Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Orders of the Day; Government Business — 15 March 2000 (44th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 2)
2000-03-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 15, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 2
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we call on the routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the
Gallery today His Worship, Mayor Walwin Blackmore, from the town of Grand
Falls-Windsor, on behalf of all members.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the Orders of the Day, I
wonder if the Members of the House would allow me, for a minute, just to make a
comment on this document we see in front of us. As the Chair of the Committee, I
have already spoken to the Vice-Chair, so if members would agree?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. LUSH: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not taken advantage of the time given me.
As the Chair of the Committee on the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly
that were presented here in January, I think by the Vice-Chairman in my absence,
I just want to say that I think all members would want to go on record to
congratulate the Speaker and his staff for the expeditious and efficient manner
in which they have compiled the latest changes to the Standing Orders, Standing
Orders which I believe probably are now in line with progressive parliaments in
the British Commonwealth.
I want to congratulate your office and your staff for having done this in
such an expeditious manner and done it so tastefully. It fits in with the
decorum, it fits in with the colors of our House. I do not know if we are
counting on more rules to be added because it looks like we have lots of space
here for that.
MR. TULK: It is a place where you put your bills.
MR. LUSH: Yes, I was about to say that. It is a place for members to put
their bills. They have changed the size. I am told that this is the most
economical size, so they are keeping in mind economies, so it is a neat little
binder. I am also told that there are some tabs coming so that members can
easily identify the topics to separate the rules from the other items here: the
Speaker's book, for example, and other things.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to congratulate your office for this very
efficient and effective job done on a very timely basis.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I too, as Vice-Chairman of the Committee, would certainly like to commend the
Speaker's office and particularly the staff, even Committee members too,
because there were a lot of hours punched on this during the summertime in
particular (inaudible) to provide this. I am not sure if the size of it reflects
how much is going to be on the government agenda. This is just the fall session
alone, the binder I had for the bills there, so it does not look like we are
going to be doing very much government business. We will be spending more time
on rules and orders.
Once again we pass on our thanks and I echo the concerns of the Chairman of
the Committee there on the work done by the Speaker's office.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know the Chairman of the Committee was unavoidably absent when the report
was presented to the House. Not only reiterating his own comments, but in the
magnificent presentation of the changes in the rules I think it is in order to
thank the Chairman for his excellent job in chairing the Committee which sat, as
the Vice-Chairman said, over the summer. It was a difficult Committee.
I like the rule book. I'm not sure I like all the contents, but we have
certainly made some significant progress in modernizing the rules of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with the members' statements, all
members will note that our new rules contain a Standing Order which is new. That
provides for members' statements. However, it does not set out any guidelines
or rules to conduct this procedure. What the Chair would like to do is put some
guidelines in place. Before I do that, I would like to have an opportunity to
consult with members and have their input before I put rules in place that we
should follow in this procedure. For today, I will just alternate from across
the House as members stand.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update members on a project in my
district which is helping to control and manage lobster stocks, truly a
positive, practical and enlightening ecosystem management initiative.
The Eastport Lobster Fishermen's Protection Committee was formed in 1994 to
investigate declines in lobster stocks. It has implemented conservation measures
such as the closing of the two prime lobster areas to a commercial fishery, the
V-Notching of egg-bearing female lobsters, encouragement of lobster fishers to
strictly respect catch regulations and eliminate excess fishing and poaching
activity that was taking place.
The committee enlisted the help of Memorial University, the federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada, to see if these measures
were helping maintain the local stock at sustainable levels. With funding from
the biology department at MUN -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up. He had one minute.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. LUSH: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Again, I will not take advantage of
that. I just wanted to say that, with funding from the biology department at
Memorial University, these stakeholders worked together and during a test in
1997 caught, tagged and released the lobsters.
Mr. Speaker, the project has seen lobster stocks recover and is receiving
support from within and outside the Province. It focused on the fishery of the
future, educating our young people to understand the fisheries from both a
scientific and fisheries perspective.
I congratulate all stakeholders for their success. If members are interested
in learning more about this, there is a film called Towing the Line ,
chronicling this project and members should do this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today and take the opportunity here in
the House to bring greetings to a couple in my district in St. Vincent's, St.
Mary's Bay who, on March 17 th , will celebrating their 50 th
Wedding Anniversary. Mr. Patrick and Mrs. Beatrice Moriarity were married in St.
Patrick's Church in St. John's on March 17, 1950. He worked in the forestry
unit overseas for about six years and Mrs. Moriarity stayed at home to raise
their children. They have three children: Kevin, Ed and Mary. They also have
three foster children whom they consider their own: Deborah, Sandra and Liz
Snow. Mr. Moriarity also has a daughter who lives overseas in England, Connie
Rainer.
Mr. Moriarity is, at the present time, in hospital here in St. John's. He
is a very ill man who, at the present time, is in a coma.
We want to extend congratulations to them on their 50 th
Anniversary and wish their family well with their present situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform the hon. Members of this House of a major sporting
event which will be taking place in Stephenville this summer, the Commonwealth
2000 Judo Championships. This will be the first Commonwealth Judo Championships
ever to be held in Canada. The championships will begin with the opening
ceremonies in Corner Brook on July 1 st . The competitions will be held
at Stephenville Dome from July 2 nd to July 3 rd , and the
championships will be followed by an international training camp that will run
from July 4 th to July 8 th .
The Commonwealth 2000 Judo Championships is an event which will showcase
Stephenville and Western Newfoundland and all it has to offer. It is expected
that over 300 athletes, coaches and officials from over twenty countries will be
in the region for those days. With high-caliber international athletes
attending, people from all over Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the rest of
Canada and parts of the United States are expected. Everyone is waiting to
welcome you to the Commonwealth 2000 Judo Championships.
Thanks you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to pay tribute to Betty Howell. She is the forty-eight year old
woman who lost her life on January 12 th when the vehicle she was
driving slipped on ice on Petty Harbour Road and went into a pond. Betty had a
way of helping people and making friends. As in life, she has continued to do
that. As a result of her tragic car accident, a guardrail has been approved for
that area, a guardrail that the residents have been fighting for for some time.
Betty's parents had celebrated their 50 th Wedding Anniversary
just the weekend before her accident, and many of her family had come home from
away to join the celebrations. Betty was to be married this coming weekend to
Paul Lee of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove. I have been asked by the family of Betty
Howell to thank the three men who had risked their lives in trying to save Betty's
life, when they entered the water: Mr. Richard Clarke Jr. of Petty Harbour-Maddox
Cove -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - Mr. Brian Chafe of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, and Mr.
Robert Clements of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove.
Betty's brother Bill is in the gallery today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer congratulations to Arlene O'Keefe of Paradise, who is
the newly crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador. This tremendous honor was
bestowed on Miss O'Keefe this past weekend, and the entire community of
Paradise is proud and excited over this young lady's accomplishments.
To achieve this goal, Miss O'Keefe was judged on her poise, fitness,
academics, personality and a series of interviews. When judging was completed,
Miss O'Keefe accumulated the most points and was successfully crowned over
thirty other competitors.
It is interesting to note that of the final ten competitors, four were
students from Holy Spirit High School in Manuels. Of the four finalists, two
were from Holy Spirit High School in Manuels. Miss O'Keefe's hard work,
determination and perseverance is a credit to her school, community and her
Province. She is not only a positive role model to young females in Paradise but
she is also an inspiration to us all. I request that this hon. House send
congratulations to Miss O'Keefe on her reign as Miss Teen Newfoundland and
Labrador, and wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The clock says that the six minutes has elapsed.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave? Okay.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was my pleasure yesterday, March 14, to participate in Literacy Day at
Mary Queen of the World School on Topsail Road, in the District of Waterford
Valley. Mary Queen of the World is a Kindergarten to Grade VI school with a
total student population of 500, a teacher allocation of twenty-nine, including
principal Jim Brazil.
This school has a strong school council and a commitment to excellence. Many
volunteers representing industry, community organizations, municipal and
provincial politicians and the media gave of their time yesterday to share part
of their day with these young students. These twenty-two community volunteers
helped to make Literacy Day a tremendous success. I wish to acknowledge the
gratitude of the students and their teachers for the way the volunteer readers
helped bring true meaning to the joys of reading. All stories were selected for
their content and message; however, each reader also communicated an important
statement by their presence, namely, that reading is a part of a successful
lifestyle.
Mr. Speaker, the teachers and students of Mary Queen of the World wish to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
By leave?
MR. H. HODDER: - thank the many volunteers who made Literacy Day 2000
such a memorable and tremendous success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to make a member's statement.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House - I think it
was mentioned here yesterday about the Labrador Winter Games taking place in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The Premier and all MHAs from Labrador were present
Sunday night at the opening ceremonies. It was really heartfelt to watch all of
the athletes, all of the young people from different places in Labrador, coming
together to participate in the athletic events that will take place. I think
even more important than the athletic events, given the vastness of Labrador,
the geographical range and the cultural differences - I think it is more
important for people who live in Labrador than the athletes themselves - are the
friendships that will be developed over the next week. To the organizers who put
in such work in organizing the event, and of course to the coaches and the
athletes who are participating, it is going to be a great week and we look
forward to going back there.
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has announced a new Call for
Bids for the Province's offshore area. There will be fourteen parcels up for
bid this year, with three located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, four in the
Carson/Bonnition Basin, six in the South Whale Basin and one adjacent to the
Newfoundland West Coast area. This amounts to 2,251,670 hectares of land.
