to $5,583 on an annual basis. That
is very significant, to go to a little over $2,000 to well over $5,000. That is
more than $3,500 difference for each family since 1997. That is very significant
when you trying to feed your children properly and clothe them, and to make sure
they have all of the opportunities that they can have to have a good education
and to make their way in life.
The Budget this year also provided for an allocation of $500,000 to the Kids
Eat Smart Foundation. It was just last week actually we were very pleased, as
MHAs on both sides of the House, to be working with the poster program that the
Kids Eat Smart Foundation had. I was really pleased that the school from my
district, Gander Academy, had won for our particular school district. I will be
bringing that poster back - after it has been displayed here for the next month
- to the District of Gander to be proudly displayed there through the summer. I
have to say, the money that the Kids Eat Smart program invest in schools and in
children in our Province is so very, very important.
I have two really excellent programs in my district. At Gander Academy they
have a breakfast program that is running really well with volunteers from our
community. In the community of Glenwood and Appleton, at Lakewood Academy, they
have an excellent snack program that they serve at recess time in the mornings.
It is one of the best programs that I have ever seen. In both schools they have
extraordinary support from the community, whether it be church groups or
individuals, or local Lions Clubs, rotary clubs and fire halls. They all really
do help with these programs because we all know that children need nutritious
food to be healthy in order to grow and to learn. I am really proud of the
growth of this program and how much it is helping the children in our Province.
I think we have probably one of the best programs in all of Canada when you
consider the challenges in this Province. To see the way many communities and
schools have realized that in some cases, in the larger centres, it is much
easier to get donations and to get volunteers, to have facilities in schools and
the wherewithal to start school lunch programs. I have seen some extraordinary
examples as I have travelled around this Province over the last few years of
very isolated communities, and communities that really need these programs,
which have very innovative solutions that have been put forward for programs to
help children both grow and learn.
I also know - as the minister was pointing out at the Estimates Committee -
that this coming fiscal year we will be adding five social worker positions to
the current fifteen social workers in our Province that are delivering the
support application programs. This will make sure that the required social work
supports are available to parents in their efforts to secure spousal or child
support. I know this is another program that, as a government, we are very proud
of. We have been able, in the past few years, to sign agreements with other
provinces to make sure that parents who are working away from the Province, and
in some cases have not kept up their spousal support, that we are able now to
track them with the partnership agreements we have signed with other provinces
to make sure that the children - either the mother or father who are left here
in this Province are receiving the spousal support that they deserve so that the
children can have the appropriate food and all of the shelter requirements and
learning requirements supported that anyone who has children would recognize are
so very, very necessary.
We also know that the department this year is starting a new computerized pay
system. While you might think all of that is just a bureaucratic technical
thing, it is very, very important in the department. It will be started as a
pilot project on the West Coast of the Province this summer. We know that by
putting these systems in place it is very good for the clients of the Department
of Human Resources and Employment but it is also very important in freeing up
staff to do more important work. So the more we can use technology to do the
tedious work of applications and everything, and to put the pay systems in
place, we know that this leaves the workers to work with the clients who so much
need their support.
As I pointed out, social assistance caseloads have continued to decline in
our Province. We hope that because of the progressive initiatives we, as a
government, have been able to put in place, that we will be able to accomplish
our goals ensuring that the economic and social needs of low-income families and
individuals in our Province are met and that the department will be able to
continue to grow the levels of employment in this Province.
It is predicted that, again this year, levels of employment will grow as our
economy continues to grow. It is our hope that everyone who wants a job in the
next few years will be able to receive a job. I think it is really important
that between departments - like Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and
Human Resources and Employment - the training needs are there for everyone who
is able to go to work and wants to go to work, that they are able to do it. It
is also important to recognize that people at many times in stages in their
lives may have requirements where they are unable to work and it is so important
that we have the supports in this department to be able to address their
everyday needs in a dignified manner.
Also, Madam Speaker, I was really impressed with the Department of Health and
Community Services, with the estimates and with the discussion that took place.
I know we went a little bit over time - not too much on that - but there were
some really interesting discussions through that department's estimates as
they were being presented. I know they have had a really challenging year with
the doctors' strike which went to binding arbitration. Now the report has been
presented and, I believe, they are now setting the stage of implementing the
report of the binding arbitration proceedings.
I think a lot of people in our Province do not recognize, and I think it is
well worth the time to spend just a few minutes talking about the department's
budget for the past few years. For this year it is $1.6 billion. That is a lot
of money for a little over half-a-million people. It is one of the sources of
pride for us, that in spite of the fiscal challenges we have as a government we
spend well above the average amount of expenditure per capita than most
provinces in our country do.
This year the Budget has gone up, yet again, $71 million. I know when I first
joined government in 1996 - and I well remember the terrible, fiscal
circumstances of our Province at that time. I remember going through the program
review process and how hard it was on government departments all over the
government. It was very, very difficult but I remember - all of us, especially
some of us who were new to the political arena - very well going through and
knowing that at the end of the program review process we could not cut a cent in
the Department of Health and Community Services. Health care is such an
important need. Really, without your health - even education and your job and
almost anything that you do is not possible unless you have the highest degree
of health possible in your own personal circumstances.
