Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 17 May 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session)
2005-05-17
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 17, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we are pleased to welcome to our House twenty-eight Grade 7
and Grade 8 students from the beautiful community of Centreville, from
Centreville Academy, in the District of Bonavista North, together with their
teachers: Chris Jackson, Charmaine Collins, Brenda Butler and Michelle
Estekantchi, and their principal Ms Trinia Rogers.
Welcome to our Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon the Speaker wishes to rule on a point of
order raised by the Government House Leader on Monday, April 18, with regard to
comments made by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was asking a question to the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in which Hansard records the following two
quotations, "Will he acknowledge that if it wasn't for his action and the
decision of the thirty-three dictators opposite...", and then further in
another question: "Now we have thirty-three dictators opposite..."
The Government House Leader, in raising the point of order, asked if the use
of the expression "thirty-three dictators opposite" meets the test of
acceptable parliamentary language and if the use of the number thirty-three
refers to individual members as well as a collectivity of members.
Since the member used the number "thirty-three" with the word
"opposite", the Speaker believes that the expression, as used by the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, could only be taken to mean that each member
on the government side of the House to be described as he said.
In this context, the Speaker refers to Marleau and Montpetit, page 522, which
reads as follows: "Remarks directed specifically at another Member which
question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A
Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks,...".
Again, on page 525 of Marleau and Montpetit, we find the following comment,
"...the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House
is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words
are not in order."
The questions for the Speaker, are: Did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi
intend to call all members on the government side dictators? And did the member,
by the use of this expression, cause disorder in the House?
The answer to the first question is found in the words of the member. The
Speaker notes that the general content of the member's question did cause
disorder in the galleries and a subsequent intervention by the Speaker.
Based on the content, context and the disorder that ensued in the galleries,
the Speaker asks the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to withdraw his comment.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, I had the number wrong; there are only thirty-two since the Member
for Placentia & St. Mary's left.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: However, Mr. Speaker, out of the great respect I have for the
Parliament and the Office of the Speaker and your ruling I will certainly
withdraw the remark.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker has members' statements from the following members: the hon.
the Member for the District of Lake Melville, and the hon. the Member for the
District of Gander.
The hon. the Member for District of Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a World War II
veteran, Captain Wilfred Haynes of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, formerly of Catalina.
One of two known surviving World War II veterans residing in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, Captain Haynes, now eighty-four years old, was just nineteen
when he left St. John's for England as part of the Royal Navy. Captain Haines
would spend five-and-a-half years serving overseas, two of which were spent on
the D-class Destroyer the HMS Duncan , in 1942.
Mr. Speaker, it was while serving on the Destroyer that Captain Haynes paid a
price - while crossing the Bay of Biscay, the Duncan, part of a convoy bound for
Liverpool, was attacked by German aircraft and Captain Haynes suffered shrapnel
wounds to both his legs. Eventually, he would see his left leg amputated and has
been told to expect the lost of his right leg in years to come.
Captain Haynes has no doubt seen many horrors and atrocities that the
majority of us, thankfully, will never see. This, of course, will attribute to
such brave men like Captain Haynes, who freely give themselves to serve their
country with pride and dignity.
I would like to recognize not only Captain Haynes, Mr. Speaker, but all men
and women who served our country - and continue to serve our country today - in
this, the Year of the Veteran.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Gander.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand to
recognize the work and contributions of Mr. Clarence Junior Andrews. Mr. Andrews
has been a long time resident of Gander who is deeply involved in various
humanitarian efforts in Asia and Africa.
For over ten years now, he has been committed to helping children in Third
World countries and has travelled around the world bringing his Newfoundland
hospitality and compassion to families in need. I would venture to say that he
is an unofficial Newfoundland Ambassador; testimony to that fact is found in the
name of a school that he helped fund and construct in Zambia. The Newfoundland
Agapee School is now in full operation and teaching children who would not
otherwise have been educated.
Mr. Andrews is currently completing the construction of an orphanage in
Malawi. In 2000, the Governor General of Canada awarded Mr. Andrews the Governor
General's Meritorious Service Cross Award.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to recognize the efforts of
this fine gentleman as he works around the world to bring help to those in need
and as he shows them all that the true hospitality of Newfoundland and Labrador
can reach far beyond our shores.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, a recruitment process is underway to
fill the position of Child and Youth Advocate. That process began when the
former advocate submitted his resignation.
In your capacity as Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker, you have informed
government recently that the appointment of an interim advocate was necessary to
carry out the functions under the Child and Youth Advocate Act that could not
wait for the recruitment process to be completed.
I have given members opposite, obviously, a heads-up about the statement. I
am pleased to inform members that, acting under the authority of subsection 4(3)
of the act, the government has appointed Mr. James Igloliorte as the Interim
Child and Youth Advocate.
Mr. Igloliorte's appointment is effective immediately and will continue
while the recruitment process for a new advocate is being completed.
In his capacity as a judge, he is a strong choice for this appointment. He
has had a distinguished career as a judge, and has been a strong, dedicated
contributor to the legal and social fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador. We
thank him sincerely for accepting this interim assignment.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that since recruitment for the
position of advocate began, we have received strong interest from a number of
highly qualified candidates, and we are moving as expeditiously as possible to
fill that position.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an advanced copy and notice of the statement that is being made
here today, and would like to commend the government for making an extremely
good choice in terms of an interim appointment to this very important position.
Judge Jim Igloliorte has done significant work in the Province in a whole range
of areas, and many people in this Legislature who have known him before, know of
his concern for children and youth in Labrador - and with the Aboriginal
communities - but in the Province, generally. He will make an excellent choice
in the interim.
I will also take just a second to congratulate Judge Wicks - who left the
office after illness - with doing a good job of setting up, getting the office
up and functioning as a brand new position on behalf of the Members of the House
of Assembly. Again, I am encouraged to see that the government is going to move
as expeditiously as they can to fill the appointment on a full-time basis and
bring the recommendation here for ratification.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since it was a short statement, perhaps I should ask for leave at the
beginning of my statement before I get cut off at half way.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, I say to hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I did have a heads-up from the Government House Leader, as he
indicated, and I have no hesitation in supporting the appointment of James
Igloliorte as the interim Child and Youth Advocate.
As the minister has said, he has had a distinguished career on the bench in
Newfoundland and Labrador and is well respected for his ability and his
consideration for matters of public and social policy. So, I am very happy to
see that. We do understand that there is a need for an interim appointment
because of certain matters that are outstanding and important that must be dealt
with.
I will take this opportunity to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the process for
selection of a new Child and Youth Advocate, I would want to reiterate what I
have said publicly in the past that this is an important position as an Officer
of this House, and all three parties are called upon when the appointment is
made to join in recognizing the individual who is there. What is missing from
this process at this point is some role for senior leadership of the House, or
the House generally, to have an influence on the appointment and be part of the
process prior to an appointment being made.
So, I will call upon government, who has the power to control the process at
the moment, to find a way, at an appropriate time in the process, to consult
before a final decision is made with Members of the House of Assembly,
representatives of the parties represented in the House of Assembly, to ensure
that when an appointment is made, it is made with a consensus of the House
rather than, as has happened in the past, someone being notified half-an-hour or
an hour before an appointment after the decision has been made. I would suggest
that approach be adopted in respect to the appointment of the Child and Youth
Advocate and other officers of the House as they become available for
appointment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Education about $637,000 that
the College of the North Atlantic spent on computer equipment at the end of the
last fiscal year. After reviewing last year's Budget, it is clear that the
College of the North Atlantic created a deficit of over $482,000 by making these
purchases in the last few days of a fiscal year.
I ask the minister: Did he approve this expenditure by the college that
created a deficit of over $482,000 and allow them to create such a deficit,
something that the Auditor General had been critical of in each of his last two
reports?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition
certainly talking about deficits and the state of the Province that he left when
he exited the office.
To get back to the College of the North Atlantic; the hon. member knows that
there is provision to make sure that the College of the North Atlantic does not
carry a deficit from one year to the next. I would have to say to the Leader of
the Opposition, I certainly would not sign off on anything other than that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They find some of these things funny, I guess, but they got elected on the
promise of a new approach to these very serious issues.
Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday that the expenditure of $637,000
on computer equipment in the last few days of the fiscal year was budget burn
off.
I ask the minister: Why was the college permitted to spend this money at the
end of the fiscal year, not burning off their budget but exactly creating a
deficit of almost half a million dollars, when again I remind him that the
Auditor General had directed the college and the government to become more
accountable in eliminating their debt and deficit for the college headquarters
and the campuses throughout the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, as was obvious in the questions that
were put across yesterday, this Opposition needs to do some good research right
now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: To try to put words in my mouth about burn off or whatever
was said, those words were not said by me. They were said by a reporter in their
interview with regard to me.
What I did say is that the College of the North Atlantic certainly looks at
their finances, they look at their needs, and they make the decisions that are
in the best interest of the post-secondary students in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the College of the North Atlantic and the university and the health
boards can run deficits because it is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister won't use the deficit excuse when making
decisions on potential campus closures. Government has been in possession of its
White Paper on post-secondary education for well over a month, again breaking
their promise to release these reports within thirty days. It is in the Blue
Book.