As you are aware, the 1999 Call for Bids resulted in a record land sale,
attracting work expenditure commitments in excess of $192 million, an increase
from the previous high of $175 million in 1998. This is truly indicative of the
confidence and strength of our offshore industry.
With Hibernia producing 170,000 barrels per day, Terra Nova to begin
production within a year and White Rose and Hebron-Ben Nevis moving forward, we
are experiencing major growth in our petroleum sector. All of these fields are
located in the Jeanne d-Arc Basin which has been the area of the offshore where
activity has been focused to date.
Last year, industry acquired parcels in a new basin, the Flemish Pass, and we
are optimistic that drilling will occur there in the near future. This year,
industry is continuing the trend of moving into new areas with lands being
posted and the Carson/Bonnition and South Whale basins for the first time. This
should lead to further exploration of these basins as well.
I am optimistic that a new wave of drilling in these relatively untested will
provide the new discoveries that will lead to a continued expansion of our
petroleum sector.
Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their work
expenditure bids by November 15, 2000, to the C-NOPB. Winning bids are based
solely on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the
parcel during the first five years.
The 2000 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to invest in a
province that has a stable economic base, significant natural resources and
development potential, a dedicated and competent work force, world-class
research facilities and $1.2 billion worth of onshore infrastructure for our
offshore oil and gas industry.
We look forward to another successful round of bidding and government remains
confident that industry will continue to invest in our Province's offshore
area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to this statement, there is a sentence here that I would just
like to repeat. It states: "...Hibernia producing at 170,000 barrels per
day, Terra Nova to begin production within a year and White Rose and Hebron-Ben
Nevis moving forward, we are experiencing major growth in our petroleum
sector."
Perhaps the most burning issue in the Province today, and the question being
asked by most people today, is: Why is it, when we have such a growing offshore
industry, that the benefits of this Province, the royalties, the taxes of this
Province, are as minimal as they are? Secondly, why is it that the consumers in
this Province continue to pay the highest with respect to petroleum products
than any other citizens of this country?
So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge that faces this government, and
it is incumbent on this government to ensure that the people of this Province
are protected and are treated fairly with respect to this very important
industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I did not have an advanced copy of the statement, I am certainly
pleased to see a new bidding process underway. However, what is important in
this statement is that we are only talking about work expenditure bids. When are
we going to see the day when people who are getting access to our offshore oil
and gas are going to actually pay money to the people who own the resource to
get access and to get leases to these resources? This is a question that needs
to be asked again and again of this government, not only on royalties, but on
bids and every aspect of our offshore benefits.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to update the House of Assembly on government's success
in ensuring a continued poultry industry in this Province and the jobs related
to it.
As Members of the House are aware, on Friday past, the receivers for IPL
Group of Companies, Ernst and Young, with the support of the Bank of Nova Scotia
and the Province, were successful in finalizing a sale of the company's assets
to the Atlantic Co-operative Alliance (ACA).
ACA has in excess of seventy years experience in all facets of the poultry
business and brings to this Province the necessarily expertise and new capital
required to grow our industry. With a significant investment of $11 million,
which includes a commitment of $3 million towards further capital improvements,
ACA has now become the largest poultry producer in Atlantic Canada.
That is good news for the government, for the consumers and for the
businesses that will benefit from an industry with sales of $40 million
annually. It is also great news for the 400 employees who depend on this
industry to make a living.
The poultry industry will survive and prosper under ACA's leadership. We
insisted that there had to be a private sector solution. We believe that ACA is
that solution.
Government went to considerable lengths to support IPL. We provided grants,
guaranteed loans, purchased grain and provided IPL and its shareholders with
time to find an investor or purchaser. Unfortunately, IPL could not succeed
without more financial support from government. The shareholders are, however,
fortunate in that the sale of assets to ACA was conditional upon the Farm Credit
Corporation agreeing to write off approximately $4.2 million owed by
shareholders. This debt, which was accumulated before the creation of IPL, is
now written off.
Members will recall that subsidization of the chicken industry was costing
the people of the Province approximately $8 million annually. If we had closed
down the industry in 1997, the cost to the Province would have been
substantially more than our commitment to IPL at that time.
ACA has not requested any additional financial support from government. We
have agreed to write off $13 million in outstanding debt. In return, ACA has
provided a firm commitment to grow our poultry industry, a commitment to new
investment, a commitment to employment and a commitment to serve the
agricultural community with grain and feed. ACA will be licensed to use our
chicken quota but ownership has and will continue to be retained and controlled
by the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome ACA to this Province and to acknowledge their
confidence in the poultry industry. As well, I want to thank our colleagues who
have worked on this matter and our public servants who, over the last year, have
worked steadfast with the goal that we could indeed continue a poultry industry
in this Province. Their commitment has been instrumental in getting us to where
we are today.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement
beforehand. I was very glad to see that a solution has been found to this very
important problem that we had with IPL and the chicken industry.
We must also realize that with the injection of $25 million in the last three
years there are still a lot of questions in people's minds involving the whole
deal in the last three years. Even though the minister is saying that ACA is a
solution, it only appears to be a solution.
I hope this industry is self-supporting and I hope that government does not
have to put any more money into this industry in this Province in the future. I
think that with all this money that government has put in - there still has been
$13 million put into this industry as of today - I think the people of this
Province deserve to know the things that happened in the last three years
leading up to this deal. I think there are a lot of questions in people's
minds and my mind that I have to ask the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: I think, as critic for this department, I will be asking the
questions and get to the truth of what was going on the last three years.
Also, I do welcome the ACA into the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we are very pleased to see that the poultry industry and the jobs
associated with it stay in this Province, we are disappointed to see yet another
asset go outside the control of the Province for a dollar, like the Marystown
Shipyard did a couple of years ago.
On the issue of subsidy, let me say this. The countries with the strongest
economies in the world have the highest level of agricultural subsidies. We do
need a food industry in this Province, we need to grow our own food, we need to
produce our own food, and have some control over the kind of food that we eat. I
am not opposed to subsidy. The level of it obviously may be a question from time
to time. We need to have an agriculture industry and we should have had a made
in Newfoundland solution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to announce the formation of a Working Group to address
shellfish asthma in Newfoundland and Labrador fish processing plants. While
reports and incidents of shellfish asthma have been around for some time, it is
clear that with the tremendous growth in shellfish processing in our Province
over the past couple of years, the incidents have been increasing.
The Working Group that I am announcing today will be chaired by the Assistant
Deputy Minister of Occupational Health and Safety for my department, and will
also include representatives from the Fish Food and Allied Workers, the
Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, the Department of Health and Community Services, and the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
The Working Group will be meeting in the very near future to develop an
action plan to address shellfish asthma in processing plants around the
Province.
The primary objective of this working group will be to consult with industry
and the workers to ensure that all measures that can be taken will be taken, to
minimize the adverse effects of shellfish asthma on plant workers in this
Province while still permitting our plants to operate and provide valuable
employment in areas throughout the Province.
Over the past several months, my department has been working with other
departments, agencies and stakeholders to address the serious issue of shellfish
asthma. I would like at this time to express my appreciation to the leaders of
the Fish, Food and Allied Workers - I see Mr. Anstey here today; I am not sure
if Mr. O'Reilly is here - and the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador for their cooperation and support of this initiative. I am confident
that with their involvement we will be able to address to the fullest extent
possible, the serious concern of shellfish asthma in processing plants.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just this past year we saw the export value of fish products in this Province
exceed $1 billion. In excess of half of that production, that export value, is
related to the production of shellfish in this Province.
While we continually hear the minister and his colleagues talk about the
importance of quality going into the marketplace - with which nobody would
disagree - we should also be cognizant of the quality of air that people who
work in our plants breathe.
I welcome this news today, but I say to the minister that your department was
issued concerns about this problem in excessive of ten years now. For ten years
your department has been aware that there has been a major problem with
shellfish asthma. Here we are, two weeks from the opening of another
crab-processing season, and the minister is talking about putting forward a
working group. As important as that is, Minister, I don't think you need a
working group to tell you that a problem exists in the processing plants of this
Province today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, stop the procrastination. Put
people out there to identify the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Allow it to happen, and allow our workers to go to work
in a safe and hazardous-free environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to commend the minister for responding so promptly to my call several
weeks ago for a task force on this issue, with the very players that he has
announced as being participants today. I hope that this task force, this working
group, will identify and see that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission recognizes shellfish asthma as an industrial disease and finds a
solution to this problem so that the people who work in our plants don't have
to suffer from this disease.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, 4-H members and leaders will celebrate
Provincial 4-H Week from March 11-17, 2000. 4-H is an international youth
organization involving more than seven million members in eighty countries
around the world.
This organization has been bringing the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador
together since 1937, teaching them leadership, community and life skills.
The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is proud to support 4-H
through the provision of funding and a departmental support staff who administer
the programs and teach leadership skills.
The Province now has nineteen 4-H clubs involving youth from the ages of ten
to twenty-one, as well as the junior program for ages five to nine. From 1999 to
2000, membership has increased by 14 per cent -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat. Today is Wednesday, of course, and
it is now 2:30 p.m. We have to have Question Period.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the last one we will do.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, membership has increased by 14 per cent and
volunteer leadership has increased by 24 per cent, due largely to a recruitment
drive in the past year.
Mr. Speaker, 4-H members learn public speaking and leadership skills. They
have the opportunity to learn through travel and have an excellent scholarship
program.