I remember very well how hard it was to find the budget, to balance the
budget in other departments so that we could not cut a cent out of the
Department of Health and Community Services. Every year we have managed
increases. It has been challenges. I know how hard it is for every board of
every hospital structure in our Province - how hard it has been for them but we
have tried so very hard to support them. We are finally seeing now that some of
the boards are in a better fiscal position; that they are able this year to
actually balance their budgets. We know that we still have some boards who are
in very difficult fiscal circumstances, but we are finding that we are able to
help them.
I know that we need to thank our boards more for all that they do to make
sure that our people receive the best health care possible. We know that this
year we have put more than $600 million into health related capital projects and
equipment. I am very pleased that part of that, and over the past few years, of
course, a total of $69 million will go into my district in the hospital
expansion that is there, and just now in a few weeks we will be opening the
expansion and starting the work on remediating the asbestos and other big
problems that are in the present day structure. It is going to take some time to
get that finished, because it is very tedious work. All of the health care
foundations, you know, we have been able to match the funding for them as they
have been out fundraising for various pieces of capital equipment. I have to
commend them for the work that they have done over this past few years. I know
that last year, in this past year, $26 million is being committed for capital
equipment, and that includes another MRI for our Province where we know there is
a great deal of debate going on now to look at whether that MRI should be
stationary or mobile.
Of course, many of us feel that a mobile MRI, as the second MRI for our
Province, is a very worthwhile thing to do, because we know that in the other
regions outside of the Avalon how difficult and how very expensive it is for
many people to get to these services. I know, also, we need a plan for future
MRIs in our Province. I know that the mobile MRIs work so well in New Brunswick,
that the first MRI they had was a mobile MRI. Now, as they have been able to
afford it, and the numbers of clients who need it, they have been putting it in
the larger areas and then moving the mobile one into the more remote or into the
northern areas.
Our hope is that we will have a plan like that, that will show the people of
this Province that these much needed health care services will be available to
them at least somewhat closer to where they live. I do not think we will ever
see the day when we will have MRIs in every single nook and cranny of our
Province, but it sure helps when you do not have to travel more than a day to
get to such a much needed service.
Also, this year there is $1.3 million to increase rates to personal care
homes, and the number of subsidies that are provided for individuals. That also,
as the MHA for Gander district, I was really pleased to see because we so badly
over the last few years, especially since Gander has become a retirement haven
for many seniors in our Province, we needed a personal care home and there is
one in the process of being built right now that should be open by the end of
September. All of this is good news, not just for my district but for all of us,
no matter which side of the House you sit on, all of this will be of benefit to
the people of our Province no matter where they live.
I also know that money has been provided for the drug prescription program.
This year we will be spending about $100 million on the drug prescription
program, and we know that a lot more money we would like to be able to spend.
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS KELLY: My time is up?
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to be able to make a few comments during this
Concurrence debate on the departments under the heading of Social Services.
Before I make some of my own comments, I just want to respond to some of the
points that have been raised by the Member for Gander when she talks about -
because, as Chair of the Committee, she summarized some of the significant
points that came out during those discussions. I thank her for that summation. I
just want to highlight a couple of points that she did make.
Firstly, she talks about the amount of investment that this Province has made
into creating employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. It is
ironic that she stands in this House today and makes such comments,
complimenting government on the tremendous work that they have done in this
area, when it was in fact just last week, last Friday and Saturday, that many
employment corporations around the Province, run by volunteers, I might add,
Madam Speaker, many of these organizations are run by volunteers, had their
annual meeting and conference where they sat together and talked about some of
the challenges that they are facing. What they are saying to us, what they are
saying to the people of the Province, is they have many clients, in fact, who
have found, have been able to find, employment. They have been able to identify
employers who want to provide employment opportunities for persons with
disabilities. They have been able to provide and identify coaches, trainers, who
will work with some of these individuals and help them make that transition into
the workplace, but there is one fundamental obstacle, and that is finding
financial support from this government to be able to do it.
In my own district, the Employment Corporation, the Ability Employment
Corporation there, asked for some $49 million to provide employment
opportunities for some twenty people, some twenty individuals with disabilities.
AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-nine million?
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Forty-nine thousand. I thank the member for correcting
me, $49,000. Not a lot of money now, but it was going to create employment
opportunities for some twenty-odd people with disabilities. When they finally
got the approval, it represented 18 per cent of the amount that they requested.
Over the last couple of weeks, Madam Speaker, I have had half-a-dozen phone
calls - not just from my own district but other districts of the Province -
talking about this very same issue. Many people with disabilities this year are
not going to find employment opportunities because of lack of funding.
Earlier in this sitting we had the minister, I guess, table for the House, a
copy of the strategic social audit. I just want to read something for the House.
It says, "...about 60% of persons aged 15 to 64 with disabilities were not
in the labour force...". It goes on to say that only 27 per cent of persons
with disabilities are actually in the labour force. That is in government's
own strategic social audit, which is intended to profile the Province as we are
right now, today, measuring on a variety of factors.
When you consider, Madam Speaker, that there is only 27 per cent of the
persons with disabilities in this Province who are actually employed, and I
listened to the Member for Gander stand and talk about the tremendous work this
government is doing in providing the necessary funding to provide employment
opportunities for persons with disabilities, I say, from the government's own
publicized record, the strategic planning audit, it reflects a dismal failure
and it reflects a government who has not responded to the challenges associated
with people with disabilities as they try to move into the workforce.