The minister admitted in this House over a month ago, on April 14, that the
Cabinet was discussing changes to the structure of the college system.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will he release the report, the White
Paper report and document, so that the public and the students can have input
into decisions that could impact their post-secondary education opportunities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the member's question, and a question
certainly that I appreciate because we are in the process now of getting the
White Paper ready for release - it is an important paper, it is an important
review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: Even though the members on the other side may not take it
seriously, I do take it seriously and this government takes it seriously. This
White Paper will be released in due time and certainly not at the disadvantage
of our post-secondary students, which this White Paper is intended to more
forward in a good, positive way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government allocated $14.7 million in their Budget for
White Paper initiatives. The minister has already admitted that Cabinet was
discussing the issue well over a month ago. Students, parents and college
employees are waiting on pins and needles to find out if their campuses will
close during this next round of cuts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. While
the minister is not willing to make commitments - because I just asked him and
he would not talk about it - the MHA for Port au Port told the media on April 14
that no campuses will close.
I ask the minister: Will you confirm what your caucus colleague said on April
14, that no campuses will close as a result of the White Paper initiatives?
MR. J. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before I recognize the Member for Port au Port, I ask him if could hold his
points of order until after Question Period is over.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, go back to what is coming across the
House here: innuendo, guesses, and not even good guesses.
Again, to go to the post-secondary critic, who is on about tuition -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: - oh, we are going to do this and we are going to do that
- you are wrong on that one. Let me tell you, when we release the White Paper
you will see how much we do care about what is happening in post-secondary in
this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition. I ask all members for
their co-operation.
MR. GRIMES: Of course, it is not strange that private members in the
caucus are allowed to make statements for their own purposes but the ministers
will not confirm them. We saw that with respect to health care in Stephenville
as well.
Mr. Speaker, this final question. The only reason government has not yet
released this document is because it is controversial, and the fact that the
minister will not confirm what the member said is why it remains controversial.
They are afraid of being questioned in the House and in the media during a
current polling period.
Can the minister tell the House: Why is government waiting until the House of
Assembly closes for the summer before releasing this controversial report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. HEDDERSON: The question, I guess, I would have to put -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition, who asked the question. I
ask all members to permit the Minister of Education to answer the question in
relative silence.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the questions from the
member opposite, I just go back a little bit in history because perhaps they are
in the same mindset as they were back in the mid-1990s when that government
closed colleges left, right, and centre, and left the college system in the mess
that it is in today, and we have to come forward with a review of post-secondary
to get back on track and make sure that we are moving forward in the next five
or ten years in a manner that is going to better serve the interests of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest to the members opposite to get some more words in their
vocabulary. If it is not the process, they are moving forward, or nothing could
be further from the truth.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources stated in his press conference
on April 27 that he would meet with Abitibi officials to get more clarity
regarding the company's restructuring plan for the Grand Falls mill. That
meeting has since taken place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to provide this hon. House, and the people of
Central Newfoundland, with an update on the upgrading of number three paper
machine. What are the timelines for the announced upgrade? Can you tell us
whether there will be any adjustment to the workforce currently assigned to the
number three paper machine? What is the cost involved, and whether Abitibi will
be able to raise the required capital in view of their reported negative
financial position, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government
House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, let me say that the approach that this government will adopt
with respect to Abitibi will be radically different than what the former
government adopted. For example, we will not be signing any agreement unless it
is tied to their milling and logging operations, like the former government
signed agreements without tying it to their milling and logging operations when
she was a minister of the Crown.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Abitibi have announced what their approach, or what
they believe - and I think it is important to review what they have said. One:
The eventual closure of number seven, they have not given us a timeline and we
have been very firm with them with respect to what that will mean for Abitibi.
If they close number seven before 2010 we will revoke their licences, period.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the upgrade of number three machine, they have
indicated to government, when I met with them, that they are in the process of
looking at how much they need to raise. The engineering work is being done, and
as soon as they have that assessment done they will be providing that to
government. At that point, once they do, we will be asking any and all of the
appropriate questions in order to protect the people not only in Grand
Falls-Windsor but the operations of Abitibi as they currently exist in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has broken his word and given
Abitibi the green light to start negotiations with Newfoundland Hydro on a power
purchase arrangement on the Exploits River without the commitment of a
two-machine operation at the Grand Falls mill.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board. Negotiations between government and Abitibi have been ongoing
for a year-and-a-half. Can the minister tell this House today has a full,
in-depth financial analysis been carried out on Abitibi Consolidated by the
Department of Finance, in light of Abitibi's report of a near bankruptcy
position, or is the government planning on guaranteeing loans for Abitibi on the
power purchase arrangement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government
House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. I understand the member represents the
district there, but it is also important to be correct with the facts. First of
all, we have not been in negotiations with Abitibi for eighteen months.
MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not correct, I say to the member opposite. I
listened to your question and I would appreciate if you would listen to the
answer because it is important to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and in
Stephenville, I say to the member.
We have been in discussions with Abitibi about the future of their
operations. Secondly, with respect to a power purchase agreement, Mr. Speaker,
we did not give Abitibi the green light to enter into discussions. Nothing is
further from the truth. It is an important distinction, but one nonetheless.
What we have asked Hydro to do is to enter into negotiations with respect to
a power purchase agreement that, ultimately, will protect the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and ultimately, will protect the operations of
Abitibi for the communities that depend upon them. That is what we have done,
Mr. Speaker, nothing more, nothing less.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, he used his favourite phrase: nothing could be further from the
truth - and he has reversed his position.
Mr. Speaker, it has been stated in the Abitibi survival plan of 2004, which
was presented to government last year, that in the initial years after the
shutdown of number seven paper machine, while new power developments are being
constructed on the Exploits River, that power will be wield to the Stephenville
mill at the market rate with no benefits to the Grand Falls mill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier. The minister has gone back on his word to
hold Abitibi to a two-machine operation for the Grand Falls mill connected to a
new power purchase arrangement. Premier, I ask you, are you in agreement with
Abitibi's plan?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, and Government
House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to take the time to look at
Abitibi's operations over the last fifteen years will find out a couple of
interesting points. In 1990 or 1991 when they closed number six, the now Leader
of the Opposition, who was the Member for Exploits then, said: I found out about
these layoffs in the House of Assembly. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the then
government, that he was a part of, said: They were encouraged - and he said
himself and I can quote him here, that they had no reason to disbelieve Abitibi
would be closing anything down that they did not need to close down. As a sign
of good faith, they went on to say: Abitibi would be investing significant money
in number seven and number three. The question for them today is: How come you
didn't do it while you were there for fifteen years and you have the audacity
to look at us right now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind hon. members that the time allocated for Question Period is moving
along.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
After thirty-three years of representing municipalities in Labrador, the
Combined Councils of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, has informed the government, in
recent weeks, that without government grants they will have to close up their
offices in May. This is happening currently today.
I want to ask the minister: Why have you not committed the annual funds to
the Combined Councils of Labrador? Why is it that you continue to state that you
are committed to Labrador communities but the Pan Labrador Council is having to
close its doors without government funding?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just so happen to have the Auditor's report, the financial
statements for the Combined Councils of Labrador with me today. Through the
Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in 1999-2000, there was a grant
given of $35,000 to defray travel costs in Labrador for the Combined Councils.
That went to $55,000, eventually up to $75,000, and then up to $100,000.
This past year, this past February, the full Cabinet met in Labrador in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay and we brought in all the community representatives from all
over Labrador. We received a letter from the Combined Councils, the Premier
received a letter from the Combined Councils stating that was a good thing, that
it should be an annual event, and, from that perspective, we are looking at a
potential for an annual Cabinet meeting in Labrador where we will be bringing in
representatives from all over Labrador, all over the communities. Also, we are
reconsidering and looking at if the full amount of $100,000 is required to
defray costs for the Combined Councils for travel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Combined Councils of Labrador have been in
existence for over thirty years. It is more than a meeting between government
Cabinet ministers and municipalities.
I ask the minister: Will you commit the $100,000 to keep this longevity, this
organization that represents all municipalities in Labrador going for the
purposes that it was intended?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, it started out at $35,000, the grant, and
it grew to $100,000. The Combined Councils in Labrador now are using this money
for operations. There are no other Combined Councils in Newfoundland and
Labrador - the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, and the Avalon - that gets an
operational grant of any amount of money for normal operations. What we have
done -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the members to my right for their co-operation. The Chair was hearing
the answer of the hon. minister who had used about half a minute. I ask him to
complete his answer now.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if they ask a question over there, they should at least give the
opportunity to hear the answer.
What we are saying here is that we are committed to the people of Labrador.
We have proven it many times in the Budget, but at the request of the Combined
Councils, they have asked us to consider an annual Cabinet meeting in Labrador
where we would bring in all the representatives from all the communities all
over Newfoundland and Labrador. With that, this full amount of money of $100,000
will not be needed for travel. We are paying for it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my questions are still for the minister for
Labrador. Government negotiated a contract in the past year to sell 190
megawatts of recall power on the Upper Churchill for a total revenue or a profit
of approximately $45 million this year to government. We also know that the
government secured a good deal on oil and gas revenue from the federal
government this year, being able to have stability in their budgets in the
Province for over the next five years.