Recently, thirty-three senior 4-H members and twelve volunteer 4-H leaders
gathered at Max Simms Memorial Camp, Bishops's Falls, to participate in a 4-H
Senior Members Selection Weekend to provide training in interview skills,
familiarity with the provincial 4-H program, and to select members to travel to
various national and international events.
We urge the hon. Members of the House to support their local 4-H Clubs. In
doing so, they are supporting the leaders of tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement. This is
certainly a positive step for our youth in our Province, and I am certainly
pleased to stand here today and support the minister and the department for the
support of our youth in our Province today, particularly when you see the
increase in membership by 14 per cent, and in the leadership by 24 per cent.
That is certainly a positive move. I hope this continues and I hope that our
youth, who are our future, do get involved in the outdoor experimental and
education programs which are very important to develop their skills so that we
can depend on them in our future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: I do support the 4-H Club and their leaders for our future
for tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, too, support the government on this initiative. I think any investment in
our youth is certainly an investment in our tomorrow. The 4-H Club has been
around for a long time and they provide good services to young people, providing
them with leadership skills, real life experiences, cultural experiences, and
really broaden their horizons. I think it is fair to say that the camp mentioned
in the statement, Camp Nipper, I have been there many times. It has excellent
facilities -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: - and it is very appropriately named, too, by the way, Mr.
Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we said yesterday in the Speech from the
Throne - we set out, I think, from our point of view, some criteria by which we
will judge this government.
I have questions for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation
today. With respect to the contract for the Labrador ferry service, why was it,
five days before, that you saw fit to intervene and change the specifications
for that contract, allowing a well-known Liberal group and supporters to have
access to that contract?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. member got his
numbers; whether it was five, ten, fifteen, or what, he is out to lunch on that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WOODFORD: If the hon. member wants it answered, I will answer it.
Having said that, I say to the hon. gentleman that this company has applied
for an injunction. It is before the courts. We have had our hearings last week
for three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and I do not intend to comment on
it until (inaudible) passes down a judgement.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister another
question with respect to the contract. It is standard operating procedure that
any vessel coming from outside this country, before it comes into this country,
that it meets a test; it is called the Canadian Steamship Industry, which is an
arm of Transport Canada.
I would like to ask the minister this: When the contract was given to the
company it was awarded to, why did not the provincial government request the
agency that sets the standard to ensure that any vessel operating in Canadian
waters meets that standard? Why was it that you did not request, or the
government did not request, that that vessel - that the Canadian Steamship
Industry did not look at that vessel to ensure that the safety of the vessel,
how it operated, the vessel's integrity itself, would be up to or live up to
Canadian standards? Why did you not send that vessel to that industry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a couple of
misstatements by the hon. member.
We have no contract signed with this group. We have a letter of conditional
award offered to the group, no contract. Make that clear, no contract. In
sending them a letter of conditional award we have outlined eight stipulations,
including all that the member just asked for. I don't know where he is coming
from but that is what we have done. No contract signed; it is a letter of
conditional award. Get that clear.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister again - standard operating
procedure. He is a minister of the Crown, acting in the best interest of the
Crown, which is the people of the Province. Why did he not, before he awarded a
conditional award - I would think that part of a conditional award for any
contract of that nature would be to ensure -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the Speaker for a ruling on a
point of order. I don't want to interrupt normally during Question Period, but
the truth -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: No, I really don't, but the truth is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, they are awfully excited after a convention on the
weekend or something.
Mr. Speaker, under 409.(9), it says, "A question cannot deal..."
- not to answer - "...with a matter that is before a court."
Under 410.(15), it says, "Questions should not offend the sub
judice principle."
Mr. Speaker, I would ask -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TULK: No, seriously, I am not sure whether this is a question that is
out of order or not but I would ask the Speaker for a ruling on a point of
order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, is the hon. -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is obvious that any matter that is before the
courts, the questions on that issue should not be raised; but I am not so sure
what the matter is that is before the courts. The Chair is not aware of the -
MR. TULK: To the point of order, if I could, I think it is a matter that
is before the court, that an injunction is being sought, and that there are
hearings ongoing as to whether this contract was awarded in the right fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I think those questions are directly concerning - that question
is before the court.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I cannot help but say that if we are confined to asking
questions on public tendering or things before the court, we will never ask a
question, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The question, Mr. Speaker, in my own defense, that I have
asked to the minister has nothing to do with the court case. It has to do with
asking the department, on an issue of regulation, that before awarding a
contract, why did they not do a, b, c, d, or e, not what is before the court;
why the department did not take precautionary action in a particular manner that
is of public importance. That is the question that I ask.
Mr. Speaker, I might add as well that the Government House Leader knows full
well the rules of the House and he is interrupting and trying to take this place
on his back yet once again. We have seen it before. Beauchesne clearly spells
out that if we have questions or points of order, that there is an opportunity
to do so when Question Period is over. Question Period is the parliamentary time
for the Opposition, not for the Government House Leader to take it on his back,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: On this matter, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. gentleman and to
assure him that I am not trying to take up the time of the Opposition, whatever
time this point of order takes, I will give him leave to pursue past the normal
time for Question Period.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No. Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is over there; he cannot
have it both ways. He cannot stand over there -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, he cannot stand over there and accuse me of trying
to take away the time from Question Period and have it both ways. I say to him,
whatever this point of order takes - and he cannot take this place on his back
either, any more than anybody else. There are rules to be followed and anybody,
I say to him, as he knows - unless I have not taught him anything in the last
four or five years - he knows any member has a right to rise on something that
they consider to be a point of order, and in particular a point of order of this
importance.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour for a ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will recess briefly to consult on this matter.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the tapes of the questions that were put to the
Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. From a review of the tapes, both
questions that were asked, both clearly refer to a contract which I understand
from the minister is now before the courts. Of course, Beauchesne is clear. It
says that questions cannot deal with a matter that is before a court. Of course,
the questions would be out of order on the basis that the matter that they
referred to is now, I understand, before the court.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The questions were out of order in that they dealt with a
matter that was before the court.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get clarification on the
remaining time left in Question Period. I know the Government House Leader
indicated that during the point of order, I think, there were roughly three
minutes, in my estimation, gone when the point of order was raised. I am sure
the Chair can clarify the amount and let us know what is remaining in Question
Period.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's word - I have
never doubted his word - that there were three minutes gone. That would mean
there are twenty-seven minutes left.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question on this subject
that has nothing to do with what is before the court. It is a standard matter of
process. I would like to ask the minister: Before awarding any contract dealing
with vessels in this Province, isn't it standard operating procedure for your
department to ensure that before an award to a group, a company or an individual
is given, that any vessel must have CSIA approval before it meets or comes into
Canadian waters? If that is the case, why didn't you do it in this case?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, in this case -
AN HON. MEMBER: What case?
MR. WOODFORD: The member is asking about the process.
In that case, any ship - we bought one for the Bell Island run - anywhere in
the Province, if we took a ship into this country, if she is a foreign flag, if
she came in under a foreign flag, provided there is a provisional flag issued in
the country where she is from. In this case, that was done. There does not have
to be any CSIA approval until the ship is brought into this country by CSIA. For
the hon. member's information, I would hope he would take that into
consideration.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is going on here is that this government is
playing fast and loose with the Public Tendering Act to reward their friends.
That is all that is happening here!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister knows, and I will ask him again: Wouldn't he think
that it would be his duty and his responsibility, as a minister of the Crown, to
ensure that before any contract is awarded on any given issue, in particular on
a case such as this, that CSIA approval should be met before that award is
given? Would the minister stand and answer that, please?
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a well-known rule in this House that you
cannot do through the back door what you are unable to do through the front
door.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: I would ask Your Honour that the hon. gentleman, at least himself,
talk about what he means by "this case", because that is awfully
confusing to any minister who has to answer a question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: There is nobody confused about the questions that I am asking
today on that side of the House because they know exactly what I am after, and
they know that I am right.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the Chair has already ruled that any reference to a
case that was mentioned by the hon. member in the first instance cannot be asked
in this House. I ask the hon. member to keep that in mind when he is putting
questions to the minister.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Will the Apollo be
ready for the services on the Coast of Labrador this summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said from the outset that we have a court case
on the go in this particular tender. We spent three days down in the court. I
gave evidence, as well as other people in the department. I do not intend to
answer any other questions on this particular subject until the judge brings
down his ruling.
When that is done, I will stand in this House and answer whatever questions,
supposing they come from every member over there, every member of the media, or
any person in this Province. I can answer the question on this particular
subject.
Until then, I will make no other comment on this particular subject.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a pretty straightforward
question that had nothing to do with the court case.
I asked him: Would the Apollo be ready for services on the Labrador run this
summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that is before the
courts. When that judgement is brought down, then the hon. member's question
will be answered.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Will that vessel be ready for the Coast of Labrador, to provide
services to the people of Labrador this summer? Yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I have every right to ask that minister that question. If he
doesn't answer it, I have every right to ask him again, Mr. Speaker..