The other point that I think bears some mentioning, and we hear this a lot,
we have had the Minister of Health and Community Services stand and boast about
the tremendous investment that this government is making into our health system,
I acknowledge that $1.6 billion is, in fact, a lot of money, and it does
represent a significant portion of the Province's budget. I acknowledge that.
I think it is reasonable that we should spend a large chunk of our provincial
budget in the area of health services.
One of the things that I have to challenge is, when someone stands in the
House and boasts about the fact that, as a Province, we spend a higher per
capita amount on health than many other provinces in the country. In fact, it
has been suggested that we are among the highest. What has been happening here,
if you look at the factors, what do you consider when you do the math and
calculate per capita spending: number one, you would consider the amount of
money you are spending on the one hand, and on the other hand you would consider
the number of people in the Province. So, mathematically, it is not a great deal
of work to figure that one out. What has been happening in this Province, we
have had such a rapid decline in our population, what we are finding is that our
younger, healthier people are actually leaving the Province. That is one of the
numbers that we are going to count in doing that calculation.
The second thing that is happening is, our health care costs are rising. Some
of that is increasing because of inflation. It is pretty natural. We understand
that. The other significant point is, what we are left with in the Province as a
percentage of our population, the percentage of the elderly in this Province, as
a percentage of the total population, is increasing more rapidly. So what we
have, we have a significant increase in the number of people who are demanding
greater levels of health services and a reduction in the number of people who
have, or access health services very little. It is no wonder, Madam Speaker,
that the per capita investment in health services in this Provinces is
increasing, and so it should, but it is not a statistic that we should stand in
this House, or out on the street corner, and brag and boast about, because it is
not a positive commentary about where we are headed in this Province. So, as a
member stands and makes those comments, I think it is important to put them in
perspective.
One of the other things she talks about is the tremendous work that health
boards are doing in balancing their budgets, and I acknowledge that health
boards are, in fact, doing a great job in providing health services. Whether or
not they are doing a great job in balancing their budgets, I have to bring into
question.
When we went through the Budget Debates in this House, and when we went
through the committees as we talked about the department budgets, one of the
significant points that came up was that health boards in the Province today
still have an accumulated deficit somewhere in the range of $98 million or $99
million. What is more startling, Madam Speaker, is that there is no strategy for
debt reduction. When I asked the minister during that period, could he share
with us his plans and the board's plans for debt reduction over what period,
what would be the cash flow requirements to be able to eliminate the deficit,
what I found - and this is frightening - is that there is no strategy today to
reduce that debt over any reasonable period of time. We are leaving it to
chance. We are leaving it to each individual health board to try to free up
enough money to be able to run their day-to-day operations while, at the same
time, come up with enough money to reduce their debt.
One of the examples was that the Health Care Corporation last year had a
surplus, and because of that surplus they were able to apply that surplus to
reducing their accumulated deficit, and that is admirable, but you have to ask
yourself, Madam Speaker: How does a health board reduce its operating cost to
create a surplus?
It is a fair question, and I am certain that some of it was as a result of
prudent management decisions, and I commend the management and the staff of the
Health Care Corporation for those types of decisions, but I have to acknowledge,
and the minister, I think, should acknowledge as well, that much of those
savings came about as a result of reduction in service. Any time you see
significant increases in wait lists, then what is happening? We are not
responding to the demand. We are not responding to the increased pressures for
services in certain areas.
When I hear cardiovascular surgeons say: We do not do electives anymore.
Everything that we do here is on an emergency basis because we are under such
tremendous pressure, we have not been able to do this in a planned fashion. We
do not have the resources to be able to do it. Our OR time has been cut. Our
budgets have been cut. Our nursing staff has been cut. It is no wonder that they
have a surplus. We have created long wait lists in many service areas and it is
as a result of that long wait list because we are not spending the money. We are
not spending the money, and I suggest that is short-sightedness.
We may, in fact, for a year or two, be able to save enough money to allow
someone to make a reduction in an accumulated deficit, but as soon as you put in
place a mechanism where you are providing emergency service only, then you are
not dealing with the real issue, because that is going to come back to cripple
you after awhile. What that is going to do to you, I suggest, Madam Speaker, is
that what may be elective today is going to become an emergency tomorrow, so our
health system will always be in crisis, responding to emergencies only and very
little proactive response.
I look at government's Budget this year, and I look under the heading of
health services and it talks about the key priorities. It says here that the key
priorities for this year are strategies for wellness, strategies for mental
health, and strategies for long-term care and supportive services.
I just want to pick a couple of those. The first one I will pick is the area
of long-term care. When I see a government produce a document that says: One of
our priorities is long-term care services. I started looking then at the profile
of this Province and saying to ourselves: How many people are out there today,
Madam Speaker, on a wait list to get into a nursing home? How many people are
out there today on a wait list for home support services? What is the state of
our personal care home sector of this Province? That is where the question
becomes much more startling. It is great to see it on paper, that it is an
objective and a strategy for the coming year, but we have to ask ourselves:
Where is the commitment?
I look at my own district. In fact, tonight, the Premier, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Labour have all been invited,
together with my colleague for Bonavista South, to join with a group of people
in Clarenville to talk about long-term care services in that area. More
precisely, Madam Speaker, to talk about the commitment that this government made
to build a nursing home in Clarenville back in 2001, but has not actioned that
commitment; provided lip service to it only. That is the discussion that is
going to take place in my own district tonight. Last week, I attended a
discussion in Corner Brook to talk about nursing home services in that region of
the Province. Again, an unmet need.