So, I am now asking: Will the government commit to take the new earned
revenue on the Upper Churchill power and the recall power and invest it into
hydro power in Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe it was about six months, or seven months ago - anyway, it was the
last time the Combined Councils were into St. John's meeting with different
departments, which they do on an annual basis. They met with me and had a wish
list, I guess, or a suggestion list of -
MR. REID: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, every community group or organizations, I say to the
Member for Twillingate & Fogo, come before and meet with government, like
they did with you, and presented the same sort of list. As a matter of fact, I
think seven or eight of the items that they presented to me were ones that they
presented to the former government, Mr. Speaker. So, let's be clear that what
we are talking about are still ongoing issues related with respect to Labrador
and hydro power that they were dealing with or failed to deal with.
I said exactly to the Combined Councils, with respect to the issue that the
member raised, that, no, we would not be setting up a separate strategic fund.
With respect to investments and power, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro right now
are looking at -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind members that they should keep their answers within the one minute
time frame.
The Chair now recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a
final supplementary.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that there is insufficient hydro power to
operate 5 Wing Goose Bay. There is insufficient power supply in Labrador West,
and coastal communities in Labrador pay the highest rate of electricity of
anywhere in the Province. The government has signed a five-year deal on recall
power, $230 million in profit going to the government. Mr. Speaker, I am asking
that the money be invested to deal with the hydro problems in Labrador that
exist today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to power to Labrador West and power to the Lake Melville area,
in order to increase the power to those two areas it requires an upgrade in
transmission lines. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are assessing that right
now, Mr. Speaker.
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if
you believe that the question you have asked is serious enough, then you would
provide me the opportunity, without interruption, to answer it in a serious
manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro are assessing those options right now. With respect to
Southern Labrador, I can only say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair
what she said to me in one of my first meetings with the Combined Councils: that
the cost of providing power to Southern Labrador is in the vicinity of some $250
million to $275 million.
The question I have for her is: What was her answer when she was in
government? Mr. Speaker, it is the same one that this government has provided to
them to date.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Conservation, and it
concerns the Windmill Bight Provincial Park.
Now that the local committee has decided that it does not want to run the
park, presumably over the disappointment of not having a golf course, would the
minister seize this opportunity and reintegrate the salmon river and campground
into the full Windmill Bight Park and use the opportunity to create an
eco-tourism park as part of the provincial park system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Windmill
Bight Park and the association out there, as far as I understand, are still
looking at operating that park this summer. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that
they will do that. Their lease does not expire until November of 2005. Should
they decide that they are not going to operate the park - it is my understanding
that they are, it is my hope that they are, but should they decide that they are
not going to operate the park - I will look at all options that are available to
government, including the option of looking at other proponents to operate that
as a going concern as a park in the area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this has been a protected area since 1966,
contains a rare sand dune system, the only Atlantic plateau bog ecosystem in the
Province. It is a habitat for forty-four species of birds and wildlife. It
could, in fact, be a significant eco-tourism destination. What I heard this
morning, Mr. Speaker, was that Jim Combden, the mayor of the association, wants
the Province to take it back, the lease, and I am asking the minister: Will he
undertake a significant, serious review of this as an option for government to
build a significant eco-tourism destination to protect this habitat into the
future, as it has been since 1966, and use it as a great opportunity for this
Province to attract people to visit this area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member again for his question. That is an absolutely beautiful
area of the Province. It is one of the best sand dune areas in the entire
Province. It is one of the reasons the Sierra Club of Canada and the Protected
Areas Association, and we on this side of the House, had concerns with the
proposal to create a golf course at that particular park.
Having said that, I have had no correspondence to date from the association
saying that they wish to cancel their lease on that particular park. Should I
receive that, I will give a commitment to the member that we will look at all
available options for that park, including the ones that he suggested.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.
On April 29, the minister issued a press release relating to production
quotas for crab. In that release the minister stated, and I quote, "As an
act of good faith and compromise, government is prepared to move from a two-year
pilot project to what is effectively a three-month pilot..." project.
Will the minister confirm today that this pilot project for crab will not be
extended beyond this year under any circumstances?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on April 29 we indicated that we would pull back from a two-year
pilot project on raw material sharing in crab to a one-year pilot project, that
we would be willing to put in place a committee to oversee the pilot project
during this season, and that we were prepared to listen to the advice of that
committee once the season was concluded. That committee would oversee it in the
season and make a recommendation to government afterwards. In the interim, since
April 29, I believe it was on May 10, we indicated, and the Premier indicated,
our willingness to appoint Richard Cashin, former head of the FFAW, as the chair
of that independent committee. We said on that day, and on subsequent occasions,
Mr. Speaker, that whatever that committee said, as going forward with the crab
industry as it relates to raw material sharing - if they recommended that it
should not continue, we would accept that. If they recommended that it should
continue, we would accept that. If they recommended that something different
should be done, we would accept that. That, Mr. Speaker, was the government's
position on April 29, it was the government's position on May 10, it was the
government's position this morning, it is this government's position this
afternoon, and it will be again tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The FFAW is out asking its membership to vote on a one-year pilot project for
crab. In fact, they are out there asking their members to vote on a three-month
pilot project for crab. The Premier was on an Open Line show in this Province
stating this morning that this pilot project could be extended beyond the
one-year period.
Minister, why have you changed your position, like you have so many times, on
this issue? When is a commitment not a commitment and when is a promise not a
promise?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the only question that is required here is: Is the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo interested in having a fishery or is he interested in a
continuing controversy? It sure seems to me he is interested in a continuing
controversy. He is interested in continuing confrontation. That is all his
interest is, playing petty, small politics and fearmongering with the people in
the fish industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, he knows what was said on April 29, what was said on May 10,
what was said here just a few minutes ago, and what was said on Open Line this
morning. What we have said, and what we have been steadfast in, is Richard
Cashin and the committee who are going to oversee this raw material sharing
system will provide a report to the government, and whatever the report says we
will implement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned with is getting at the truth,
something that is in short supply across the floor. I say to the minister, Mr.
Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair requests co-operation so that the member can be heard in relative
silence.
The Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, we would have a crab fishery today except for the
actions of the individual who occupies the Premier's chair. That is what I say
to the minister
Mr. Speaker, if we get a crab fishery going this year under a production
quota scheme, will the minister be allowing quotas to be transferred? For
example, will the production quota for Englee be transferred out of that town as
a result of the plant not being operational?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there will be no permanent transfers during the pilot project
stage. What happens on a temporary basis remains to be seen. We are fairly
confident that all of the quota is not going to come ashore this year, from a
combination of reasons. Some is going to go to Nova Scotia, some will remain in
the water due to early closure, soft shell problems and what have you, Mr.
Speaker, so we are reasonably confident that 110 million pounds of crab will not
come out of the water, come ashore and get processed in Newfoundland and
Labrador. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then there will be a non-issue.
As for the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, I say again, the raw material sharing
system is in place for this year. What happens in 2006 will be entirely
dependent upon what Richard Cashin and the committee that he chairs recommends
to government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook
Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow as leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. (Bill 40)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Further notices of motions.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration
Act. (Bill 38)
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe it is appropriate to be able to give notice on Tuesday for
Thursday, in view of the fact that Private Members' Day is tomorrow, in
accordance with Standing Order 11, that on Thursday, May 19, that the House not
close at 5:30 p.m., and give further notice according to Standing Order 11 that
the House not close at 10:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given..
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in this House I gave an undertaking, in response to questioning
from the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, to check into a media report
concerning a gentleman who was a guard with the Marine Corps stationed at
Argentia, who was alleging that an illness he was suffering was caused by
radiation, because of nuclear weapons that were stored at Argentia.
I want to inform the hon. member and inform the House that I had the
opportunity last night to raise this with Mr. Leonard Hill, the U.S. Consul
General in Halifax, and officials of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs
met with Consul General Hill this morning and raised it again. Mr. Hill has
undertaken to look into the matter and get back to us.
In addition, we have forwarded correspondence to the Minister of National
Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as I undertook to do, requesting
copies of any documentation in the possession of the federal government, or
which could be obtained from the U.S. government, which can verify or refute
allegations that nuclear material was stored at Argentia.
In addition, government has looked into the matter and can report that the
Department of Foreign Affairs has looked into the matter and can report the
following: The department has no documentation which indicates that there was
any nuclear material at Argentia during the time in question, and the Department
of Public Works and Government Services Canada have surveyed the site. We are
advised that they have surveyed the site, including where nuclear materials were
allegedly stored, and have found no evidence of abnormal or elevated radiation
levels. Background radiation can be found anywhere. Levels of background
radiation will vary, of course, depending on a number of factors, including the
geology of the area, and as soon as we hear back from the federal government, in
answer to their inquiries of the American government, I will report to the House
and to the hon. member.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been
given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to offer a petition from the people of Grand Falls-Buchans
and, of course, all of Central Newfoundland.
Yesterday I stood in this House and gave a petition to this House. There were
nine pages of signatures. Since that, there have been seventeen more pages today
come in on my fax machine from all over Central Newfoundland.
To put it into condensed words, what the people of Central Newfoundland want
this government to do is halt discussions immediately with Abitibi on power
development on the Exploits River until government gets a commitment from
Abitibi for a two-machine operation at the Grand Falls mill.