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member knows full well that he cannot repeat questions that have
already been asked. The minister has answered it, and I believe the hon. member
should get on with another question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are serious problems with the
Apollo. Would the minister like to tell us what those problems are? Are they
electrical? Is there a significant amount of asbestos in the Apollo that may
hold it up in providing services to the Coast of Labrador this summer?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have said it once, probably twice, and I will
say it again: When the judgement is brought down in this particular court case,
the hon. member's question with regard to the Apollo on that run this year will
be answered. Having said that, there will be a service on the Coast, on the
Straits, this summer, regardless of what happens in this particular court case.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: A final question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the
fact that vessel inspection regulations were not even adhered to, that this
government flew flagrantly in the face of the Public Tender Act, in view of the
fact of what has taken place, will you call a commission or commission an
inquiry into why the Public Tender Act has been so blatantly abused by this
government?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that gentleman has been ruled out of order on
questions pertaining to a matter that is before the courts on a number of
occasions this afternoon. If he persists, which I hope he won't, I would ask,
Mr. Speaker, that you do the appropriate thing with him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
In February, the minister announced a signing bonus of $3,000 to new nurse
graduates who would commit to work in this Province for one year. It now appears
that this offer may not apply to all nurses who are graduating this year and who
accept employment with health care boards.
I want to ask the minister: Can he explain why nurses, newly graduated ones
this year, who accept positions in community health are being told they do not
qualify for the bonus?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is news to me.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If it is news to him, he should contact the corporations and their human
resource people and get the message out to them, because they do not know and
they are given different information. I like to see that corrected, I say to the
minister.
There are 160 new graduates this year. The St. John's Hospital Board said
they could hire all of them. Only one-half have even applied for positions
Province-wide, out of the new graduates this year - have even bothered to apply.
Yesterday, I spoke with a nurse who has five nursing friends who graduated
last year and they are leaving before the end of the month to go to North
Carolina. I know of many others who are doing exactly the same.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I want to say to the minister, his one-time bonus strategy is
not working. I ask you, do you have another plan that can be more effective in
solving the nursing crisis in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe there are a couple pieces of information I might offer that might be
useful to the hon. member. It doesn't surprise me that what is actually a good
news story in health care, he would describe as a bad news story. That has been
the nature of his position as the Opposition health critic for some time.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that people like the Opposition critic
for health were saying prior to the nurses' job fair that all 160 of these
nurses were going to leave the Province, that none of them would actually work
in Newfoundland and Labrador, that there was going to be a critical shortage,
and the fact of the working conditions and the salaries; because he used the
same information and the same words that were being put into the public domain
by the president of the nurses' union. He parroted it all through the strike and
the debates in this Legislature last spring, how terrible, how awful, how
absolutely incredibly bad this government was in its treatment of nurses.
Actually, they tried to drive any nurse that even wanted to stay in Newfoundland
and Labrador out of the Province.
Now, with a one-time bonus that is having a very good impact, that instead of
160 graduating nursing leaving the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. GRIMES: - over 100 have decided to look for jobs in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Anybody else - all of the boards, whether they be institutional boards or
community services boards, are delighted by the fact that they have over 100 new
graduates applying and wanting to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador for this
next year. If he is suggesting -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will continue the answer, I am sure, with the
next question.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he has no plan; that is why he did not tell us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Nurses and other health care professionals do not have any
faith that this government is going to do something to fundamentally stop
driving people out of this Province and out of their professions. Drawing down
four years from the federal government in one year -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him now to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, in light that the government is drawing
down four years in one year - it will do nothing to keep nurses and health care
professionals here. It will not even cover the operating deficit for last year.
It is not even a band-aid, I say to the minister. When are you going to offer
long-term solutions that give assurance to health care professionals that there
is indeed a future for them here in our Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying in answer to the last question, the whole issue again when we
talk about plans, I will tell you one thing, our plan is not to be like the
Opposition critic and complain and gripe and moan and groan and go around and
suggest that Newfoundland and Labrador is the worst place in the country and in
the world to live, that we have the worst health care anywhere in the organized
free world. Because that is his plan, to try to convince the residents and the
health care professionals that we have that this is an awful place to live and
work. That is his plan, because he is more interested in trying to get political
gain out of the issue than dealing with things that are positive and
constructive in trying to build our system in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, you will not hear any of that plan from this side of the House,
you need not worry about; you can mark it down. When we have a success, when we
have over 100 out of 160 graduates who decide to live here, despite the
representations made from members like the Opposition critic -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Telegram of March 10 carried a story on the
difference in gas prices in Newfoundland compared with other Atlantic provinces,
and the Premier is quoted as saying, "All I can say to the oil and gas
industry is that if they cannot defend the difference in price here compared to
the difference in prices elsewhere, then they are inviting government to take
some kind of regulatory role."
The Minister of Mines and Energy echoed the Premier's comments following this
meeting with oil companies officials yesterday, and the former minister said
much of the same thing several months ago.
The public should know who is driving up these prices, and I say to the
Minister of Finance that if you cannot explain it, there should be a public
inquiry to get to the truth.
My question to the Minister of Finance is: Will you call a public inquiry at
which oil companies, Mr. Minister, would be required to defend the prices
charged to the consumers of this Province, and equally, Mr. Minister, the
government would be required to defend the windfall revenues it receives in
taxation from the escalating oil and gas prices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I am not of a mind at the moment to call for a public inquiry with
respect to the issue of gas prices in the Province. What I am more interested in
doing is to engage, on behalf of government, in a couple of activities, and that
is first, in discussion with the producers of the product and the distributers
of the product, find out what the facts are. To that extent we had a very
successful meeting, I would term it, yesterday, myself and the hon. the Minister
of Mines and Energy, with the oil companies. We are attempting to convey to the
general public all of the information that we have available to us with respect
to all of the nuances regarding the increase in petroleum product prices, and we
take that responsibility very seriously. We will continue to do what we can to
make sure that (
a) the public is informed and (
b) the public is protected to the
extent that we can ensure it.
I said last week to the media that we, as a government, take this position,
and it is a very clear and a very simple one. We believe that price increases,
while they must be market driven and obviously are out there, must be held off
to the last possible moment, they should be held to the lowest possible amount
and, they should be held in place for the shortest period of time. That is our
position -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - and that is our agenda, and that is the vein in which we are
working on this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, with this government's
response on this issue. It has been coy, it has been cute. It has not dealt in
response to the genuine concerns of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: At times, Mr. Speaker, the government claims it may be the
companies, and then government, through the Premier, suggest we need a form of
regulation, when in fact the real problem here -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - is that the government has not come clean with the reality
of taxation revenues equaling approximately one-half of the price of a litre of
gas. I say, Mr. Minister, why not call a public inquiry so that all of the facts
can be put on the table and the people of the Province can not only judge the
companies, but this government itself?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has been a long time, and I really do not know what to make of it, but I
will tell you, it was not yesterday that I was last called cute. I do not know
on what basis the hon. member finds me to be in any way cute. I do not think I
am that cute, quite frankly. I would be flattered if somebody else had a second
opinion on that, and I hope probably before the Question Period is over somebody
else can either validate the concept that I might be cute or otherwise dispel
the notion altogether, because it concerns me and I am sure it concerns others.
To the substantive issue that he has raised , Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: Poll the audience.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is worth polling the
audience on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: To the extent that the question is serious, because Mr.
Speaker, it is a serious question -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to quickly conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. Mr. Speaker, to the substantive part of the question with
respect to the issue of laying out the facts about the tax component in our gas
prices versus the tax components in the prices of other provinces in the
country, that information is generally available. I'm prepared to make it
available to the member, I'm prepared to make it available in the House.
Our rate is 16 cents per litre. We are not the highest in the country. The
highest is the Province of Quebec at point three-tenths of a cent higher than we
are in the Montreal area, but the other rates are available to him as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is also to the Minister of Finance. When is he going to stop
reaping the windfall profits from the increasing, escalating prices of oil and
do something to give the Public Utilities Board, an objective body, the power to
roll back unreasonable price increases?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about windfall profits that
are accruing to the government. Let me put the record straight by saying the
facts of the matter, first of all, are these.
arrangement to go into a blended sales tax system. As a result of that, we took
a pre-determined amount of revenue for three years. So in fact, we are not
getting any actual new dollars. Now as a result of the HST being on petroleum
products, it is a fact that there is a small incremental amount of the price
increase going toward HST which is being collected by Ottawa and which we may
get an adjustment for some time beyond the end of this year. The fact of the
matter is that even if we were getting extraordinary revenues the calculation of
those extraordinary revenues, by my officials as given to me, indicates that it
probably would no more than, if in fact it does, offset the increased cost that
we, as a government, are having on account of having to deliver public services
in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Works, Services
and Transportation has told me his department alone is spending this year about
$3 million more to clear snow, to run plows, to heat buildings and to service
ferries than it would have if the fuel prices were not up.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we are in no net windfall position.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Will he, in response to the increased cost for home heat,
whether it be fuel or electricity, consider scrapping his income tax break -
which is only going to benefit primarily the wealthy people - and instead
introduce a 15 per cent home heat rebate to consumers of fuel oil or electricity
instead of this income break?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the reduction in income tax that has been
announced by this government last October, by my predecessor, and the income tax
reductions that have been announced by the federal government, in total will go
a fair distance toward helping people with any extraordinary costs they have for
any consumer product.