Health systems don't go into crisis overnight. This government has been in
place now for fifteen years. What we are experiencing today, in 2003, is an
accumulation. The problems we have today are a reflection of what has happened
in the past. Had we, as a Province, developed a long-term strategy for where we
wanted to take the health system five or ten years ago, many of the issues that
we are dealing with here today would not be a problem.
Let me give you one good example. Tonight, I said, we are going to be talking
about a commitment made to long-term care in Clarenville to build a nursing home
there of forty-four beds. That was announced in the 2001 Budget. Allocation to
put some money into some design work, re-announced in 2002. Here we are in 2003,
and still no action, still waiting. The wait list is getting longer; the
pressure points become greater.
One of the projects going to be carried out this year is to start the
construction of a nursing home in Grand Bank. I just, out of curiosity, tried to
trace the history of that particular facility. Madam Speaker, that is a district
that neighbours yours. Many of the residents of your district, I am certain,
will take advantage of that new facility. One of the things I found, when I went
back through the Budget documents and the commitments that this government has
made, I picked up the Budget document and in 1989 there was a bold announcement,
just like there was in 2001 for Clarenville. In 1989, this same government made
a commitment to build a nursing home in Grand Bank. I picked up the Budget for
the next budget year, 1999 - a re-announcement of the exact same nursing home. I
knew that nothing had started, so I picked up the Budget for the year 2000 - the
same announcement for the same home. In 2001, the same announcement for the same
home. In 2002, the same announcement for the same home. Here we are in 2003,
five years later, an announcement that it is actually going to start. As I
understand, some money has been allocated to call tenders to actually start the
construction.
Madam Speaker, what we have here is a history. The Member for Gander stood
and talked about the renovations to the Gander hospital. It was - what? - eight,
ten years ago. Ten years ago you could drive by on the Trans Canada in Gander
and see steel being erected to expand the hospital. What are we doing here now
in 2003? Still talking about it. We are going to open the new
section sometime
soon and we are going to get around to and we are going to start, sometime in
the future, the renovations to the old existing part. This was to be a condensed
project, a three or four year project starting ten years ago. Here we are today
still not finished.
I say to this government, Madam Chair: When you stand and boast about your
commitment to long term care and then you stand here and see it is one of the
priorities in 2003 - this was an issue that obviously needed to be responded to
five and ten years ago. Today it is finally a priority. Today it is a crisis. It
is more than a priority, it is a crisis. It has become a crisis because of
inaction over the last ten to fifteen years.
I say to this government, Madam Chair: If you are going to establish
something as a priority and you are going to make a commitment - and this is
important. Any time a government stands in this House or delivers a budget and
says it is prepared to make a commitment, like the commitment they made to the
people of Clarenville in 2001 - they made a commitment to build a nursing home
and tonight many of the people in this House have been invited to come out and
say why it is not being done or to tell the people when it is going to be done.
Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I under the Minister of Health and Community
Services has indicated that he won't be available. I understand that the
Premier has indicated he won't be available. I understand that the Member for
Bellevue, and the Minister of Labour, has indicated he won't be available, as
has the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
The hon. member just indicated that the Member for Bellevue and the Minister
of Labour wouldn't be available for a meeting in Clarenville tonight. I just
want to let people know that the House of Assembly is open tonight. If they want
to have a meeting, I suggest that they have it some other night other than a
night when the House of Assembly is open.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is typical of this government, in that, we will
only talk about it on our terms and when we are ready. When it is convenient for
the people who are impacted, they are not available, they are not prepared to
come out and meet with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is typical of the attitude and typical of the
response. It is convenient for the people -
MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Labour, on a point of order.
MR. BARRETT: This member has been a member of this House of Assembly for
fourteen years and I am not sitting here today listening to the hon. Member for
Trinity North suggest that I am not out there representing my constituents. I
made my commitment to the people of Bellevue District to represent them and to
trust me in that my judgement would be in their best interests. The hon. Member
for Trinity North, I must regret, offered himself, saying, trust me, but crossed
the floor and forgot about chronic care in Clarenville many, many months ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The House recognizes the hon. Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
To the point of order, Madam Speaker. I made a commitment to the people of
Trinity North that I would represent their interest, and their interest is very
clear. One mandate that I have is to represent their interest. That is just
exactly what I have done in the last three years and will continue to do after
the next election -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - to represent their interests in this House of
Assembly on issues that are important to them. So I say to the Member for
Bellevue, do not stand in this House and preach to me about your commitment to
your district because many people in your district have been saying that this
nursing home is equally as important to them as it is to the people in Terra
Nova, Bonavista South, and Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: That is the interest I represent here and that is the
commitment I made three years ago and it will be apart of my commitment in the
upcoming general election to continue to represent them on the issues that are
important to them and on issues that are in their best interests. I will
continue to do that, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Now, before the Member for Bellevue threw me off my
trend I was talking about commitment and commitment to health services;
commitment to the people of this Province.
Let me look at one other issue, and this is an important point. I raised this
the other day in Question Period. This government says it has a commitment and
one of its priorities is to mental health services. We heard that a year ago. We
heard it two years ago. In fact, in 2001 this government produced a report
called: Valuing Mental Health. It is a framework to develop a mental health
strategy for the Province.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I don't have leave. They really do not want to hear
the truth, obviously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I want to move the motion that I gave notice of
on Thursday, I think it was, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at
10:00 p.m.