I heard our Premier this morning on an Open Line show talking about the two
federal members, Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle, and how they had reversed their
position on the Atlantic Accord and how important it was for them to vote for
the Atlantic Accord. Now, I believe that it is the right thing to do, to vote
for the Atlantic Accord, but he talked about people reversing their positions.
His own Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, stood in this House
on May 4 and gave a commitment to this House, and to everybody who watched it -
it is on the record of Hansard - that he and his government would not enter into
any power arrangements with Abitibi until they had a commitment from Abitibi for
a two-machine operation. Two days later he reversed that decision without
blinking. He reversed that. Now, what kind of trust can you have in a government
that will tell you one thing one day -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am asking members on my right and members on my left for their
co-operation. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is easy to know that they do not want to hear the truth.
Mr. Speaker, you want to put a human face on this decision that is being made
by Abitibi in consultation with this government. There have been people in Grand
Falls-Windsor and surrounding communities who have had to make hard decisions
since last Monday. Some people have been laid off. Fifty-six people have been
laid off. Do you know what that means? Maybe they cannot make the payment on
their house. Maybe they cannot make the payment on their car. Those who were
working had to let a babysitter go, or maybe they had taken out a recreation
piece of equipment, like a quad or a boat or something like that. That is all
going back to retail outlets this week. What effect is that going to have on the
business of Grand Falls-Windsor? There has already been two car dealerships
after closing up in the past three weeks. There is an industrial marine centre
already closed up, and a lot of them are teetering because of this news and more
bad news to come.
Government has an opportunity to stand up for the decision that the Minister
of Natural Resources made on May 4. How can they expect us to believe them if
they are going to go reverse their position, like they did on May 4? I ask the
government to go back to May 4 and look at what you told people and live up to
that commitment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time is expired.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition signed by a number of residents of this
Province concerning problem gambling and the desire by people of the Province to
have a say into whether or not VLTs and other forms of continuous electronic
gambling should be something that we rely upon to provide government with money
in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have been concerned about the fact that a lot of
our residents have had problems with VLTs; problems that have resulted,
unfortunately, in some of our residents taking their own lives because of the
situations they found themselves in and were so desperate that that was the
action they resorted to, sadly enough.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the people of the Province, as a piece of public
policy, should have a right to insist on having a say into whether or not VLTs
and other forms of gambling should exist in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, it was alarming last week to learn that another form of gambling
has come -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am having a job hearing myself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is relatively impossible for the Speaker to hear the Member for Labrador
West. I am asking members on all sides of the House for their co-operation.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Again, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province want a say into whether or not
these forms of gambling should be allowed to take place in our Province.
As I was saying, last week we learned of a new game that may be coming to our
Province, that is scheduled to come into our Province, called electronic KENO; a
game that, according to some experts, is more addictive than the VLTs that are
presently in place now. I understand that government may not have been aware
that this electronic KENO was coming in. Not all government, I say, because
government is a big business. Obviously, not everything gets reported up the
line as to what is happening with the Atlantic Lottery. Now that they are aware,
I am asking government to take the action that is required to stop Atlantic
Lottery from bringing in new gambling machines in the form of continuous
electronic KENO until a study, that this government has commissioned, is
completed and made public to the people of the Province.
Until then, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for government to allocate
money for treatment, money for education, make a statement that they are
freezing the number of VLTs in the Province, and go one step further and say
they are going to reduce them by 15 per cent. It doesn't make sense, Mr.
Speaker, by taking all of those actions, that they would allow another form of
gambling to come into the Province, one that is equally or more dangerous that
VLTs, prior to the commencement and the completion of the study into the
prevalence of gambling in the Province at the present time.
I would ask government, Mr. Speaker, now that they are aware of this, will
they put the brakes on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to ensure that this new
form of gambling doesn't come into the Province until the study is compete?
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people in
Labrador. Actually, I have many of these petitions with hundreds of names signed
to them, and I will present these many today, no doubt. It is with regard to the
deal that government did on recalled power on the Upper Churchill. It indicates,
Mr. Speaker, that the people of Labrador would request that the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador take this money that is being generated on recalled
power and invest it directly into a fund for Labrador infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is being brought forward simply because
in the past year government did renegotiate a deal to sell recalled power on the
Upper Churchill. It was not a new deal, it was a deal that was renegotiated,
because recalled power sales have been negotiated in place in the Province for a
number of years. This past year, the fiscal position of the government changed.
It changed with the signing of the oil and gas accord which would allow for new
revenues and new monies to come into the general coffers of the Province, and
allow the government to be able to build up its budget, stabilize its budget,
and make new investments.
As a result of that, the people in Labrador looked at the money being
generated on recalled power on a resource that was in their area and asked the
government, in light of the new fiscal situation, that this money now be
invested in Labrador, realizing that in past years this could not be done
because the money was needed in order to stabilize the general revenues of the
Province.
Mr. Speaker, that situation has now changed. I think it is only appropriate,
I think it is only fair, that the money being generated on recalled power on the
Upper Churchill be directly invested into Labrador communities. Whether that
means investing the money to build a transmission line or upgrade a transmission
line from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay - I think the cost right now
of the study that was being looked at is somewhere in the vicinity of $60
million in capital infrastructure to do that project - whether it means
upgrading the transmission lines going into Labrador City and Wabush at a cost,
Mr. Speaker - I think Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is forecasting now at
about $70 million - those are very worthwhile projects. Over the next five
years, under this agreement, government will take in $230 million; $230 million
in new money on a resource that is in Labrador
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House knows that on the North
and South Coast of Labrador right now we pay the highest price of electricity in
Atlantic Canada. We want to be able to bring our electricity costs down. We want
to look at alternative energy developments for those regions, and we are asking
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MR. E. BYRNE: Leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MS JONES: Just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave to finish up has been granted.
MS JONES: Thank you.
All they are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that this money be invested to deal with
the exorbitant cost of hydro power or diesel power in the remote communities,
and to deal with the insufficient power requirements that are needed right now
in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Labrador West. That is what these petitioners
are asking, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand again today with a petition from the residents of Conception Bay
North, asking for some intercession by the government in the plight of Mildred
and Clovia Baker. Mildred and Clovia Baker, as I have said many times here
before, are in wheelchairs. They are fed through feeding tubes, they require
assistance breathing, and cannot perform most tasks that we take for granted.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women and the
Minister Responsible for Health, or the Acting Minister for Health and Community
Services, to look at this very serious case and find out why these two
individuals have had their home care cut five hours a day.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter a short while ago from a neighbour. It says:
On Friday, I dropped in on Mrs. Mildred Baker and her daughter Clovia, who were
at home alone - and I will leave out the times here for the ladies own personal
security. The home care worker having finished her shift, I found Clovia having
problems breathing and also coughing severely. Before the home care worker left,
she had given her a second mask - a medication to assist her breathing.
Approximately an hour and a half after, she felt she needed another and was
unable to administer it herself. Her mother, due to her own medical condition,
was unable to assist her.
The lady herself was not familiar with the procedure, so, with Clovia gasping
for air, she was able to explain to me how to use it, after which she felt a
little bit better. My concern is what would have happened if they had been there
alone. Later that afternoon it was necessary to send Clovia to the Carbonear
Hospital where she was given oxygen before being sent back home. "In my
opinion..." - and this is from a neighbour - "...if a Home Care Worker
had been there to administer the medication it may not have required a hospital
visit, as she would have had her medication when it was needed."
Mr. Speaker, that letter from a neighbour explains the plight of these two
ladies, and it fails me how this government cannot find the compassion to
reinstate - they are not looking for extra home care. They are looking for the
home care that was taken away from them.
The pastor of their church wrote me another letter. "I understand that
you are aware of their situation and is at present trying to help. I appreciate
what you are doing. However, I find it very hard to understand why such a
decision, to cut five hours per day, have been made. I made a pastoral visit a
few days ago at their home as I so often do, and found these two ladies alone in
their home. At the time there was a delivery that was made - which I had to sign
for them, they were cold and needed the heat turned up - These are the little
things that we take for granted, but Mildred and Clovia cannot do these things
for themselves."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. SWEENEY: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to make some concluding comments?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I will continue this because I understand there
is another petition coming tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, I humbly ask, the government, without any political
aspirations here at all, I ask the government - I ask the Minister of Health to
stop laughing, I say to the minister, the Acting Minister of Health and
Community Services. This is a very serious issue. The whole community out there
is very, very concerned. I take it very, very seriously and I am concerned for
these people's well-being.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to advise this House of a serious situation on the Buchans
Highway. The Buchans Highway is in serious need of repair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Since this new government took over two years ago, the
highway has deteriorated considerably. There has been no -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am asking the members on my right if they would give the member here some
quietness so she can present her petition, likewise all members of the House.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wrote the Minister of Transportation and Works last year, again this year,
and most recently, and I am sure he has travelled over the Buchans Highway. If
he has, he would understand it is 105 kilometres with no services on the road.
You cannot pop into a service station if you get a flat tire. Cellphones do not
work all that distance.
What he fails to realize is that there is a school bus that picks up children
in Millertown and Buchans Junction and brings them to Buchans to go to school.
We all know about the Duck Pond Mine that just started up this year. There is
heavy equipment over the highway. Woods trucks are hauling wood. People are
driving back and forth from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor to go to work. An
ambulance has to go over that highway.
Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed here actual examples of deteriorating
conditions on the shoulders of the road on the Buchans Highway. I want the
Minister of Transportation and Works to have them in his possession. I know I am
not allowed to actually pick them up and show them, because you are not allowed
to show exhibits, so I will make sure that he gets a copy of these. I have been
over the highway twice in the past two weeks, and I know that there are no
shoulders on that Buchans Highway right now. It is an accident waiting to
happen.
Mr. Speaker, we need money to upgrade that highway. It is rural Newfoundland,
and this government is turning their back on rural Newfoundland. We see it every
day of the week. All they do is cut off services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am asking members to my left if they would be less expressive.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
I guess what is lacking here is compassion. It is compassion for the people
of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This government that was elected two years
ago almost now, is trying to freeze out the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They cut off their services. They cut out the teachers in the school, and now
they are going to try to downgrade the highway so much that it is unsafe for
people to travel over it; but, Mr. Speaker, I am going to give these photos to
the Minister of Transportation and Works, and if he has any heart at all he will
see that this work is carried out this summer. There are over 200 people on this
list since yesterday. That should make you wake up and pay attention.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in all regions of
Labrador who are asking for a kidney dialysis machine. Mr. Speaker, this is an
on-line petition that has been signed by, I think, over 700 people throughout
Labrador who have signed this petition. Actually, there are a lot of comments
that are attached to the on-line petition as well, that people have noted when
they signed on and signed the petition.
Mr. Speaker, people in the Labrador region feel that kidney dialysis
equipment in their hospital is long overdue. They have had numbers and numbers
of situations in the past couple of years where they have had family members,
loved ones, people that they know who have taken ill and have become dependent
upon such a treatment for their illness and, because of the fact that there is
no kidney dialysis in the Lake Melville hospital, many of them have had to go
out to other regions of our Province to seek this kind of treatment.
Mr. Speaker, in my own district I know of several cases. One family that I am
very, very close to, whose mother is now living here in St. John's in a
temporary apartment accommodation having dialysis treatments. I know of another
situation, an elderly couple from my district in Cartwright who now lives in a
seniors' home, a personal care home in Manuels, because they have to be close
to a hospital and close to the services of kidney dialysis. I know these
families personally, and have listened to their stories. I know how difficult it
is for their family members to have to see them move out of Labrador and move to
the Island to be able to obtain kidney dialysis services.
I have a friend who lives in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, whose mother is
currently on home dialysis. I know how stressful that is for them as a family
and the issues that they will have to face when home dialysis is no longer a
preferable treatment for the illness and for her kidney disease, when her mother
may have to look at other kinds of dialysis treatment at a larger centre. I know
how difficult that will be for her and her family to have to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I know of many cases right in my hometown. One of my friend's
mother is on home dialysis right now and has been on home dialysis for a number
of years, and again, know that eventually the time will come when she will have
to go where she can seek other dialysis services. This is not something that
families look forward to doing.
I think the people who have signed this petition - I have read their comments
- these are people who are not launching just a lobby campaign to government,
they are very serious about what they are doing. They are very serious because
it is a disease that is affecting their loved ones, it is affecting their family
members, it is affecting their entire family and they want to make sure that if
there is a way that they can have this equipment in Goose Bay at the hospital
there, and available to them, then it should be.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is expired.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I assume we are at Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask
Act. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government
Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that said bill be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the
said bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 3, in the name again of the hon. the Minister of Government Services
to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow
Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Government
Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles
Act," carried. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain
Vehicles Act. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall this
bill be read a second time?
MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion 1, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole
on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of
Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25,
an act for granting Supplementary
Supply to Her Majesty.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House
to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have received a letter from His Honour the Administrator, on behalf of the
Lieutenant Governor of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: All stand.
The letter is as follows, dated May 13:
As Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit
Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year
ending 31 March 2005, by way of Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the
provision of sections 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these
Estimates to the House of Assembly.
Signed: _________________________
Clyde K. Wells, Administrator
I do believe it would be appropriate if we were to again make the motion for
the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider certain resolutions relating to the Granting of Supply or, as commonly
known in the Legislature, Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole on a Supply motion.
All those in agreement, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The Committee of Supply is now ready to debate the Supply resolution.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill here is to give legal effect to a warrant that was tabled here in
March. It was the only warrant, actually, the special warrant that was tabled
here in the House in this session. Payment had to paid out to the doctors of the
Province by March 10, before the House could sit at that time. It had to be done
in compliance with the Financial Administration Act, which we followed to the
letter.
It is an unusual occurrence to have only one special warrant tabled here in
March. We have been used to having ten and fifteen of these every year and then
come into the House. In fact, when we came into office in the spring of 2004 we
had to pass Supplementary Supply for the previous three years. Actually, there
were none done for a number of years. Our policy is, if the House sits, do
Supplementary Supply; if not, when you table a warrant, try to get it done as
quickly as possible.
One of the main reasons for that, I have indicated in the House before, I
think, in answer to questions back earlier, was because of such an increase in
the number of doctors in our Province. Over the last three years, actually,
there are sixty-some additional doctors in our Province. In the past year, I
think, there were seventeen or eighteen new doctors. These extra costs had to be
paid. It had to paid out with the extra cost to meet the supply of physicians in
our Province. There were a significant number, too, that transferred, I think,
from salary to fee-for-service.
There were significant expenditures in this area. We tabled that. That should
be tabled with the House here. It was done in early March. One of the reasons we
had to do that, we always like to do Supplementary Supply, which we did with
another bill in the House, and not do special warrants, was because we had hoped
that we would be able to hold off until the House opened to be able to get a
Supplementary Supply Bill, but we were informed that if we did not issue the
special warrant that doctors would not get paid. We didn't want to be in the
situation where we had medical specialists here in our Province, general
practitioners, whatever they may be, not getting paid because of that. So we
took the appropriate action in compliance with the Financial Administration Act.
It is basic standard procedure that is done every year, except the rare occasion
this year, there is only one of these.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to rise and say a few words with regard to Bill 25. As we all know,
Bill 25 is a bill under which government will be permitted to pay out certain
sums of money for services in the Province, Mr. Speaker. In this case, the
Minister of Finance talks about paying out sums of money for physician services.
Mr. Chair, I will tell you what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't pay out
any sums of money for municipalities for Combined Councils of Labrador, I can
say to you. I was absolutely astonished today, in the House of Assembly, when I
asked the questions of the government opposite as to whether they would continue
funding to the Combined Councils of Labrador, an organization, an umbrella
organization, representing thirty-one municipalities across Labrador for
thirty-three years. Since 1972 they have had their foothold, an organization
that Labradorians in general are proud of, that has been held up as an icon to
municipal leadership right throughout Labrador over the years.
Mr. Chair, the Combined Councils of Labrador, which had their start as a very
small group on the North Coast of Labrador, took what was a concept of working
together and networking as municipalities for the common good of a region and
they spread that mandate out all over Labrador, to the point where all
thirty-one communities felt they wanted to belong to this group, they wanted to
be represented by them. They wanted an opportunity to network with one another
and to look at a long-term plan for moving development, socially and
economically, forward in Labrador communities.
Mr. Chair, what we have seen over the course of that thirty-three years is a
Pan-Labrador organization that sets policies and frameworks for Labradorians
that are in the best interests of all its people. Quite often, not unlike any
other organization, there will be controversies, there will be issues of
dissension within that organization, but never have they been too big that they
have not been able to overcome them over the years, and to continue on with the
principles and the frame of mind in which it was created and under which is
flourished.
Mr. Chair, what I heard today is the government say that, we want to change
the way the Combined Councils now operate. Our funding to them now will be
contingent upon what we want and not what Labrador municipalities want. Mr.
Chairman, that, I say to the members opposite, is wrong. It is a wrong approach.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. Everybody may pass their own
judgements. I am sure there are lots of members opposite who passed their
judgement on the Federation of Municipalities on occasion, and whether they
picked the best issues to stand on and the best issues to move forward on, and
so on.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador obtained funding from
government for many, many years. Yes, the minister in his history lesson today
in Question Period is right, it started out as a $35,000 grant that then went to
a $50,000 grant, that then went to $100,000 grant. Do you know why it went to
$100,000 grant, I say to you, Mr. Chairman? It was because the governments of
the day believed that the Combined Councils of Labrador was in the best interest
of municipalities in that region. They were acting in the best interest of their
members. In addition to that, they provided invaluable information to
governments in helping them set new policy and new framework for Labrador
communities. I know, because I was a member of the government that went forward
and asked that the funding to this organization be increased. I was part of a
group, along with a couple of my colleagues from Labrador, who said that the
Combined Councils of Labrador should be getting at least $100,000 a year so that
they can have an office, so that they can have a staff person and that they can
collectively bring forward to government recommendations in which we may set
policies that are in the best interest of Labrador communities.