The fact of the matter is that the allegation of the hon. Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi that the tax breaks are only for the rich and the wealthy is
fundamentally flawed and incorrect. The tax breaks that have been announced in
total by federal and provincial governments are clearly focused on and directed
toward the middle income people of the Province. He need not fear, if he is
concerned about him getting an extraordinary large tax break because he is in
the stratosphere in terms of his income. You are not going to get that, I tell
the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: It is going to go more or less toward the middle income
bracket, the people who earn on average the mean salary in the economy and who
pay the most taxes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government had an employee on the management team of IPL to
monitor financial operations of that company. I ask the Minister of Finance:
Will you table in this House all reports from your representative on the board,
government accountants and all sources, that detail where the $25 million that
government had given them over the past three years went?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not familiar directly with the position or the person to whom he refers
but let me say this to him, that on behalf of the taxpayers of the Province and
for the interest of the Members of the House, we are prepared and I am prepared
to table in this House whatever level of information is appropriate, not only
with respect to people who are working on the IPL file, but people who are
working in any other area of government interest and being paid out of the
taxpayers' purse.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for what the minister thinks
appropriate to be tabled in the House. I am asking for all information to be
tabled. The people of this Province have a right to know how $25 million of
their money was spent. Will the government, and you as minister, ask the Auditor
General to conduct a full audit of how $25 million in public funds was spent and
managed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member, in case he is
not fully aware of this, that the Auditor General of this Province is appointed
by this House and is a servant of this House, and he is the Chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee. It is not the role, as I understand it, of the
Minister of Finance or any other minister to give direction to the Auditor
General to do anything in terms of her scope of work and practice. That is in
the singular prerogative of the Auditor General, and I am confident that the
Auditor General of this Province will do what she thinks is appropriate with
respect to this particular issue or any other issue that she might want to
reflect on.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Labour. Minister, I would
like to refer back to your Ministerial Statement just at the opening of the
House of Assembly today. This problem of shellfish asthma, as I said, is nothing
new. It is something that has been around for the past ten years. I do not even
think it is new to you as Minister of Environment and Labour. I ask the minister
if his department, in the past, has done any inspections whatsoever of fish
processing facilities in this Province and if not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Yes, I can say to the hon. member that last year there were four
official complaints that were made to the department. As a result of these
complaints that were made our inspectors went to a number of plants. As a result
of these four inspections that were done there has been considerable
improvements made in the ventilation system in these plants over the winter.
What I can also say to the member opposite is that I am sure there are many
other problems out there other than the four that were officially given to us.
That is why in December of last year the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Commission wrote to every one of the plants and sent them
literature telling them of this particular problem that was there and again
suggesting to them some ways that it could be improved.
Primarily, what you have in this instance is the fact that many of these
groundfish plants were codfish, and then when they became crab plant operations
the ventilation system wasn't adequately, probably, prepared for it and as a
result there are more of asthma problems that we have.
We did do inspections, we did followup, and there were recommendations that
were made. As a result of the Working Group that is in now I am hoping they will
be able to address many more of the issues that are there as well.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that those fish plant workers are caught between a rock
and a hard place. Many of them are working at seasonal jobs, afraid to take time
off on sick leave because they will not get enough contributions to qualify for
EI and feed their families, and afraid to approach Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Commission because of your deeming process. It will probably deem
them to be real estate agents, lotto salesman, or something else which is
unreasonable.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he would immediately put in place some
action in order to alleviate this great concern among fish plant workers in the
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have just done. We have introduced
a working committee made up of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Commission, made up of FFAW, FANL, and the Departments of Health and Community
Services and Fisheries and Aquaculture. That Working Group, I would assume,
would start immediately to start to correct some of the problems that are in the
plants in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: Being Wednesday we now move to the Orders of the Day. I believe
the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a resolution.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The resolution I read into the record yesterday I will read again just to jog
the memories of members opposite.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: No whereases.' There do not need to be any in a private
member's resolution. We wanted to get right to the point on this one, and to arm
our colleagues on the other side on the eve of their federal Liberal convention.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: On the eve of their convention we are going to see where they
stand on this issue. That is what I will say, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon in
this House we are going to see where they stand on health care. We are going to
see if they have the backbone, if they have the commitment.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? I say to my constituent from Kilbride, you are very
welcome for the concern that I have for you.
Now, it is very clear. We will say it clearly:
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House condemn the Prime
(
a) refusing to provide adequate funding for health care;
(
b) placing in jeopardy the ability of the Province to uphold the five
portability, and public administration; and
(
c) compelling the Province to privatize certain health care treatments and
services that the publicly-funded medicare system can no longer provide to all
who require medical care.
I recall being at an Estimates Committee one night three years ago. I believe
the former Minister of Health was then the Minister of Health. The debate and
discussion that centered around the Estimates Committee meeting - and for people
in the gallery, the Estimates Committees take place right after the Budget
process. It is an opportunity in the nighttime for members to discuss in detail
with the minister and their deputy ministers, ADMs, all of the money spent in a
particular department.
Anyway, at that particular Estimates Committee meeting the discussion on
health care and the universality of health care took place. Now if you can
imagine, it is extremely difficult on the one hand if you have a federal
government that has laid out for the entire country to see, for all Canadians to
see, what they believed to be five aspects and principles that will make up, and
if we adhere to them as provinces, and that would ensure that the universality
of health care is protected for everybody; that there would be no need
whatsoever for any province within Canada to even consider, to even look at, to
even investigate the possibility of privatizing some aspects of health care in
Canada. That is what happened that night. We discussed that and that is what is
in jeopardy.
Is it any wonder that people are frustrated in this Province when you see the
Minister of Finance federally, the Minister of Health federally, and recently,
John Manley, the Minister of Industry, who said on a CBC radio program that we
actually gave more money to the provinces for health care this year, not less.
How do you figure that?
In 1993, transfers under the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act were $420
million to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Beginning in 1994, and
then onwards in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, that amount each year was cut
by $130 million, back to $270 million. So in short, in seven years -
AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in Cabinet?
MR. E. BYRNE: One second, we are going to get to all of that. We have lots of
time to explore all of that.
In seven short years this Province, from the federal government, has been
clawed back $750 million for health and education. When you listen to federal
ministers like John Manley indicate loudly that we have given more, well, they
have not. People in the system, people at the health board level, know exactly
the stresses we are dealing with.
Look at it provincially. I recall last year distinctly - it was after the
1999 election, just prior to the opening ceremonies of the Winter Games - the
federal Budget was announced. Again, there was no increase in the amount of
money being transferred to the provinces. What we asked for at that time was
restoration. We did not ask for more as a party. We asked the federal government
clearly and unequivocally to restore funding levels under the Canada Health and
Social Transfer to its 1993 levels to give this Province and the people in this
Province the opportunity to avail of a system of health care in Canada.
Something that makes us, as a country, distinct, unique, a model for the rest of
the free world, no question about that. Restore funding levels so that we could
have access to the five principles that they themselves set out - not provinces,
not individual provincial health ministers but the federal government - under
its responsibility, to restore those funding levels to 1993, so that each
Newfoundlander and Labradorian could have access to comprehensive health care,
universality of service, irrespective of what income bracket you come from,
irrespective of what age you are, irrespective of the things that may separate
us in terms of our social economic status, that everybody would have equal
access to health care and to the services under that system; that we have
service here or if a service in a particular area or region cannot be provided,
that we have access to it in a universal way, no matter where it may exist in
the country, on a universal footing, free of charge. That is the principle set
forward by the federal government.
Now, at the same time, the federal government are now saying to the provinces
- and I note the fight that is going on between the Province of Alberta and the
federal government. After the most recent federal budget, the Premier of our
Province speculated publicly about the need to investigate privatizing certain
aspects, or the possibility of privatizing certain aspects, of the system.
The now provincial Health Minister was publicly quoted yesterday as saying
that they are gambling. If we were in his shoes, or if I was in his shoes, we
would have no other choice as well, I say to him, because they have to take all
of that money that was announced this year - $40 million or $44 million I
believe it is; he can stand and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am
right, $44 million - the federal government put an extra $2.5 billion in - we
could draw over a four-year period or we could take it all up front. Our take on
$2.5 billion, as a province, is $44 million over four years. That is our take.
It does not even cover the deficits that health care boards are now operating
under. It does not even cover the deficit; so if we were to apply all of that to
the health care board deficits, it does not increase services, it does not
enhance services, it does not provide us the opportunity or financial means to
offer a variety of other services, and it will be argued today successfully
because it is true.
We are now sending cancer patients to clinics outside of not only our
Province but outside of our country, and paying for it, to the United States. Is
that not privatization? We can offer that service rate here. We are sending
health care patients who are on open heart lists, not reduced in number as each
week goes by, but as each week, month and year goes by, the numbers who are on
heart waiting lists are increasing. My colleague from Ferryland, the health
critic, will get into more detail on some of those aspects as the debate goes
on, but I want to focus in now on what we should be doing as a Province,
vis--vis the federal government.
What more can we do? What type of messages are we sending? I will give you
two examples. I noted earlier that just before the opening of the Winter Games
last year in Corner Brook, the federal budget was announced; and immediately the
Minister of Finance then, the Member for Humber West, the Minister of Health
then, the Member for St. John's Centre, and the Premier of the Province
condemned for two days what the impact would be on provincial health care
systems.
The former Minster of Health, the now Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs, said that if this trend continues we will have no choice but to
privatize certain aspects of the health care system in this Province. The
Minister of Finance at the time said it was a drop in the bucket, and what
happened the day after? The Prime Minister of the country visited the Province
to open the Winter Games, spoke to the Premier about his vocal opposition to the
federal budget, both the Province of Quebec and Newfoundland; because it was at
that time, you see, that the formula changed. It was at that time that the
funding formula to the provinces changed, to our detriment. It used to be, prior
to 1999, and it was always prior to 1999, that money was allocated on a per
needs basis. Those who needed it the most received the lion's share of it.