MADAM SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.
or at 10:00 p.m.
All in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MADAM SPEAKER: Against?
Motion carried.
The hon. the Minister of Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House this afternoon to
engage in the concurrent debate, especially as it relates to my department. As
we have heard, the hon. Member for Gander in her remarks referenced the ongoing
commitment that this government has to health care. In this year's Budget we
have committed some $1.6 billion towards health care. Again, Madam Speaker,
representing in the area of some forty-five cents of every program dollar going
into health care in this Province. I think that speaks volumes for the
importance we accord to health care and all the various health care issues.
Madam Speaker, having said that, I think we do have to acknowledge that even
at that level there are still concerns out there. There are still demands that I
receive on a regular basis which we have difficulty in meeting. It is
interesting, Madam Speaker, one day in this House we will hear Opposition
members rise in their places and condemn government for their handling of the
finances; that we are not spending appropriately; that we are overspending; that
we are running deficits. Yet, day after day we hear hon. members rise and
suggest that we need to be spending more money. Well, there is something wrong
here, Madam Speaker. I suggest that you cannot, on the one hand, rise and say:
You are spending too much. Then, in the very next breath, say: Oh, by the way, I
need this. I need that. I need the other thing. All of us understand, in terms
of the demands our constituents have.
I do not criticize any hon. member for coming to this House and representing
the concerns of their members because the concerns are there and they operate on
a number of levels. I recognize, as the Minister of Health and Community
Services, that many of the things we cannot do in the areas of our roads and
highways, in the area of municipal infrastructure - that capability, that
capacity, is not there because those monies have been directed towards health
care for the people of this Province. On a regular basis, as said to us, health
care is the number one priority. Madam Speaker, there is no question. Anyone
looking at this year's budget document can see quite readily that this
government is not failing on its commitment to the people of this Province. It
has delivered, again, a budget which speaks in volumes to the importance that
they accord to health care. All of the monies that are committed here in the
area of diagnostic equipment, infrastructure, all of these things are intended
to enhance the delivery of health care in this Province.
Madam Speaker, just referencing a few of the things that are contained in the
Budget. The hon. member opposite, in his comments, just referenced long-term
care. Indeed, long-term care has become a very energized debate in this Province
over the last number of months. I have had the opportunity, as I reported to
this House previously, to travel the Province to meet with groups in the various
areas, and to see firsthand the needs that are there. There is no question, the
needs are there. They are serious. They are time sensitive in that we want to
try to move on these as quickly as we can.
I visited facilities in Corner Brook, Conception Bay North and here in St.
John's. In all of these areas the needs are very serious. I have also had
occasion to visit the site in Clarenville where the group is meeting tonight. I
met them some time ago. Last year we did commit some money to begin the planning
but unfortunately - as I have told them when I met with officials some time ago
- in this year's Budget, as part of our difficult budgetary process, we were
not in a position to commit additional monies beyond the $500,000 which is
presently being expended to move that project forward to the next level.
I understand there is a public meeting there tonight. I am sure the people
will make their views known very clearly. I am pleased to hear the Member for
Trinity North mention that his colleague from Bonavista South is going to be
there with him. I am sure that the Member for Bonavista South will give him a
lot of support this evening in terms of the issue in Clarenville. I comment the
Member for Bonavista South for going to the meeting this evening and showing his
support for the Member for Trinity North. As I said in my letter to the
organizing group, I look forward to getting a full report on the proceedings and
keeping informed as to what is happening on the ground.
Madam Speaker, in this year's Budget there are a couple of things that
probably needs some attention from the minister. One of these I started to speak
to the other day, and that is with regard to the provision of MRI services. We
have recognized in this Province for some time that at the present time our
capacity and our capability to deliver that very important diagnostic service is
limited. We had a consultant study that was done some time ago that made
recommendations to government. Madam Speaker, we also recognize and understand
that, while it is an important service, it is also an expensive piece of
equipment. Right now, the estimate is somewhere in the area of $3.8 million to
$4 million per machine. If you are getting into that - and that is not talking
about the operating costs that would go forward as part of that as well.
We have, I am pleased to report, Madam Speaker, increased out capacity here
in St. John's with the new machine that we have put in place. In fact, it has
greatly enhanced our ability to deliver this service and, beyond just delivering
the service, it has an increased capacity in terms of the types of service that
it can provide.
We did, Madam Speaker, in this year's Budget, commit to going to the second
MRI machine. What we also committed to was a process whereby we wanted to ask
the health care providers and the boards to give us some direction as to where
we should be going with regard to the MRI services.
Madam Speaker, as I reported in the House last week, it is rather interesting
that just a year ago, almost to the day, we were debating in this House of
Assembly a private member's motion brought forward by the Member for Trinity
North in which he had indicated, with the support of his colleagues opposite,
that they wanted the government to commit immediately to another MRI. Beyond
that, that was fine, but the MRI should be mobile to serve Western, Central,
Central East and Central West.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting, when reviewing the debate which was
supported by all members opposite, the Member for Windsor-Springdale who spoke
in the debate said, "We must support the intent of this original
resolution. I cannot support this amendment with an intent of just consulting
with the health care boards..." which is speaking to the amendment which
was introduced by me to allow for a debate by all of the groups concerned
looking for some direction from them, which is what we committed to in this year's
Budget.