What I heard today from the minister is that we will not be doing any of that
now. We are going to charter a couple of planes every year. We are going to fly
all the mayors from the communities into Goose Bay, or some other community. We
are going to fly all the Cabinet ministers in from St. John's and we are all
going to sit down for - I think it was two hours last year, their meeting was -
a couple of hours once a year. They can tell us what their issues are, they can
tell us what their concerns are and then we will come back to St. John's and
we will let them know after that what we are going to do about it.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. It is not good enough! You
cannot take an organization that has played such a valuable role in Labrador
communities and Labrador society and decide arbitrarily, as a government and as
a group of people, that we are going to change your mandate and we are going to
tell you how to operate, and we are going to tell you when we are going to meet
and how much money we are going to give you to do it with and all the rest of
it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is just another example of the heavy-handedness
for which this government likes to deal with every, single, last issue that
rises on the floor of this Assembly. That is just another example of it. The
heavy-handedness, the my way or the highway approach. That is what we are seeing
now, Mr. Chairman, with the Combined Councils. That is exactly what we are
seeing.
What the government is saying, Mr. Chairman -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair. I ask members if they would tone down their conversations, please.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: I know, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to talk as loud as I can,
but I cannot raise my voice any higher as I try and make these important points
on behalf of the municipalities in Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, I will say this, government, I know, has it in their hands.
Government has it in their hands right now to determine if the Combined Councils
of Labrador, after thirty-three years, will live or die as an organization. They
are exactly right. The minister and his Cabinet colleagues can sit up and make
the decision today as to whether this organization of thirty-three years,
representing important issues in Labrador, lives or dies by a mandate.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage the government to take a good, long,
hard look at this organization; look at the valuable work that they have done in
shaping government policy and implementing new directions in Labrador. I want
you to take a good, hard look at the resolution that they have brought forward
over the past thirty-three years, and how many of those resolutions have been
implemented by governments of the past, implemented because they knew they were
being given the right advice from the right organization that was representing
the municipal leadership and the views of people in Labrador. But, Mr. Chairman,
what has happened? What has happened in the past year that government, all of a
sudden, has decided that this organization no longer has a role to play in
Labrador society? Don't let the municipalities in Labrador decide that. Don't
let the people decide that. We, as a government, have now decided that this
organization no longer has a role to play.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say, the Member for Lake Melville is a member for
Labrador. He is a member who represents municipalities in Labrador. I am
absolutely astonished that member would not be standing up to secure the funding
for the Combined Councils of Labrador. I have to beg the question, why the
Member for Lake Melville is not out there saying to his government: Fund the
Combined Councils of Labrador. They are a Pan Labrador organization.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I was at the Combined Councils meeting in Wabush in
2005, along with the Member for Lake Melville, and I watched that member stand
up in the Combined Councils AGM and give standing ovations of applause to issues
that were being raised on the floor of the annual meeting of the Combined
Councils of Labrador. I watched that member applaud the work and efforts of that
organization, and I have to beg the question today, why we do not have the
Member for Lake Melville out there saying: Where is the Combined Councils of
Labrador funding? Where is the funding for that organization, that annual
meeting that I attended in Wabash in January and knocked on the desk and stood
in standing ovations applauding the comments of people like Ben Michel, leaders
in Labrador, people who got up and talked about the direction that the Combined
Councils should take, directions that leaders in Labrador should take, where we
should be going as a collective society of people?
Now his government, that he is a part of, is saying: We are going to scrap
all of that. We want to do something a little bit different. We are going to
just put everybody on a charted aircraft and bring them in for a couple of
hours. We will have a few coffee, we will have a chat once a year. We will find
out what is going on. We will all get our picture taken and we will send out a
good press release, and that will be the end of it. My, we could do all of that
for about $30,000. What are we going to give the Combined Councils $100,000 for?
So they can go out and hire staff? So they can go out and have an office? So
they can go out and do valuable work in Labrador communities?
No, Mr. Chairman, there is something more to it than all of that. It brings
me back to a comment that the President of the Combined Councils made on the
open airwaves about the Premier. That is what it brings me back to. It brings me
back to a comment that the President of the Combined Councils made on the open
airwaves about the Premier. Dare he speak ill of the Premier, Mr. Chairman?
Because, if he does, we will cut the money for the Combined Councils of
Labrador. We will cut the funding right out from under them.
Is that what this is all about, I say to the members opposite? Is that what
this is all about? Is it because, on one occasion in the past year, the
President of the Combined Councils had a difference of opinion - a difference of
opinion with the Premier and the government - and he expressed it? As he should,
I say, Mr. Chairman, as he should. He expressed it on behalf of the members and
the municipalities in Labrador that he represented, and he provided good
argument, a good rationale for his opinion and his viewpoint of the day; but,
Mr. Chairman, it was opposite to the government's thinking. It was opposite to
the Premier's opinion, and what has happened? Months later, when their
agreement is up for renewal, the axe is down. The axe is down. You want to go
out and take me on, on the open airwaves, and have a difference of opinion with
my government? Don't come here looking for money.
That is what I am reading into this, Mr. Chairman. That is what I am reading
into it. Don't come here looking for the money because you are not getting it.
You think we are going to pay your organization to go out there and have staff
and have an office so that when we do something that you don't like you are
going to go to the Open Line show and talk about it? You think we are going to
fund that? Of course we are not going to fund that. That is what this is all
about, Mr. Chairman. That is what this is all about.
The fact that the Member for Lake Melville went to the annual general meeting
of the Combined Councils of Labrador in Wabush and stood up and gave standing
ovations to the visionary leadership in the room, who was putting forward a
framework and a policy for Labrador, is irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. The fact that
he stood in a standing ovation that day is irrelevant, because the President of
the Combined Councils spoke out against the Premier. That is what this is all
about. The fact that the Member for Lake Melville might want the $100,000 to go
to the municipal leaders in Labrador, and their councils - because I know some
of these mayors are good friends of the Member for Lake Melville. I know that
for a fact, Mr. Chairman. I know for a fact that some of these mayors in
Labrador are good personal friends of the Member for Lake Melville. Do I think
that he wants to squash their organization after thirty-three years? I don't
think he wants to squash their organization after thirty-three years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MS JONES: I think he wants them to have their funding so that they can
carry on with a great legacy that they have started in municipal government in
Labrador. That is what I think, Mr. Chairman, but he is getting nowhere with it.
He is getting nowhere with it inside his caucus, he is getting nowhere with it
inside the Cabinet, because, Mr. Chair, the buck stops with the head man at the
table, and the head man is not happy. He is not happy with the president of the
Combined Councils, because the president dared to speak out. He dared to have a
difference of opinion with the Premier and the government. Today, because of it,
the Combined Councils could end up folding as an organization. Now, what a sad,
sad legacy that is for Labrador.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time for
speaking has lapsed.
MS JONES: I just want a few minutes, Mr. Chair, to clue up.
CHAIR: Order, please!
Does the member have leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MS JONES: Mr. Chair, just a few minutes to clue up, because I think this
is a very important issue. Before I sit down, I want to encourage the Minister
of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, the Member for Baie
Verte, and the government, to consider funding the Combined Councils of
Labrador. Mr. Chair, this organization is invaluable to municipal governments in
Labrador, it is invaluable when it comes to providing the policy and the
framework and the direction for Labrador communities. They have proven
themselves over thirty-three years, they should not have to come begging to
government. Most importantly, Mr. Chair, I say to the government opposite: Why
do you have to take the heavy hand and try and change the structure of this
organization after over thirty years, and tell them to do it my way or there
will be no organization? That is very sad. It is a sad commentary I heard here
today from the minister. I certainly hope that government will have a change of
heart and will continue to fund this valuable organization, the Combined
Councils of Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to respond to Bill 25, supplementary supply.
I was just sitting here in my seat listening to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair, and you know she made some very good points. I guess what is happening
now is a lesson that is going out to every municipality in this Province. Those
who dare speak up about this Premier and this government can find themselves
without any funding for their special projects. This is the example that he has
made about the Combined Councils of Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here today is responding to Bill 25, which is
supplementary supply up until the end of March, 2005. I am a bit surprised to
see this one coming before the House because the Minister of Finance, the
President of Treasury Board, has always been on record as being totally against
Special Warrants. He, in the past, has filled up Hansard books many times being
against Special Warrants. Do you know what is blatantly obvious about this
particular Supplementary Supply Bill? The government is coming to this House and
are looking for $7.3 million and it is for Health and Community Services. Do you
know something? It is just like a blank cheque. They are coming and asking this
House of Assembly to vote in agreement with approving $7.3 million. He is saying
that it is for Health and Community Services and it is to pay doctors.
Well, what I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, the President of
Treasury Board - or is he still the President of Treasury Board? Let me see.
There was a communication that came out yesterday from Executive Council, who is
the Premier, and the Premier has dissolved Treasury Board Secretariat.
MR. SULLIVAN: A lot of that is public service secretariats (inaudible).
MS THISTLE: Yes, he has dissolved Treasury Board Secretariat. Many of us
will realize and know that that particular position was held by Ms Florence
Delaney. I wonder what Ms Delaney thinks today after reading that communication
that came out from the Executive Council?
Now, the Premier has realigned the financial component of government. He has
done away with Treasury Board so that the Minister of Finance now is in charge
of expenditures and he is in charge of revenues. He is in charge of the entire
budget of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That means that the Premier
has the pulse on his right-hand man. The Minister of Finance, no matter what his
project is in the future, will not have to deal with the Treasury Board
Secretariat. There is no more explaining and creating a case, looking through
the Financial Administration Act and wondering if we can do this, if we can do
that. He has eliminated all of that. The Premier, yesterday with the stroke of a
pen, eliminated the Treasury Board Secretariat. So now his right-hand man, the
Minister of Finance, can carry out any pet peeve, or any project, or any
development that comes his way, whether it be the Atlantic Accord - and I do
hope we get it. I do hope that bill is approved, the Budget bill in Ottawa on
Thursday.