Our Province is among the most who need it, for a couple of reasons. Our
population is aging. Due to out-migration, the demographic shifts have changed
so dramatically that those people in the population who need health care - 60
per cent of the health care budget is spent on those who are fifty-five plus. It
is a demographic fact, not fiction, but it changed. As a result of that change,
those parts of the country who had more densely populated areas - places like
Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia - they began to receive more, even though
their economies were growing at a much faster pace, even though they had a
collection or an ability from a revenue base within their provincial budget to
meet the needs way beyond what we could, but the formula on which we were
receiving money changed.
The day after the Prime Minister of the country came down, which was two days
after the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health at the time,
condemned that change, the Prime Minister of the country showed up in a meeting
with our Premier and showed him his own words from Hansard, when he was in the
federal Cabinet sitting in Parliament, that showed that he supported the move -
said it - towards a population-based funding system. What happened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. This is an important debate this afternoon. We
are not going to try to over politicize this because many people are struggling
with accessing services, and I am sure every member can attest to it. The day
after our Premier spoke out provincially about how that was bad, both he and the
Prime Minister stood side by side in a room in the Glynmill Inn, in a press
conference, and our Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, said he
had spoke to the Prime Minister and now everything was okay. Everything was
okay.
Now, this year's budget, the same sort of cat and mouse or shell game
occurred again. I watched the federal budget in my office upstairs with a group
of people - some accountants, some economists, the critic of Finance, the member
and colleague for Cape St. Francis - and here is what we saw after the budget.
It became abundantly and immediately clear that this budget was not going to
meet the needs of this Province when it came to the social side of the ledger in
terms of health and education.
The first response from government was from the Minister of Finance. This is
an excellent budget, he said. A little bit concerned about health care, but we
should be able to handle it. Fifteen minutes later, I watched the Premier of the
Province in Ottawa on national television say: This budget is not very good for
health care.
Two completely different messages, once again. For the first several hours
after the budget, nationally, I heard the Premier say: We demand a meeting with
the Prime Minister of Canada. All the Premiers demand a meeting immediately.
This money is not even going to get us beyond this year.
What happened the next day? Another statement from the Premier: I have met
with Paul Martin and everything is going to be okay.
These are not my words. This is not fiction on my part. This is the way it
is.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on
the one hand, set up a set of principles and demand that each province meet a
minimum standard in terms of those five principles of health care, and we will
review them again: the universality of health care, comprehensiveness of health
administration of health care. You cannot demand that each and every province,
irrespective of their means, live up to those fundamental principles if they are
not going to put their share into it financially. If they do not, if they fail
to understand their role, if they fail to understand that it is the federal
government, yes, that sets the standard and the benchmark, but in cooperation -
that one of the things that makes this country unique is the ability of the
federal and provincial governments to cooperatively work together in the
provision of services for the Canadian people - but if they renege in any way,
shape or form, then what is happening in Alberta is just the beginning. Ralph
Klein, the Premier of Alberta, is talking about a provision for the supply of
health care services.
MR. HARRIS: Which party is he with?
MR. E. BYRNE: He is with the ultra Conservative Party of Alberta, I say to my
friend the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. MERCER: (Inaudible)!
MR. E. BYRNE: No, absolutely. I can say with all honesty that where he is
moving is not where we would move, and no one in this House would want him to
move. I would suspect, I say to the Member for Humber East, that the direction
Jean Chrtien and Paul Martin have moved on health care is not the direction
that you would want them to move on health care either.
The reality and the truth is this. Legislatures right across the country must
begin to express their will in solidarity against this federal government with
respect to their funding of health care. If we want to maintain the level of
have an obligation as elected members in our provinces. Irrespective of
political stripe or persuasion, irrespective of any loyalties whatsoever, where
we see an issue that so fundamentally effects everybody in this Province then I
believe we have an obligation to act unilaterally and unanimously in this place.
We have done it before on a number of occasions. We have had the opportunity -
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will just clue up, Mr. Speaker.
We have done it before in this House. People on both sides of the
Legislature, irrespective of political stripe, irrespective of the partisan
nature of what this place is, we have come together on other issues for the
benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask members today to do
exactly that.
All we are requesting is c
ontained there in one statement, which reads:
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House condemn the Prime Minister and Government
of Canada for:
(
a) refusing to provide adequate funding for health care;
(
b) placing in jeopardy the ability of the Province to uphold the five
portability, and public administration; and
(
c) compelling the Province to privatization certain health care treatments
and services that the publicly-funded medicare system can no longer provide to
all who require medical care.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to have a few words to say about this particular resolution
brought forward by the members of the Opposition. Let me make it very clear from
the very outset, let there be no doubt as to where I stand on this issue: I will
most emphatically be voting against this resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: I will be voting against it and I urge all members on my side
of the House to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask why I would vote against a resolution that is
calling upon the federal government to put more money in Newfoundland's health
care system. I believe the federal government should put more money in the
health care system in Newfoundland and in the other provinces in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: The hon. member is speaking to all members of the House.
There was a lot of noise here. I thought I heard him say that he was actually
going to vote against this resolution. Is that correct?
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reason why I will vote against this resolution will come. Before coming
in here, I had some lingering doubts that the members opposite were genuinely,
positively concerned about health care in this Province. I really had some
genuine beliefs that they may really be. I could not think for a second that
they would be politically motivated on such a very important issue.
In the first five seconds of the Leader of the Opposition getting up, he
makes reference to the fact that we are going to a national Liberal convention
in Ottawa. Clearly this resolution is put forward to do nothing more than to try
to embarrass the members on this side. I will tell you one thing. I know which
convention I am going to in Ottawa. I know I am attending the Liberal Party
convention. Which party will they be attending when they go to Ottawa for their
national convention? Will it be the CRAP convention, will it be the Tory Party,
or will it be the Reform Party? We do not know, but the nation waits with bated
breath.
If the members opposite were truly serious in bringing forward this
resolution they would have, immediately upon Ralph Klein bringing forward the
privatization bill, stood up on -
MR. TULK: They might go to BC to visit Peckford again to get some advice.
MR. MERCER: Or to somewhere else where another former premier might be
residing at the present time. If they were serious they would have brought in a
resolution condemning the Premier of Alberta for bringing forward a
privatization bill which puts us on a slippery slope of bringing us towards a
two-tier system of medicare in this Province, one for the rich and one for the
poor. That is what they would have done.
I would also suggest that perhaps before they would have also done something
else. They may have consulted their legal beagle for St. John's South on free
trade. Because as Mr. Speaker knows, and we have been told in this House on many
occasions, once you make a precedent in this country on the free enterprise
system or the internal trade agreement it opens up the entire system. So we were
told on Gisborne Lake. If we do Gisborne Lake every other province in the
country must consummate a deal with external agencies to export water. The same
thing on Ralph Klein in Alberta.
AN HON. MEMBER: I can see why you are voting against (inaudible).
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, like their cousins, as my friend from Bonavista
South so frequently refers to, our political cousins. As their political cousins
in the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, CRAP for short, the only stated
reason for that party coming into existence and the only reason why they want to
form a new party is not to give better government, not to provide better health
care service in this country, but to defeat the Liberals. That is the only
stated purpose for the CRAP party, to defeat the Liberals.
Now this past weekend the members opposite had their convention. I understand
it was in something larger than a telephone booth here in the City of St. John's.
They had a former premier in from BC. Basically what he said, and I quote him
from The Telegram , is this. He tells these people at the convention: seek
out those issues that can get you elected in the next election. Not to seek out
those issues that you can provide a better alternative to, that you can do
better on, but to seek out those issues which you can get elected on in the next
election. This is where the Conservative Party has now fallen in Canada, simply
to defeat the Liberals. Not because they have better programs or better ideas,
but to defeat the Liberals.
Let's have a little talk about some of the comments made in recent months
by our health care critic on the opposite side. I don't want to misquote this
gentleman, I don't want to cast aspersions, but I just simply want to state a
simple fact. We have a health care critic who was out there at every turn saying
whatever there is to be said negative about our health care system. It took him
so far that in late September or October, at the annual meeting of the St. John's
Health Care Corporation, you got into a shouting match with the chairman of the
board down there about some particular issue. I think it was about beds, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Member for Humber East is going to make comments on things that
happened there, on a shouting match and things of that nature, I was there. I
didn't (inaudible). He wasn't there. It is not accurate. I would like him to
keep his information down to accurate statements that reflect what I said. If he
is not going to do that I will keep rising on a point of order if they are not
accurate. He is conveying a wrong impression to the public by making statements
that he cannot substantiate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: If I said that the minister was ranting and raving and he
wasn't, I apologize for that.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is not the minister.
MR. MERCER: The member.
MR. TULK: What member were you talking about?
MR. MERCER: Ferryland, I believe.
I read a quote directly from The Telegram . As the evening
progressed, it says - and I cannot use the gentleman's name so I will say the
Member for Ferryland rambled on for considerable time about the ills of health
care.
AN HON. MEMBER: Rambled?
MR. MERCER: Rambled on - a direct quote from The Telegram .
I am not at all surprised to see that kind of editorial comment written by
one of our writers, because it is a comment that I have heard from many people
across this Province. Whenever they hear the Leader of the Opposition or the
House Leader -
MR. TULK: Alright, I was going to say he is the former.
MR. MERCER: - speak about health care, they say: Oh, not again. Here we
go again.
MR. TULK: Is it any wonder they are seventeen points in the polls?
MR. MERCER: That is a good point, and we might elaborate on that shortly.
Also last year, about the same time, on November 16 th , the hon.