Madam Speaker, throughout that debate members opposite who spoke supported
that position, that in fact they felt there was no need to have further
discussion. The hon. Member for St. John's East, "Why are we going to
consult with this group of health care corporations who already have said that
they recommend the purchase of MRI scanners, and that of a mobile MRI scanner,
and have said they have agreed that an appropriate
schedule can be arranged. Why
would we be saying that we would consult with them? We have already spoken
enough about the delivery of diagnostic equipment here in the Province."
Again, Madam Speaker, it is strange to see why anyone would feel that looking
for direction and allowing for consultation would be the wrong thing to do, but
it is interesting, Madam Speaker, to see what a change you can have in the
course of one year, what a difference in one year.
Apparently, last year the resolution came out of their annual meeting and
there was a resolution passed to the floor. This year, I see it reported in the
paper last week that their leader, in speaking to the MRI, said: I am the Member
for Humber West and there is no doubt where I would prefer the MRI to be
located. I want the MRI to be in Corner Brook.
This the leader of the same group who a year ago were saying: We do not want
any consultation. We want it to be a mobile unit.
Further quoting, he says: The whole decision has to be whether it will be a
mobile or stationary MRI. That has to be decided. Once that decision is made,
then we can go to the next step.
Now, isn't it amazing what a change one year makes. What a difference one
year makes. Madam Speaker, it is interesting that again it is typical of the
kind of things that we hear opposite. Their position on any given day depends on
who their audience is and where they are.
We, as a government, have committed that we are committed to consultation. As
a matter of fact, consultation took place about a week ago. We brought in health
care providers. We brought in radiologists from right across the Province. We
also brought in representatives from the various institutional boards. We got
some direction from them. Government is now examining that further and we will
be bringing the group back within the next couple of weeks. So, certainly within
a couple of weeks we will have a final resolution on this issue.
I have to say that, to me, is the way we should proceed. That is the way we
should be governing in this Province, allowing the opportunity for community
engagement, for community involvement, for community support, for collaboration
and partnerships. That is what it is all about.
It is interesting in terms, as I said, with regard to the comments we hear
opposite day after day, speaker after speaker rising and condemning the fiscal
plan and the fiscal management, or mismanagement as they refer to it, of this
government. Yet, in the very next breath, asking government to commit to further
expenditures. Well, it would be interesting to see, Madam Speaker, with that
line of thinking, what their decisions would have been had they been in a
position to make those hard choices with regard to going to forward in this year's
Budget. In fact, there is no way you can satisfy all of the concerns that are
out there. That is something that you recognize up front, but you try to do what
you can with what you have available to you.
Where does that fit with where the hon. members opposite are in terms of
their policy and where they are? Well, Madam Speaker, with regard to health
care, it is kind of interesting to look at one of the comments made by the
leader opposite in talking about what he thinks the health care policy should
be. This, again, is quoting from an
article in The Telegram , quoting the
Leader of the Opposition. It says: The Newfoundland Government needs to follow
the lead of New Brunswick and Alberta in developing a plan for health care
delivery in this Province, says Conservative Opposition Leader Danny Williams.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, not Alberta.
MR. SMITH: Alberta.
Now, Madam Speaker, what does that say to what the hon. members opposite have
to offer, that they are going to Alberta looking for direction and ideas as to
how we should deliver health care in this Province? This is what the Opposition
are coming forward with, and this is what they are offering.
Surely, the hon. members opposite must have a better idea, and the hon.
Member for Trinity North, who rises on a regular basis and expounds as if he is
the most recent guru and has all of the answers with regard to health care,
surely he must have some exception with his leader who thinks we will go to
Alberta to get the answers. Because quite frankly, I suggest to hon. members of
this House and to the people of this Province, the answers we need will not be
found in Alberta, not to serve the needs of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, what are the Tory governments of Alberta and
New Brunswick contemplating? What kinds of things are they looking at? What
kinds of things do they expect that the hon. members opposite would - or we
could use the Tory government in Ontario. There is no shortage of examples that
we can find in this country. If you talk to the citizens who live in those
jurisdictions, I can tell you, they will not give a ringing endorsement to the
records of those Tory governments.
For example, the things that they talk about are high premiums, health debit
cards, private clinics. Madam Speaker, where have we heard the privatization?
This is the crowd opposite who are referring to us and talking to us in trying -
even today, a suggestion from the Opposition House Leader was that we were
looking at privatizing health care. Nothing could be further from the truth, but
what I said in this House is that we should not bury our heads in the sand and
we should not be afraid to explore all of our options to try to address the many
needs that are out there on behalf of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Madam Speaker, in the area of long-term care, what we have
said is that we recognize that at the present time we have a challenge in the
area of some $200 million. Two hundred million dollars that we do not have at
this point in time to direct towards that problem.
Surely no one would suggest that we should sit idly by and refuse to try to
find ways to address the problems, since the people in these areas are crying
out to us to find solutions. We, unlike the hon. members opposite, are working
to try to find solutions rather than standing by and fumbling around trying to
find resolutions in areas like Alberta, because I would like to see what Alberta
could offer the hon. members opposite, or to this government, or to the people
of this Province by way of a resolution of dealing with health care. I shudder
to think what it would be and I shudder to think what a policy would be that
could be produced by the result of any consultation involving the group opposite
and those people in those jurisdictions.