Now, it was interesting to look at this year's Budget. There was no mention
of the Atlantic Accord, only the interest that we would be getting on the
Atlantic Accord - which would be some $42 million that had been put in the
Budget for, roughly, July of this year. There was no mention made as to how this
government intends to spend the $2.6 million. This is the first indication we
have gotten about how that money is going to be spent, or any money for that
matter, because yesterday with just the flick of a pen, the Premier decided to
eliminate Treasury Board. He has appointed a new Deputy Minister of the - what
do they call him at all - Public Service Secretariat. It is hard to get your
head around these new departments.
I had to highlight it because it was interesting. In his last paragraph the
Premier said: This change is about creating departments which are better aligned
with the priorities of government. This change is about creating departments
which are better aligned with the priorities of government. Well, now, he might
have said that in the first paragraph because this is really what this change is
about. That says it all, because what is going to happen now, anyone who is
familiar with the Treasury Board system, is that every cent of money that was
going to be spent by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter what
government was in power, Treasury Board had to agree to everything. I can tell
you, before you got through Treasury Board you would have had to have your
homework done and you would have had to have a sensible and a rational, and a
reasonable and a credible presentation because Treasury Board, before they put
their stamp of approval on it - and then it went to Cabinet before it was
approved.
Now this Premier wants to have the Minister of Finance approve all future
projects that he has decided to do and that will eliminate the second guess from
Treasury Board. That is all this is about, having his right-hand man, no matter
what he wants done - if he wants to pay the VON, for instance, and it is not in
the Budget, he will just call: Minister of Finance, I have a little project for
you now. Would you see that the cheque for the VON is slotted in the right
section? Okay, Sir. Yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. That is what the new
Minister of Finance is going to do. Forget about Treasury Board. That is what
all of this is about, having one person carry out the wishes and the will of
this Premier and the rest will just fall in line.
What I would like to say to the Minister of Finance - I cannot call him
Treasury Board because there is no Treasury Board now. I want a detailed list of
what you are going to pay out for $7.3 million. I cannot believe that you would
stand in your place and say you were not aware of the salaries of doctors and
what they would be over and above the Budget that was budgeted last year. For
someone who is so cautious and so conscientious, and not a penny would be spent
without his knowing. I do not believe for one minute that he did not budget that
money last year.
I want to see a detailed list because there are plenty of things that you
could have used $7.3 million for. You could have used it for Alzheimer's
patients; you could have bought drugs for Alzheimer's patients. You could have
put the ten beds back in Fogo that you took out under the cover of darkness.
Maybe I don't need to say this - the long-term health care facility in Corner
Brook. Now he has a minister who is in charge of expenditures and revenues, so I
would not be so quick to put that one in because I know that one should be
carried out.
What is government going to do with the health board deficits? I think that
is a very important question. Last week in this House I stood in my place and
asked the Minister of Finance what plan he had for reducing health care
deficits. He said he had no plan. Here we are now, this government has given $20
million to government health care boards around this Province to stabilize them
for this year, but he has no plan for those health care boards to pay off their
deficits. There is only one thing going to happen. Health care boards do not
create very much revenue; very little in fact. Most of their funding, like 98
per cent of it or more, comes from the provincial government. So it is obvious
to think that when it comes time to pay those deficits off, and it is time now,
that we can expect service cuts. We can expect cuts in positions at all of these
health care facilities and we can probably expect some of them to actually
close, particularly clinics out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Then again, we saw that happen. We saw that happen about three weeks ago when
the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women stood in her place and averted being lynched by a crowd
of 1,000 out in Stephenville when she stood in her place and said she would not
implement the recommendations of the Hay report for Stephenville. You know,
something unusual happened since. The Minister of Health did not back her up. He
did not stand in his place and confirm that what she said was correct. The
government never sent out any release to back her up. There was no release send
out by the Premier. She stood up with her own words and she put out her own news
release on a blank piece of paper just to avert being lynched that particular
night, so there was no commitment by this government that anything she said will
actually happen. I was surprised, because she sits right behind the Premier. For
her to stand up and make that announcement and avert people from being angry at
that protest -
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time for speaking
has expired.
MS THISTLE: Thirty seconds?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MS THISTLE: How gracious the Government House Leader is. Thank you very
much.
What I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Finance to be
forthcoming with the list of that $7.3 million. You cannot make a blanket
statement. We need details. It is not small change.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to speak on Bill 25. After listening to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs today, it is very plain to see why the people in Labrador are
so upset with this government. To defer $7.3 million, to take an auditorium away
from the youth in Labrador certainly is a crime in itself, and to know that this
government is now going to dictate - exactly the words that the Minister of
Municipal Affairs said - they are going to dictate to the people in Labrador as
to how they operate in Labrador. The words of the Minister of Municipal Affairs
in this very House this afternoon, Mr Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador was founded on the North
Coast of Labrador by a gentleman by the name of Mr. William Andersen, who passed
away some years ago, and he founded the Combined Councils on the North Coast of
Labrador so the smaller communities on the North Coast would not be left out.
That grew to the Combined Councils, which took in all of Labrador, a voice that
speaks for every person in Labrador. Mr. Chairman, to see this government today
not give them the monies that they deserve to operate certainly goes to show why
this government does not hold much esteem in the views of the voters and the
people in Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of injustices done by this government
toward the people in Labrador, and every day we are starting to see it more and
more. Today, Mr. Chairman, for me, in all my years of government, whether good
things or bad, to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying that we are
going to tell the people in Labrador when to speak, how to speak, and where to
speak, I think that in itself shows the lack of respect that this government has
for the people in Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, in one of the first interviews I did shortly after this new
government came in power, I referred to it as a Water Street government.
Certainly, if we look at the way things have unfolded in the last number of
years, these words are very true.
Mr. Chairman, the Combined Councils of Labrador gathered through many
difficult circumstances, gathered around to discuss the views of all people in
Labrador, to try and find a common voice to bring it before government, but
today that voice could very well be gone because this government may not provide
funding to them to carry out their day-to-day routines that they do, and to
organize for their annual meetings they have every year where every community in
Labrador comes before the assembly in the Upper Lake Melville area and voice
their opinion.
Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a very disappointing and dull day for all the
people in Labrador, and for the people who have fought so hard to keep the
Combined Councils alive. This year is certainly a big slap in the face to them.
Mr. Chairman, there were times when I had been critical of the Combined
Councils of Labrador and I voiced my opinions to them, but, when all is said and
done, the Combined Councils of Labrador is an opportunity where all communities
come together and people voice their opinions, and resolutions are made and
brought before different governments. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, today to hear the
Minister of Municipal Affairs speak, a minister who is responsible for the
community councils across this Province, especially in Labrador, it is a very
disappointing day.
Mr. Chairman, the defraying of $7.3 million certainly is a blow to the youth
in Labrador, those who wanted an auditorium. Each year - in the last few months,
I should say - we are seeing more and more people who are becoming more
disillusioned as they begin to organize.
In just a few short weeks, the schools are going to close. Students are going
to walk out of the schools in Labrador heartbroken, disappointed and dejected,
that this government never gave them an auditorium, but there is better news for
this Water Street government. Shortly after the schools close in Labrador, this
government is going to go down and they are going to open The Rooms, cut the
ribbon on a $45 million bill that they paid off to The Rooms in one lump sum,
and turned around and certainly denied the children in Labrador the right to
their auditorium.
Mr. Chairman, I think that today there is a lot of concern for the people in
Labrador. I am sure that as the news spreads across Labrador today of the monies
that are being deferred, especially to the young people, then the disappointment
will be felt and the hurt will be even greater to take.
Mr. Chairman, again, to know that this money is being deferred - no
auditorium, and, with the Combined Councils, no guarantee of getting the money
from this government - it does not bode well with the members from Labrador.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the communities in Labrador, we need to keep up
the good fight, to make sure that the people in Labrador have the opportunity to
voice their concerns and their opinions, as they have always done, regardless of
what political party is in power.
Mr. Chairman, I only hope that this government will change their attitude and
grant the Combined Councils of Labrador what they are rightfully owed, and, even
far more important, that this government will come forward before this hon.
House closes, or before school closes, to announce the funding to build an
auditorium for Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to make a couple of brief comments, actually, and ask a
couple of questions for further clarification, somewhat along the lines of the
Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; because, when the special warrants were tabled
when the House opened a month or so ago, a couple of months ago, my recollection
- and I don't have the document right in front of me today - is that the
Minister of Finance had indicated that the $7.3 million was in two categories:
$4.3 million, somewhere in that range, for salaries for physicians which -
again, the bill has to pass, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that because this is
money that was expended in the last fiscal year and this is just doing the
appropriate things by law that need to be done to make it right and proper, and
I agree and concur. But it is the clarification of it, because I believe some of
the points we made at that time are being a bit lost here. I think it was $4.3
million. He will know the exact number, I think, but it is in that range for
physicians' salaries because there was a greater uptake, which is good news
for Newfoundland and Labrador. They actually managed to recruit a few more than
was expected and they paid them in line with the new salaries that were in place
under the new agreement. That is a good thing.