House Leader had a great deal to say about the health care system, particularly
the cardiac surgery, problems caused by the lack of cardiac surgeons, lack of
profusionists and lack of operating space. Around about that time we had another
issue in the Province dealing with the nurses. This is a quote directly from
Hansard,. He now says that the problems in health care, the cardiac section, is
"not because of a lack of cardiac surgeons, not because of a lack of
profusionists, not because the operating space is not there...", but due to
a lack of nurses.
I have no doubt that nurses do play a very fundamental part and role in our
health care system.
The point I am making here is that the member opposite and the party opposite
are very quick to turn on any public issue to turn it to their public advantage
to try and decry, at any opportunity, our health care system.
It is interesting that on the same date that the hon. House Leader made a
statement about the lack of profusionists and so forth, on November 18 th ,
their colleague in the Province of Alberta, Mr. Ralph Klein, introduced his
privatization bill.
If you have any doubt as to who Mr. Klein is, he is and was the former Mayor
of the City of Calgary who, during an oil crisis some years ago, referred to us
here in the east to allow us to freeze in the dark. Those are their friends out
west.
At the same time that the Leader of the NDP Party in Alberta and the Leader
of the Liberal Party in Alberta were saying things like: If the Premier, Premier
Klein, really cared about the pain and suffering of Albertans on waiting lists,
why did he close three public hospitals in Calgary - blow one of them up - and
shut down 44 per cent of the hospital beds in the City of Edmonton? His response
to that was simply: We had more hospitals than we needed. This is the great
defender of health care in the Conservative Party on the opposite side.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring those points to your attention and also
bring your attention to the fact that in a recent
article in The Telegram ,
actually on February 8 th , the hon. House Leader and the Leader of the
Opposition - there are two very nice pictures here on the front cover of The
Telegram - they held a great press conference to talk about health care, and
a seven point plan of how to solve all the problems. Point one: All we needed
was another $130 million to $150 million from Ottawa and that would solve all of
our problems.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: Before saying that, the hon. health care critic who is giving me
his undivided attention in his discussion, I am quite sure -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: At the same press conference where these hon. gentlemen laid out
their seven point plan, the hon. health critic stated that we needed a Royal
Commission in Newfoundland -
AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't.
MR. MERCER: I am just quoting from The Telegram.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the facts clear. I was at a
news conference and was asked - and I said maybe we need a Royal Commission, at
a news conference out here in the lobby in the media room. It was in no
statement, no inference. That is what my statement was. I am sure it is on tape.
The media will have it on tape to clarify it; so do not put words in my mouth, I
say to the Member for Humber East.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Don't dare put words in the hon. health critic's mouth because
they may be positive words rather than the negative ones that we hear day after
day in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, one can read very clearly - and if he wishes to have
a copy, I will send a copy over to him. It all refers to what he had said.
On the one hand, the resolution today is calling upon the federal government
to give us oodles of money and at the same time that party, the party opposite,
is saying that what we have we are not spending correctly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that any fiscally responsible
government, whether it be Liberal, Tory or NDP, would hand out oodles of money
to a government that is being accused publicly of spending it irresponsibly?
What do you want, Mr. Health Critic and Mr. Leader of the Opposition? I am
having great difficulty understanding where you are coming from and what you are
trying to do.
Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is getting short but I just want to say - and
I think it is becoming widely known in this Province - that the Tories, the
party opposite, is using the health care system simply as a means to get
political points to, as a former leader said, lead them back into power. It is
time for the members opposite to speak resolutely on the issues of health care
from the heart and with meaning, and not, as Bob Benson of The Telegram recently
said: To hear the Tories tell it, the state of health care is not much better
than the fetid squalor of Florence Nightingale encountered in the British
military hospitals in 19th Century Crimean War.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a true representation of the health care system in
this Province and it is time for the opposition parties and the opposition
members to stand forthrightly and to speak confidently and to speak correctly
about what is really happening in this Province. Yes, nurses are a vital part of
our health care system and yes, they will be there the next time in order to
cast their ballots.
Mr. Speaker, I could say a number of other things but to say more would be to
repeat myself. I simply want to say that this motion by the members opposite is
strictly nothing more than a political ploy to put before this House and to have
us vote against the party that represents us in Ottawa, and it has absolutely
nothing to do with health care in this Province. It has everything to do with
trying to find a way back to power. I would say to hon. members, if you want to
get back to power -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MERCER: - do things, do them responsibly and put forward good
alternatives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am just delighted, I say, to have an opportunity to stand here and
reiterate a resolution and support that the Premier himself has supported in a
public forum. He said it out in a public forum.
I didn't enjoy being misquoted by the Member for Humber East, but while we
are quoting people, I am just wondering whether the quote attributed to him that
- Tobin denies the accusation - the Premier denied the accusation, when the
Member for Humber East said: A number of us got sandbagged by the Premier. We
were not even aware that it was on the agenda that day; and Tobin - the Premier,
referring to here - says: Tobin denies the accusation.
I wonder if the Member for Humber East - on that quote. I have it here. It is
the quote. I will give him a copy if he needs it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a copy of the quote.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: It was in The Humber Log. I have a copy of The Humber Log.
MR. MERCER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, there was an
article in The Humber Log some several
years ago -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MERCER: - which I am so pleased that the hon. health critic finds it fit
to keep in his desk drawer. I did not realize I occupied such a place close to
his heart and he wants to rise at every possible opportunity to speak to that
particular issue. I do not deny that I said it, and I -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Even Humber East MHA, Bob Mercer, was left scratching his head over the vote,
it said, when he got sandbagged by the Premier. That is what The Humber Log
says, I say to the member.
Anyway, I don't want to waste my time on such trivia. I want to get on to
something important, and that is an issue that the Premier of this Province
supports, and that is that the federal government has not put adequate funding
into health care over the recent years. They have cut it. He wants more back in
it. I support him on that issue. I just wish he had supported me on it for the
last few years when I kept shouting out and he jumped up to protect his minister
who said I was fearmongering. He said you are trying to capture a headline and
all that. Now the Premier himself is out saying: There is a crisis; we need
money. Why do we need it? What is this resolution you cannot support? I say to
the Member for Humber East, why can't you support it?
The number one part of that resolution says, "refusing to provide
adequate funding for health care". In 1992, this Province received $427
million under EPF, Established Program Financing, and CAP for health,
post-secondary education and social services. At the low point, before they were
pushed back in the federal election back in 1997, they were down to $272
million; $155 million less in one year. They have cut it.
The reason why we are battling to deal with the number two part of that
resolution today, trying to maintain the five basic principles of health care,
is because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to providing
equality and access to health care in all regions of our country.
We do know there is a provincial responsibility too, and we are not getting
away from that, but there is a strong federal aspect to it. If the federal
government wants to divide us up into ten regions and throw us all to the wolves
in each region and have ten or twelve different tiers of health care in this
country, he is doing a good job because our population is declining. We are not
getting the economies and efficiencies in delivering it like Ontario, with their
growing population. Alberta, B.C., and every other province in Canada have
populations that have increased and ours has decreased and therefore it is
getting more costly to deliver it per capita. That is why I did not want to see,
and I spoke strongly against, a shift into per capita funding. We have to
deliver health care based on indicators that reflect the geography of provinces
in this country to do that.
What the Member for Humber East or the members on government side cannot
care, when you can get an MRI in a few days in downtown Toronto and you have to
wait here for six months to get a routine; when you have to wait for two months
for an urgent CAT Scan and other parts of the country have more rapid access;
when you have to wait a year to see a dermatologist. When you have to get
critical, an emergency case, to get seen, there is something wrong. While all
the country is experiencing concerns with health care, not to the magnitude and
degree they are in this Province.
The last particular one, we mentioned here in (
c) part of this resolution, we
are "compelling the Province to privatize ceratin health care
treatments..." and so on. We have gotten to the point in this Province now
where the Province is saying: Look, we do not have enough radiation therapists
or medical physicists or people working in the cancer unit. We do not have
enough to give you the service you need. So what are we doing? We are going to
pay for you to leave this Province and go to the United States in private
clinics. We are now funding private clinics in the United States to provide
service to people here in our Province. That is what we are doing. We are
providing funding to private health clinics in the U.S. right now. The statement
was made by this department. It came out from the minister's department that
they are going to pay for it.
That is privatization. I do not support going private for health care, but
they have driven them so far that the people are starting to say: Look, we want
access, we want health care, I do not care if I have to pay for it, I want it. I
do not want to be waiting months to get treatment for cancer. It is
life-threatening. I want an opportunity to live. If I have to spend $20,000,
$30,000 or $50,000 for the chance to live I want to have that right to do it.
That is why we are being pushed, because the federal government has not lived up
to its responsibilities for getting equality and access to health care and we
are driving people to that nth degree.
Eventually what is going to happen, because their contribution is going to be
so minimal in areas, is they are going to say: To hell with transfers for health
care to Alberta and other areas. They will say: We will go our own route and
forget it; at least we will have better health care for the people of Alberta.
It is very unfortunate that we have seen things come to that level. In this
country today, in the current federal government, we have seen an increase to
almost 31 per cent of health care that is privately funded. We have seen that
grow from in the 20 percentage points when they came into power. We are seeing
it creeping up. Over this next decade we are going to be pushing at higher and
higher, getting closer to 40 per cent funded. We are going to see, over the next
two or three decades, half of it funded even under the current system because
there is a drawing back from that.