Madam Speaker, the interesting thing is that day after day we hear the same
sort of thing. We hear all kinds of criticism, but we hear very little in the
way of suggestions. Any time something happens we see the hon. members opposite,
the first thing they do is jump to their feet and say: Oh, that is ours. That is
our policy. You are taking our policies.
I do not know if you have it patented, I don't think so. It is an idea and
I think nobody can claim ownership to ideas. It is hard to believe - I think you
have to be pretty presumptuous and you have to have quite an ego to think that
you are the only one capable of coming up with an idea. I think that is carrying
it a bit too far, I would think.
It is rather interesting when you hear the line of questioning today talking
about the criticism directed towards the Leader of the Opposition. Yet, day
after day, we hear hon. members opposite specify certain individuals and direct
all kinds of derogatory comments towards them. That happens on a regular basis.
Yet, if someone suggests or questions something with regard to the Leader of the
Opposition, it is a personal attack; we should not bring it up.
I would say to the hon. members opposite, before you go saying that, start
practising what you preach; because, quite frankly, you are not impressing
anyone with the kinds of line of questioning that we are seeing in this House
that is bringing into dispute the character of certain individuals in this
Province. I think it does not reflect very well on individuals who pursue that
type of activity.
Madam Speaker, the issues in this Province and the challenges that we face
are formidable. There is no question about it. There is no question they are
formidable, but, Madam Speaker, this government is committed to find the
resolutions. This government is committed to work with the people to bring about
a resolution and to find the best way possible to deliver on the services that
are needed by all the citizens of this Province.
Madam Speaker, I have confidence in the people of this Province. I know the
people of this Province, and I know that they can recognize and they know who is
working on their behalf. They know this is a government that is committed to
them. This is a government that is committed to continue to work on their
behalf, and I have no doubt that we will be back doing this after the next
provincial election and into the years to come.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am certainly pleased today to stand and make a few comments on the
Concurrence debate as it relates to the Social Services Committee, on which I
served as Vice-Chair and had the opportunity to go through several departments
of government, namely: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and
Community Services, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Labour, the Department of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, which involves Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation, and the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.
Certainly, we had a great opportunity to question the ministers and their staff
and to raise some of the issues that are pertinent to the people of the
Province.
Before I get into my main comments, I would just like to make a few comments,
if I could, Madam Speaker, on the Minister of Health who was just on his feet.
He talked to us, and again I did not realize that the disease had spread on the
other side but it seems like the Minister of Health has gotten the disease also
when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition. I have heard many speakers on the
other side of the House get up day after day and continuously find and try to
find fault in the Leader of the Opposition, and it does not surprise me that
they are at that, but it does surprise me the level they have taken it to. It
just shows that they are just trying to get away from the issues that are of
concern to the people of the Province and deal with the Leader of the
Opposition, but I was very surprised that the Minister of Health has caught the
disease also. I am very, very concerned about that.
The Minister of Health was on his feet at that time and he talked about some
comments that were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to
Alberta, and he tried to make a big thing out of the fact that the Leader of
Opposition had mentioned the Alberta health care system. There was no talk in
the minister's speech, which I found perplexing, Madam Speaker, about this
government hiring the Hay group in Ontario to come down and try to straighten
out the Health Care Corporation here in St. John's. There was no discussion on
that. The Minister of Health forgot that. He forgot all about the fact that they
paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Hay group in Ontario to come down
here; and, at the end of the day, what did the Hay group tell us? They told us
to lay off nurses. They asked us to lay off front line staff and to save a
half-million dollars here and a couple of hundred thousand dollars there, and
how we were going to do that with a reduction of services. Only for the Leader
of the Opposition and the Health critic on this side of the House raised those
concerns and raised the issues of the Hay group, some of the things that the Hay
group had put forward may have been adopted. They may have been adopted.
Therefore, we raised the issues with the people, but the Minister of Health
forgot all about that. He forgot that he went to Ontario. We had a problem here
in Newfoundland and Labrador and he went looking for an Ontario solution to that
problem. We have seen that time and time again with this government. We bring in
outside experts, as they are called; outside experts. I say, Madam Speaker, we
bring in outside experts time and time again wasting taxpayers' money, if you
ask me.
Then, what did we do? When we had the Hay group report, the Minister of
Health turned around then and brought down the Reid Bonnell Group to the
Province. Again, we had a Newfoundland and Labrador problem and once again the
Minister of Health trots off to Ontario and looks to bring down a company from
Ontario to straighten out our problems. We brought the Reid Bonnell Group down.
Basically their plan was to take the suggestions and the plans of the Hay group
and to spread them out across the Province. Where the Hay group was specifically
dealing with the St. John's Health Corporation, the Reid Bonnell group then
would deal with right across the Province. So, their plans, Madam Speaker, and
their cuts and their reduction in services would be implemented right across the
Province.
That certainly concerns me, when we have the Minister of Health who so
quickly jumps up on his feet and so quickly talks about somebody else but
forgets completely what this government has done in the past couple of years in
relation to bringing in so-called outside experts to deal with the concerns that
we have.
He raised the issue, Madam Speaker, of the MRI and where it should be and
what type of MRI. The Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education
said that she wanted a mobile unit, she would like to see that. The Minister of
Environment, Madam Speaker - both who sit at the Cabinet table - wants a
stationary MRI in Corner Brook. We have the former minister, the Member for
Gander, who would like to see a mobile unit also, and then we have the Member
for Bay of Islands who is not really sure what we are talking about anyway in
the first place. Madam Speaker, he is just getting around and trying to clue in
on what is going on here now. He is not sure exactly what he wants either, but I
am sure he will get around to it. When somebody tells him what to get up and
say, he will get around to doing that sometime before the day is out, I am sure,
Madam Speaker.