I think the rest was under grants and subsidies, I thought, to -
MR. SULLIVAN: I think it was four point five and two point eight, if I
remember correctly.
MR. GRIMES: Okay, and, Mr. Chairman -
MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, (inaudible) was four point five. (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I acknowledge that the minister would have the numbers, and he is
acknowledging it is four point five, two point eight, something in that range.
The second category I thought was grants and subsidies, which are monies that
are sent out to hospital boards and health boards and so on to perform the
functions that they are doing on behalf of the people. It is not to pay salaries
for doctors. It was in that line that we were saying, remember one thing of
significance that happened last fiscal year was the Premier, himself,
interfering in the Department of Health and Community Services without the
knowledge of a minister, overriding the advice of the senior officials,
including the deputy minister, and settling a strike with the Victorian Order of
Nurses in Corner Brook on the eve of a Progressive Conservative fundraiser where
they were going to protest. I understand that it was $150,000 that was given to
the VON to do a study on palliative care, which they had never applied for,
never asked for, but they found some way to give them some money which would
come from the grants and subsidies.
The answer given at that point in history, Mr. Chairman, was that: Oh, we
just moved around some money inside the department. Then we find out with this
Supplementary Supply Bill under Special Warrant, that they did not even have the
money in the department. They have to come now, after the fact, and put some
money into the department because they overspent. Everybody can understand and
will support the over expenditure for doctors. It should be done, but part of
this over expenditure in grants and subsidies was because the Premier
interfered, went over the head of a minister who had enough fortitude and
backbone to resign, and said: I am not going to be the minister and act over
here as just a little puppet and be told what to do. The minister having gone in
public for six weeks saying: We do not have any money in this department to
settle that strike. The Premier, on the eve of a golfing fundraiser, the very
same morning that they were supposed to be there, was after striking a deal and
all of a sudden mysteriously found the money. The minister was out of town. The
minister resigned over it because the minister had been embarrassed by the
Premier. Now we are back here, months later after the fact, finding the money to
put in that the Premier gave to the VON when they did not have any because the
minister was right at the time, they did not have the money.
What this bill is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that now after the fiscal year is
over - it ended in March, here we are in the middle of May - we are finally
authorizing additional money to be put into the Department of Health so they
could give it to the VON because it was not there at the time. The whole thing
exposed the kind of leadership that the Premier deals with in that particular
caucus and that Cabinet. Now, we have seen lots of other examples since then. I
will not belabour it, but I would like for the Finance Minister in answering the
questions - even though he might say it was not for the VON, we know it was - to
at least acknowledge that part of it was for physicians' salaries and part of
it was for grants and subsidies to health boards - like the Western board, like
the Central board, like the Northern board - because boards, like the Western
one, did not have the money to pay the VON, and after the fact it mysteriously
disappears even after the minister resigns. Then the deputy got fired, because
every single person, as we understand it, in the Department of Health and
Community Services said: Don't do this, we don't have the money. Now we are
back here several months later, almost a year later, authorizing the expenditure
of the money which was not there when that interference occurred by the Premier.
So, I look forward with interest to the answers that will be given by the
Minister of Finance, the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services with
respect to the split of the money, because I listened intently and I thought
when he introduced the Supplementary Supply Bill earlier, that he referenced
only an overrun in doctors' salaries. I would like for him to be more
forthcoming with the House and acknowledge, as he has done from his seat, that
it was some for doctors' salaries and some for another category. My memory -
again, I will be glad to be corrected if I am wrong - is that it was for grants
and subsidies to health boards and organizations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That was tabled in the House and I will give my recollection. What was tabled
for Special Warrants was, I think, $4.5 million for doctors' salaries,
physicians' salaries and $2.8 million for grants and subsidies. Now, while
only four and a half was for doctors' salaries, I think the fee for service
overran by $7 million or $8 million, but there was a transfer from other areas
to bring that down to $4.5 million. Technically, the full amount of money would
have been spent on doctors' salaries, but as the salaries are being incurred
and money runs short, you do a transfer in. There was money transferred in.
Doctors' salaries would have been much higher than the $4.5 million, it would
have been up over $7 million. If you move from one subhead to another when you
run out, you could move from one into another. Obviously, you are not going to
move it back again when you have already moved it. Doctors' salaries did
overrun by that amount, and that is the reason why.
Also, I want to mention the VON to make sure that is clear. The Member for
Bay of Islands said it here before in the House, and the Leader of the
Opposition said it, and that is inaccurate. There was not $150,000 provided to
the VON in Corner Brook in that case. That number is absolutely wrong. The
Western health and community services provided to VON, for that pilot project,
$80,000 not $150,000. I hope that clarifies the point.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say a few words on Bill 25, being a Supplementary Supply bill
to grant to the government an additional $7.3 million principally for doctors'
salaries. In doing so, I just want to talk a little about doctors' salaries
and recruitment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and raise
something that has come to my attention a number of times over the last couple
of years. That has to do with the availability of physicians, particularly in
rural Newfoundland.
We hear complaints all the time about the inability of hospital boards and
health care corporations to attract medical professionals. It almost comes as a
surprise to me that thirty years ago we built a medical school in this Province,
so that we would solve that problem of doctor shortages. Back in the sixties,
before the Minister of Health, one of the primary duties of the Minister of
Health was to go off on, what they used to call, junkets to Ireland or to
England to try to recruit people to come to Newfoundland and work as doctors,
because we did not have enough Newfoundland and Labrador students going to do
medicine and coming back to practice in the Province.
We decided, back in the sixties, that we would have our own medical school,
and I was very proud to see the medical school to be developed at Memorial
University, and the focus was supposed to be, at the time, community medicine.
Community medicine was the focus of the medical school that Newfoundland and
Labrador was going to create. Lord Taylor, a former British Cabinet minister, a
psychiatrist, was brought over to be the head of the university and to be the
driving force behind the creation of the medical school. We had hoped, Mr.
Chairman, that this new medical school would end, once and for all, the doctor
shortage in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now we find two things happening in this Province with respect to medical
practitioners. We see huge debts being undertaken by medical students in this
Province to the point of some cases $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000. They
come out of medical school owing a tremendous amount of money and therefore
being susceptible to offers from other places, to pay down students loans, to
get signing bonuses, et cetera, to practice in other provinces and, indeed, in
other countries, principally in certain parts of the United States that make
very generous offers to look after people's student loans, give a signing
bonus, plus a very generous salary. Many of these people would like to work in
the Province, Mr. Speaker, but faced with these high debts, they have not much
choice. When it comes to someone with a medical degree, usually in their late
twenties, or sometimes older, they have spent a long time getting their
schooling, they want to have the option that other people have who are educated,
to have a family, to buy a home and do those sorts of things, so getting rid of
that debt is obviously a very important part of their immediate future.
We do not look after medical students very well, because the assumption seems
to be: Well, you are a doctor; you are going to make lots of money, so you can
carry this burden of debt. A very misguided point of view, Mr. Chair. If the
doctor, indeed, is going to make a decent income, surely our taxation system
should look after that. If our taxation system was fair and reasonable, then we
would tax it at the other end when they earn the money here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I do not think anybody who makes a good income minds paying taxes,
particularly if they are not going to be burdened with a huge, overwhelming
student loan debt.
The second concern I want to raise, and this concerns the first one, by the
way, is one that was brought to my attention by the Medical Students' Society
at Memorial University in a meeting we had last year. They are very concerned
about what the consequences are to them and to the future of medicine in
Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of that circumstance. The second thing I
want to raise, which was also raised to me then, but I have heard it a couple of
time in other locations. I heard on the radio the other day and I got a
firsthand story of it when I was in Labrador last week. One of the things,
surprising enough, that does not happen in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our
health care boards do not do a very good job of even trying to recruit graduates
from the medical school of Memorial University. That is hard to believe. You
would think, Mr. Chairman, that the first place that the Health Care Corporation
of Western Newfoundland, or Central Newfoundland, or the Labrador Health Care
Board, would look would be to Memorial University medical school for graduates
to come and work in their facilities.
I heard stories, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that these medical students in
their second, third and fourth year, have been recruited by people in the United
States, and they have been recruited by people in Northern Ontario, but nobody
in Newfoundland and Labrador had made the effort to try and make contact with
them to encourage them to come and work in their facilities in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Yet, these same hospital boards are complaining that they cannot
recruit doctors or are spending large amounts of money in recruitment campaigns.
In fact, I heard from one doctor who works in the Labrador hospital, and she
has been there for a number of years. She wanted to go to Labrador to work and
it was not until after she got there that someone actually told her they were
interested in having her come. She had already made up her own mind, without
their help, but after the fact she was told they were interested in having her
come. She got the letter but she was already there because she had made up her
own mind. This is an individual who is from the Province, from rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, who wanted to work in the Province, but she had to
take her own initiative to ensure that she was going to have a place to work in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I really wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the effort is being made. I heard a
story on the radio last week - and I am not going to say everything is true
there, but it gives you an indication of what is going on - concerned about the
need for a particular medical specialist in Gander. There is a graduate of
Memorial University of Newfoundland medical school, from Gander, interested in
working there, not being recruited. I do not know how much money the hospital
board has been spending recruiting elsewhere, but if they took