So when this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, when this minister
says: We can pay for you to go out of the Province and go to a private clinic in
the United States to get treatment, that to me is privatization of health care.
That is paying for private clinics in the United States to care for our people.
Why are we doing that? Because we have not stayed competitive with medical
physicists and radiation therapists who work in the treatment of people with
cancer. Not only in these areas, but in other areas that are less critical,
areas that do not probably affect your life span but affect your quality of
life. People in areas like speech language pathology, pathologists, are very
similar; physiotherapy, and physiotherapists, that is another example. Hospital
pharmacies are almost in crisis situations. They have not had a full complement
of pharmacists for instance in the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, and it
is similar all across the Province. They have not had a complement in several
years. Why? Because they are paying them substantially less, up to $20,000 less,
than they are in other areas. People do not realize it, but the care of patients
can be threatened by shortages of pharmacists who are very important. Medical
treatment, someone available in dealing with dispensing medications, is a very
important part of our health care system.
All these areas are important. Dietitians is another area. In almost every
single facet we have allowed ourselves to be become non-competitive and we are
paying the price for it. We are in a hole now that takes extraordinary effort to
get out of it, and we have not got the resolve to do it. The minister does not
have a solution, he said. He told us to today in Question Period he does not
have a solution to the problems.
What is the sense of having 160 students graduate and you give a bonus of
$3,000 and probably forty, fifty or sixty might take it? There was only
eight-nine bothered to apply. That is all who bothered to consider it as an
option. I know people who have applied to keep their options open and are
looking at going out of the Province. They expect to get a hundred, they said.
They expect to get a hundred out of 160, that is what they expect, that is what
they are aiming for. If you are aiming for that you will not get that, but let's
hope you do, let's hope they get more. What is the sense of keeping a hundred
and losing 200 from last year, or the year before ? No sense. We are losing
ground.
It is not a solution to a problem. It is not even a band-aid to a problem
because people are seeing through it. They are starting to say: Look, that is a
one-term thing, we are right back where we were. We have student loans. If we
can go to the United States and get converted and pay it in Canadian dollars -
our student loans on U.S. dollars, another fifty cents on a much higher salary
level - we can pay off our student loans a lot quicker there. If we like it
there, we can stay. At least we can come back debt free and come back with some
money here. So we are losing people who graduated last year. Last year was the
smallest graduating class which graduated, because the phase-in degree program -
I think there were only forty-one graduated. I know personally of several.
Several would be -
AN HON. MEMBER: Several is what, eight?
MR. SULLIVAN: No. I know five in one group are leaving within the month. I
know four or five others are going over the next few weeks from last year's
graduating class. Now keep in mind, last year's graduating class, by last May,
twenty-two out of forty-one had already agreed and signed contracts to go out of
there even as early as last April. I heard a person in the School of Nursing
make that statement on CBC radio last May. That is twenty-two out of the
forty-one had agreed already. Since that, I know two people in particular in my
district of the other nineteen that stayed have gone, and others have called my
office. The ones I am aware of, there is nearly three-quarters of those who
graduated a year ago have gone, which means only one-quarter stayed. Now I know
several of them who are going who graduated a year ago.
So there is no point of $3,000 to keep a nurse here for this year and lose a
hundred or 200 who graduated in the last two or three years.
We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising right across the
United States to get people to come back. I spoke to one couple who were offered
$2,000 each in a far part of this country to come back. They say: $2,000 can't
pay our expenses to get back. We just can't. We have a car each, we have
responsibilities, the two of us are nurses, young kids. We would like to get
back, we love Newfoundland and Labrador. Four thousand dollars to drive across
the country? Get real. We are not going to do it, but we would love to do it.
Even $3,000 each could barely cover their expenses to get home. They would like
to come back. They were offered that.
There are offers going out to people coming back there. We have a serious
problem here, and it is not going to be solved, because on top of the nurses we
are not keeping we have other aging people. The average age is forty-seven,
forty-eight, in the nursing profession here. They are at the point where we are
going to have a void to fill. The same is happening with all the health care
professions. Not only in that, it is happening in the teaching profession also.
We have long waiting lists, orthopaedics. We have people out there today who
cannot get an operating room to look after the people calling my office saying:
We cannot get surgery. I am six months on the list. With elective surgery now
you are waiting nearly a year in certain specialty areas. To see a neurologist
you have to wait about six months to a year to have an MRI.. To get even an
urgent CAT scan you have to wait two months. An urgent MRI takes three or four
months. I raised this issue last year. A young child fell and had serious head
injuries and so on and was told he had to wait months to get an MRI. That is
inhumane. There is something wrong.
My colleague there for Labrador West, they bring people down very seriously
injured on medevac to the Province. One got discharged in a body cast and they
said: Find your way home. They had to occupy three seats. They hardly could
squeeze on the plane. They had to get a local group - I do not know but the
(inaudible) or some group raised the money in Goose Bay to get that person back.
A person came in two weeks ago, brought in by medevac from Labrador West,
because they have Lou Gehrig's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - my
colleague may know about that - to get a feeding tube put in. Here two weeks and
they don't have it in yet. A person is here occupying a bed at the Health
Sciences Centre for two weeks and they cannot even get a feeding tube put it.
They can't even get it brought in. We have businesses flying in parts in a day
from all over this country to keep their businesses operating and we have people
lying in hospital beds at $800 a day, $5,600 a week, $11,000 in the last two
weeks, and we cannot get a feeding tube brought in? Where is the efficiently in
operating our health care system? It is frightening.
If they were out in business today they would be gone bankrupt long ago
because of the decisions and the bureaucracy and so on. That is just a sample of
the hundreds of people I've talked to since Christmas. I go through roughly ten
a day on health care. In the run of a week, at least fifty. In any given month
two hundred, always dealing with health care, or letters dealing with it,
expressing legitimate concerns. Who wouldn't be cynical about health care when
you hear what is going on?
Do you know what? Behind it all, they are never out there complaining about
nurses. They are not out there complaining about the service they get. Look,
they don't want to even disturb nurses and other health care professionals
because they figure they are so busy they consider they would be a burden on
them. You have to bring your family to hospital. I often went down two or three
flights of stairs in one place to get a pillow. Coming out of orthopedics, on
that floor, where they need ice after a knee replacement or other operations,
the ice machine is not working in the hospital. You can't get ice. You would not
run a business that way, I tell you. I spent twenty years in business -
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me a great privilege to speak to this resolution. I want to say from
the outset that I do not think that the Opposition were really looking for the
support of the government in this resolution. It was a resolution that was
deliberately crafted to put the government in what they thought would be an
awkward position. They wanted the government to get themselves in this position
of condemning. It was a negative resolution. If they were looking for the
support of this side - and wording is very important. I have been in this House
a long time, long enough to know and recognize the importance of the wording of
a resolution.
As a matter of fact, I designed a resolution myself at one time and it was an
excellent resolution. Somewhere in the resolution - I do not remember exactly
what the resolution was now, but I know it was a good resolution - I had slipped
in the word "liberal." I remember the House Leader of the day, Judge
Marshall now, had said that he liked that particular resolution, it was a good
resolution, but he could not support it with the word "liberal" in it.
He could not do it. He could not support the resolution with the word
"liberal" in it.
Now, I have forgotten whether we eliminated the word "liberal" to
allow and to take care of the sensitivities of His Justice now, Mr. Marshall, or
whether we left it there and he did not vote for it, but I remember it quite
clearly. The words he said were something to this effect: that the least
partisan member in this House is the Member for Terra Nova - that is what I was
at the time - but even he could not avoid putting in the word
"liberal" in this particular resolution, and the resolution was either
changed or not voted upon. So, I use that point using none other than the
eminent Mr. Justice Marshall to point out how important the wording of the
resolution was to him. The record is there if hon. members want to judge or
prove the validity of that statement. It is no trouble, if hon. members would
research it, to find out and discover for themselves the importance of the
wording.
If the Opposition wanted the government to support the resolution, if they
did not want to place them in an awkward position, if their intention was not to
try and put a wedge between the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals, if
they did not want to do that they would have come out with a resolution
something like this:
BE IT RESOLVED that this House requests the Premier of the
Province to carry on his battle to get more money from the federal government,
or that this House supports the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Whatever action they would have done to take the negativity out,
Mr. Speaker, of condemning the federal government.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Since becoming a member of this House I have always been
interested in listening to the Member for Terra Nova. We have served on the
Public Accounts Committee together. I would like to ask him this question. Is
there something so strange and something so wrong that when a federal
government, irrespective of political stripe, perpetrates such a fundamental
wrong on a province in Canada, that this House cannot stand up and condemn them?
Why is it, I ask the Member for Terra Nova, that we cannot?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I know that the hon. member -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I am sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not recognized the hon. member.
There is no point of order.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Opposition are on a high, that
they have just come out of this great convention over the weekend where they
were entertained by a former premier who specialized in pugilistic,
confrontational, adversarial antics. That is what they have just come from.
MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know deep down that the Member for Terra Nova
would like to be in possession of all the facts surrounding a former premier and
leader of our Party, and I would like to give him one more.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: Not only were delegates of the convention entertained by him,
but the Minister of Fisheries, before he left, phoned him personally - no, sorry
had his office phone him - looking for his autograph for two constituents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: So not only were Tories at the convention being entertained,
but the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port au Grave, phoned the former
premier's mother's residence looking for the former premier because he wanted
two of his autographs for his constituents. Clearly, members on both sides of
the House have been entertained by the former premier.