The Minister of Health also touched on the expenditure of money. It seemed
that he had a problem with us as members of the Opposition standing on our feet
and looking for expenditures in our districts for road work, expenditures in our
districts for water and sewer, expenditures in our districts for education, for
health or whatever the case may be. He seemed to have a problem with those
concerns, Madam Speaker, in relation to our getting on our feet every day and
asking those questions.
It is not the expenditure of the money that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador are concerned about, Madam Speaker, it is the management of that money.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves again the question: Who do we believe would
be the best managers of the coffers of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador? Certainly, when we look and we see, over the past number of years -
certainly, we have been privy to information on that and it is very public now -
when we see what this government has done with expenditures, the dollars, over
the past number of years, we ask ourselves why are we closing up beds in the
hospitals in this Province. We ask ourselves why our roads are in such a
condition as they are in this Province, all throughout the Province, in my own
district of Placentia & St. Mary's and throughout the Province. We have to
ask ourselves why people are out there looking for home care services and can't
get an hour or a couple of hours a day for home care. We have to ask ourselves
that question. We have to ask ourselves why people cannot afford certain drugs
that they have to go on and have to take some type of other drug, other than
what the doctors prescribe? We have to ask ourselves why 20,000-plus children in
this Province go to school every morning hungry? Time and time again we have to
ask ourselves that question. We have to ask ourselves why children in our school
systems are going around sponsoring from door to door, having walk-a-thons and
bake sales, and having fundraisers so they can buy copy paper and chalk for
their classrooms. That is what we have to ask ourselves.
The reason we find ourselves in those situations is because we look back,
Madam Speaker, over a litany of Liberal legal losses. A litany of Liberal legal
losses in this Province over the past number of years. We have to look no
further than Trans City's Cottage Hospital contracts. "In 1996 the
Newfoundland government lost its appeal over a 1991 decision not to award
cottage hospital contracts to the preferred bidder, Health Care Developers, but
to give them to friends of the Liberal Party, Trans City Holdings." It cost
the taxpayers of this Province in excess of $20 million to take care of their
Liberal buddies. It cost the taxpayers - just on that one instance alone, Trans
City's Cottage Hospital Contracts, it cost us over $21 million.
Then we have Atlantic Leasing Ltd. Murray Premises Museum contract. Again,
the premier at the time, Premier Wells, did not agree with it. So he decided he
was going to axe that and it ended up in court. What did we find? "The
Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a 1997 decision against the
Newfoundland government for its failure to renew its lease for museum space from
Dec 1989 to June 1992, which caused Atlantic Leasing to lose ownership of the
Murray Premises in 1992. The Newfoundland government settled out of court with
the company for $4.2 M - a figure first hidden by a nondisclosure clause in the
settlement agreement but revealed by Finance Minister Paul Dicks Dec 10/98 after
the Opposition submitted a Freedom of Information request."
Four-point-two-million dollars the taxpayers of this Province had to pay because
the people opposite once again had to take care of their buddies; $4.2 million.
Then we have the situation with the Cabot 500 Corporation. I am sure many
members on the other side are very familiar with that. "Newfoundland
Supreme Court Justice Robert Wells ruled on Dec 30/99 in favour of seven former
employees who sued the government for wrongful dismissal. Former employees will
receive lost wages covering the period from Dec 3/95 to Dec 31/97 plus $20,000
each in general damages. St. John's lawyer Steve Marshall (representing 5 of
the 7) said the judgement could cost the province between $700,000 to $850,000
not including legal fees. The Telegram estimates the total could be nearly $1
million." Another Liberal legal lose where it cost the taxpayers of this
Province in excess of $1 million.
Mr. Speaker, then we had Andy Wells and the Public Utilities Board. "The
Supreme Court of Canada on Sep 15/99 dismissed a Newfoundland government appeal
and upheld a 1997 Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal decision awarding Andy
Wells 2.5 years' salary plus pension benefits after he was wrongfully
dismissed from the Public Utilities Board. The Supreme Court also awarded him
legal costs since the matter began, which could range from $25,000 to $30,000.
The Telegram said Wells could get more than $550,000 in compensation and pension
benefits. The province also spent $34,041 to hire a high-power Toronto lawyer to
help fight their case." Another case, Mr. Speaker, where we are climbing up
on a million dollar figure again for the members opposite on another legal
challenge that they so willfully lost in the court.
Here we go again and again, the list goes on. Tors Cove Excavation. The
Telegram reported November 21, 1998, the Newfoundland government reached an
out-of-court settlement with Tors Cove Excavation for damages incurred by the
company after the Province revoked its licence over river diversion work carried
out in the early 1990s. It is believed to be worth $1 million. The settlement
was subject to a nondisclosure agreement.
Again, Mr. Speaker, time and time again -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MANNING: Yes, I just did them a few moments ago.
Here we go again, Tors Cove Excavation, Cabot 500 Corporation, Andy Wells
Public Utilities Board situation, Trans City's Cottage Hospital, Atlantic
Leasing Ltd, millions and millions and millions of do